CAR_Public/170606.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Tuesday, June 6, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 112



                            Headlines

411 LOCALS: Faces "Rooter" Suit Alleging TCPA Violation
ABC CORP: "Guang" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages & OT Pay
ALDOUS & ASSOCIATES: Faces "Powell" Suit in Dist. of New. Jersey
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Appeal in Securities Action Pending
ARS NATIONAL: Faces "Kalmenson" Suit in E.D. New York

ARUBA AIRLINES: Faces "Pons" Suit in Southern District of Florida
AVINGER INC: Faces Securities Class Action Over 2015 IPO
AVIOR AIRLINES: Faces "Cavalieri" Suit in S.D. Florida
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Pending
BRISTOL BAY: Abikar Sues Over Discrimination v. East Africans

CANADA: RCMP Class Action Lead Counsel Comments on Settlement
CANADA: RCMP Class Action Settlement Approval Hearing Held
CAPT. GEORGE'S: Gagliastre Sues Over Unlawful Wage Deductions
CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Faces "Bodansky" Suit in E.D. New York
CLEARCOMM BAWA: Sales Associates File Suit Over Unpaid OT

CORECIVIC INC: Still Defends "Grae" Lawsuit in Tennessee
CREDIT CORP: Faces "Tadepalli" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
CRST INTERNATIONAL: "Perez" Suit Moved to C.D. California
DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL: Fights Bernie Supporters' Class Actions
DEVRY UNIVERSITY: "Morrison" Suit Moved to E.D. California

DIGITEK SMT: Tel-Aviv Court Stays Motion to Approve Class Action
DISH NETWORK: North Carolina Judge Ups Award in TCPA Class Action
DIVERSIFIED ADJUSTMENT: Faces "Frankel" Suit in E.D. New York
DNV GL: Surveyors File Suit Over FLSA Violation
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Owner Files Motion to Stay Driver's Class Action

DON GUIDO: Faces "Merola" Suit in District of Massachusetts
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Briefing in Scranton Case Appeal Underway
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Consolidated Suit by Rayner & Schwab Pending
ELERTS CORP: Faces Privacy Class Action Over BART Watch App
ENERGY TRANSFER: Motions to Dismiss Chancery Court Case Underway

ENERGY TRANSFER: Dates to Answer Sunoco Merger Suit Not Yet Set
ESG USA: "Nelson" Suit Seeks Payment of Overtime Wages
EXTREME NETWORKS: Securities Litigation Remains Pending
FEDERAL EXPRESS: Judge Approves $227MM Class Action Settlement
FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Faces "Stern" Suit in E.D. New York

GATESTONE & CO: Faces "Bakon" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
GC SERVICES: Faces "Schwartz" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
GENERAL REVENUE: Faces "Aimee" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violation
GENESCO INC: Faces "Chen" Suit Under FLSA, New York Labor Laws
GLOBAL PAYMENTS: Class Settlement & $325,000 Lawyer Fees Okayed

HANAHAN, SC: Conditional Certification in FLSA Suit Denied
HARBORTOUCH PAYMENTS: "Fabricant" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Fire Loss Payment Class Action Certified
HERTZ CORPORATION: Faces "Oliva" Suit in S.D. California
HMS HOLDINGS: "Danahar" Securities Suit Transferred to N.D. Tex.

HORNET CORP: Faces "Morris" Lawsuit Alleging TCPA Violation
HOUSTON PIZZA: Delivery Drivers File Suit Over Reimbursements
ILLINOIS: Dept. of Corrections Faces "Vasquez" Suit in N.D. Ill.
ILLINOIS: Department of Corrections Faces "Garcia" Suit
INSEL AIR: Faces "Saade" Suit in Southern District of Florida

J&L COLLECTION: Faces "Torres-Garcia" Suit in N.D. California
JBS SA: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
KAISER FOUNDATION: Sued Over Eating Disorder Treatments
KERYX BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Still Defends NY Class Suits
LIFE STORAGE: Still Defends Class Action in New Jersey

LPL FINANCIAL: Elderly Customers Battling Right to Bring Suit
KCG HOLDINGS: Berg Files Suit Over Virtu Financial Merger
KCG HOLDINGS: "Pauza" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Virtu Merger
KCG HOLDINGS: Faces "Siegal" Securities Suit Over Virtu Merger
LERNOUT & HAUSPIE: Court Rules on Recognition of Settlements

LG ELECTRONICS: Faces "Jung" Suit Over Defective Refrigerators
LLR INC: "Doran" Suit Moved to District of Oregon
LTD FINANCIAL: Faces "Stern" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
MCELVAIN GROUP: Faces "Hoffman" Suit Under FLSA, Ohio Wage Laws
MCCLATCHY COMPANY: Plaintiffs' Appeal in Fresno Bee Case Pending

MERITOR INC: Sixth Circuit Reversed District Court's Decision
MICHAEL STAPLETON: Faces "Blackmon" Suit for Not Paying OT Wages
MOMEL PARTNERS: Baez Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages Under Labor Code
MONSANTO CO: Faces "Abbott" Suit Over Roundup Concentrates Ad
NEUROTROPE INC: Faces Securities Class Action in New York

NEW YORK: MTA Faces Class Action Over Lead-Based Paint Chips
NICKY MEATBALLS: "Tepole" Suit Alleges FLSA Breach
NIKITA LEVY: Settlement Checks Mailed June 2
OMEGA PROTEIN: Class Action Transferred to SDNY Court
OPTUMRX INC: Faces "Johnson" Suit Over Overpriced Victoza

ORANGE TREE EMPLOYMENT: Faces "Sanchez" Suit in N.D. Georgia
OSN DELI: Faces "Kumarasinghe" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
PARK STATION: Faces "Maurey" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
PERSONAL ENRICHMENT: "Damon" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wage Under FLSA
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Seeks Dismissal of Oil Spill Class Action

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY: Trustees Sued for Fiduciary Duty Breach
QUINTIS: Piper Alderman Files Suit Over Galderma Deal Loss
RETAILMENOT INC: Faces "Payne" Suit Over Sale to Harland
RIALTO, CA: "Blanco" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
ROMBOUT VILLAGE: Judge Tosses Shareholder Class Action

RUCKUS WIRELESS: June 15 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss "Hussey"
SALOV NORTH: Olive Oil Settlement Fairness Hearing Held
SAN FRANCISCO BART: "Moreno" Hits Illegal Data Collection
SCARLET N GREY: Faces Suit for Underpaying Ranch Hands
SCHLICHTER & BOGARD: "Casey" Suit Moved to S.D. Illinois

SEAFOOD ON THE TABLE: Faces "Del Valle" Suit Under FLSA
SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Asks Court to Quash Subpoena on Abry
SPRINT CORPORATION: "Scott" Suit Moved to N.D. California
STRAD ENERGY: Field Technicians File Suit for Unpaid Overtime
SUNPOWER CORP: July 21 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline

SURFSTITCH: Share Trading Halted Amid Shareholder Class Action
TAMKO BUILDING: High Court Denies Petition to Block Class Action
TARGET CORP: Settles 2013 Data Breach with States for $18.5MM
TIPTON COUNTY, TN: "Pierson" Sues Over Privacy Rights Breach
TOKIO MARINE: Calif. Court Denies Bid to Stay Discovery in "Azad"

U.S. CONCRETE: To Defend Against "Ruedelstein" Suit
UNITED PARCEL: Trial Scheduled for August 2017 in "Morgate" Suit
UNITED PARCEL: Continues to Defend Against Wright and Zislin Case
UNITED STATES: Summary Judgment Partially OK'd in FS's Suit
UNIV OF SOUTH CALIFORNIA: "Alvarado" Suit Moved to C.D. Cal.

UNIVERSAL HANDICRAFT: Faces "Land" Suit in S.D. Florida
UPTOWN COMMUNICATIONS: Davis Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
VANGUARD GROUP: Bid to Dismiss "Taksir" Partly Granted
VASCO DATA: Motion to Dismiss "Rossbach" Class Action Complaint
WELLPET LLC: Court Dismisses "Made in the USA" Label Class Action

WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Ninth Circuit Appeal Remains Pending
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Settles Claims Related to Geismar Incident
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Dismissal of Shareholder Suit Under Appeal
WOOD GROUP PSN: "Salinas" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wage Under FLSA
WORLD WRESTLING: Bid to Dismiss Laurinaitis Amended Suit Pending

WORLD WRESTLING: To Defend Against "Bagwell" Case in Connecticut
YUPPTV INC: Faces "Unchageri" Suit Alleging TCPA Violation

* Consumer Advocates Braces for Potential Class Action Threats
* Foley & Lardner Attorney Discusses Class Action Reform Act
* Securities Industry Expresses Concern on BIC Exemption Rule
* Securities Litigation in Non-U.S. Jurisdictions Rises
* SoKor Should Widen Class Action for Consumers, Watchdog Says

                            *********


411 LOCALS: Faces "Rooter" Suit Alleging TCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
ABANTE ROOTER AND PLUMBING INC, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. 411 LOCALS A.K.A.
411SERVICE.NET; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case
No. 3:17-cv-02903 (N.D. Cal., May 19, 2017), arises out of the
alleged illegal actions of Defendant 411 LOCALS A.K.A.
411SERVICE.NET, in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully
contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant, 411 LOCALS A.K.A. 411SERVICE.NET is an internet
advertising company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
     Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
     Meghan E. George, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
     21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
     Woodland Hills, CA 91367
     Phone: 877-206-4741
     Fax: 866-633-0228
     E-mail: tfriedman@ toddflaw.com
             abacon@toddflaw.com
             mgeorge@toddflaw.com


ABC CORP: "Guang" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages & OT Pay
---------------------------------------------------
GUANG Ll ZHANG, the Plaintiff, v. ABC CORP. d/b/a CHINESE
FAST\VOK, JUN KUI ZHANG, JOHN (first name unknown) ZIJANG, the
Defendant, Case No. 712173/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., May 16, 2017),
seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime wages, spread of hours
compensation, (damages tor failure to provide wage notice at the
time of hiring, damages for failure to provide wage statements
unlawful deductions, and liquidated damages, interest, costs, and
attorneys' fees for violations of the New York Labor Law (NYLL).

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendants in
excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate compensation for
the hours over 40 per week that he worked; and that the Defendants
failed to maintain accurate records of the hours Plaintiff worked,
failed to pay Plaintiff minimum wages, and failed to pay Plaintiff
appropriately for any hours worked over 40, whether at the
straight rate or pay, or for any additional overtime premium.

The Defendants possess substantial control over the Plaintiff (and
other similarly situated employees') working conditions, and over
the policies and practices with respect to the employment and
compensation of the Plaintiff (and all similarly situated
individuals).

The Plaintiff is a former employee of ABC Corp.  The Defendants
own, operate, and/or control a restaurant located at 230 7th
Avenue, New York, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          136-18 39th Avenue, Suite 1003
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353 8588


ALDOUS & ASSOCIATES: Faces "Powell" Suit in Dist. of New. Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aldous and
Associates, P.L.L.C. The case is captioned as FITZROY POWELL, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
ALDOUS & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C., and JOHN DOES 1-25, the Defendants,
Case No. 2:17-cv-03770-KM-MAH (D.N.J., May 25, 2017). The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Kevin McNulty.

Aldous provides debt collection services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Appeal in Securities Action Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Align Technology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that an appeal in a
securities class action lawsuit remains pending.

The Company said, "On November 28, 2012, plaintiff City of
Dearborn Heights Act 345 Police & Fire Retirement System filed a
lawsuit against Align, Thomas M. Prescott ("Mr. Prescott"),
Align's former President and Chief Executive Officer, and Kenneth
B. Arola ("Mr. Arola"), Align's former Vice President, Finance and
Chief Financial Officer, in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on behalf of a purported class
of purchasers of our common stock (the "Securities Action"). On
July 11, 2013, an amended complaint was filed, which named the
same defendants, on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of
our common stock between January 31, 2012 and October 17, 2012.
The amended complaint alleged that Align, Mr. Prescott and Mr.
Arola violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and that Mr. Prescott
and Mr. Arola violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. Specifically, the amended complaint alleged that
during the purported class period defendants failed to take an
appropriate goodwill impairment charge related to the April 29,
2011 acquisition of Cadent Holdings, Inc. in the fourth quarter of
2011, the first quarter of 2012 or the second quarter of 2012,
which rendered our financial statements and projections of future
earnings materially false and misleading and in violation of U.S.
GAAP. The amended complaint sought monetary damages in an
unspecified amount, costs and attorneys' fees."

"On December 9, 2013, the court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss with leave for plaintiff to file a second amended
complaint. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on January
8, 2014 on behalf of the same purported class. The second amended
complaint states the same claims as the amended complaint.

"On August 22, 2014, the court granted our motion to dismiss
without leave to amend. On September 22, 2014, Plaintiff filed a
notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Briefing
for the appeal was completed in May 2015 and the Ninth Circuit
held oral arguments in October 2016."

Align intends to vigorously defend itself against these
allegations. Align is currently unable to predict the outcome of
this amended complaint and therefore cannot determine the
likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss, if any.


ARS NATIONAL: Faces "Kalmenson" Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ARS National
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Josef Kalmenson and Hindy
Kalmenson, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. ARS National Services, Inc.,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03182 (E.D.N.Y., May 25, 2017).

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


ARUBA AIRLINES: Faces "Pons" Suit in Southern District of Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aruba Airlines. The
case is captioned as Gisela Pons, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Arubaanse
Luchtvaart Maatschappij N.V. doing business as: Aruba Airlines
an Aruban company, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-22008-MGC (S.D.
Fla., May 30, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Marcia
G. Cooke.

Aruba Airlines is an airline serving travel between Aruba,
Venezuela and Miami.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian Carson Tackenberg, Esq.
          Charles Morris Auslander, Esq.
          John Granville Crabtree, Esq.
          CRABTREE & AUSLANDER
          240 Crandon Boulevard, Suite 101
          Key Biscayne, FL 33149
          Telephone: (305) 361 3770
          Facsimile: (305) 437 8118
          E-mail: btackenberg@crabtreelaw.com
                  jcrabtree@crabtreelaw.com

               - and -

          Brian Michael Torres, Esq.
          BRIAN M. TORRES, P.A.
          One S.E. Third Avenue, Suite 3000
          Miami, FL 33131-1711
          Telephone: (305) 901 5858
          Facsimile: (305) 901 5874
          E-mail: btorres@briantorres.legal
                  causlander@crabtreelaw.com

               - and -

          Jose-Luis Baloyra, Esq.
          BALOYRA LAW
          SunTrust Plaza
          201 Alhambra Circle, Suite 601
          Coral Gables, FL 33146
          Telephone: (305) 442 4142
          Facsimile: (305) 442 4377
          E-mail: Jbaloyra@baloyralaw.com

               - and -

          Milton Fuentes, Esq.
          M. FUENTES & CO.
          PO Box 431725
          Miami, FL 33243
          Telephone: (305) 447 1960
          Facsimile: (786) 288 3808
          E-mail: mf@fuenteslaw.org

                - and -

          John Cody German, Esq.
          COLE SCOTT KISSANE PA
          9150 South Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 350 5300
          E-mail: Cody.German@csklegal.com


AVINGER INC: Faces Securities Class Action Over 2015 IPO
--------------------------------------------------------
Khang & Khang LLP (the "Firm") on May 23 announced the filing of a
class action lawsuit against Avinger, Inc. ("Avinger" or the
"Company") (Nasdaq: AVGR).  Investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired shares pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial
public offering on January 30, 2015 (the "IPO"), are encouraged to
contact the Firm.

If you purchased Avinger shares on or about the IPO, please
contact Joon M. Khang, Esq., of Khang & Khang LLP, 18101 Von
Karman Avenue, 3rd Floor, Irvine, CA 92612, by telephone at (949)
419-3834, or via e-mail at joon@khanglaw.com.

There has been no class certification in this case yet.  Until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney.  You
may choose to take no action and remain a passive class member.

According to the Complaint, Avinger filed documents in connection
with the IPO that contained materially false and misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose: that Avinger did not have
adequate sales and marketing personnel to increase sales of its
lumivascular platform products and to commercialize Pantheris;
that the Company already experienced problems with the robustness
of its lumivascular platform devices, including Pantheris; that
physicians and hospitals were requiring more extensive and
comprehensive training and education on the benefits of Avinger's
products to convince them to adopt and implement its lumivascular
platform products compared to competing products and procedures
available in the market; that Avinger would not be able to achieve
a rapid ramp rate for increased sales of its lumivascular
platform; and that as a result, the Company was experiencing lower
sales and revenues.  When this information was released, Avinger's
share price dropped, causing investors harm according to the
Complaint.  On May 3, 2017, the stock closed at $0.57 per share, a
decline of over 95% from the IPO price.

If you wish to learn more about this lawsuit, or if you have any
questions concerning this notice or your rights, please contact
Joon M. Khang, a prominent litigator for almost two decades, by
telephone: (949) 419-3834, or via e-mail at joon@khanglaw.com.
[GN]


AVIOR AIRLINES: Faces "Cavalieri" Suit in S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Avior Airlines C.A.
The case is styled as Roberto Hung Cavalieri, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Avior
Airlines C.A., a Venezuelen company, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-
cv-22010-FAM (S.D. Fla., May 30, 2017). The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Federico A. Moreno.

Avior Airlines is an airline based in Barcelona, Anzoategui,
Venezuela. It operates scheduled and charter services within
Venezuela and the southern Caribbean, as well as Miami.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian Carson Tackenberg, Esq.
          Charles Morris Auslander, Esq.
          John Granville Crabtree, Esq.
          CRABTREE & AUSLANDER
          240 Crandon Boulevard, Suite 101
          Key Biscayne, FL 33149
          Telephone: (305) 361 3770
          Facsimile: (305) 437 8118
          E-mail: btackenberg@crabtreelaw.com
                  causlander@crabtreelaw.com
                  jcrabtree@crabtreelaw.com

               - and -

          Brian Michael Torres, Esq.
          BRIAN M. TORRES, P.A.
          One S.E. Third Avenue, Suite 3000
          Miami, FL 33131-1711
          Telephone: (305) 901 5858
          Facsimile: (305) 901 5874
          E-mail: btorres@briantorres.legal

               - and -

          Jose-Luis Baloyra, Esq.
          BALOYRA LAW
          SunTrust Plaza
          201 Alhambra Circle, Suite 601
          Coral Gables, FL 33146
          Telephone: (305) 442 4142
          Facsimile: (305) 442 4377
          E-mail: Jbaloyra@baloyralaw.com

               - and -

          Milton Fuentes, Esq.
          M. FUENTES & CO.
          PO Box 431725
          Miami, FL 33243
          Telephone: (305) 447 1960
          Facsimile: (786) 288 3808
          E-mail: mf@fuenteslaw.org

               - and -

          John Cody German, Esq.
          COLE SCOTT KISSANE PA
          9150 South Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 350 5300
          E-mail: Cody.German@csklegal.com


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the company's motion
to dismiss a consolidated complaint remains pending.

In November 2016, a purported antitrust class action complaint
seeking monetary and injunctive relief was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The
complaint alleges a conspiracy among manufacturers of IV solutions
to restrict output and affect pricing in connection with a
shortage of such solutions. Similar parallel actions subsequently
were filed.

In January 2017, a single consolidated complaint covering these
matters was filed in the Northern District of Illinois. The
company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint in
February 2017.


BRISTOL BAY: Abikar Sues Over Discrimination v. East Africans
-------------------------------------------------------------
Abucar Nunow ABIKAR, Barkadle Sheikh Muhamed AWMAGAN, Arab Mursal
DEH, Majuma MADENDE, Osman Musa MOHAMED, Osman Musa MUGANGA, Rukia
MUSA, and Fatuma SOMOW, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Bristol Bay Native Corporation,
Glacier Technical Solutions, LLC, and Workforce Resources, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-01036-GPC-AGS (S.D. Cal., May 19,
2017), is an employment discrimination class action brought on
behalf of East African refugees who are current and former
employees of defendants Bristol Bay Native Corporation, Glacier
Technical Solutions, LLC, and Workforce Resources, LLC.

The Defendants contract with the United States Department of
Defense to help train United States Marines in African culture as
well as in other cultures of interest to the military such as
Iraqi, Afghani, Filipino, and Mexican. To this end, the Defendants
employ East African refugees as roleplayers to work in simulated
villages as shopkeepers, village elders, insurgents, and other
roles.  All of the East African refugees the Defendants employ as
role-players are citizens or permanent residents of the United
States.

The case alleges that the East African employees complained to the
Defendants for years about receiving disparate treatment and being
subjected to discriminatory harassment. They also complained that
when they objected to this abuse, the Defendants often accelerated
the mistreatment or threatened the East Africans with termination.

Although the East African role-players repeatedly protested their
poor treatment to management, the Defendants continued to treat
East African role-players differently and adversely than
similarly-situated role-players from Iraq, Afghanistan, the
Philippines, or Mexico, says the complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Marilynn Mika Spencer, Esq.
     A. Melissa Johnson, Esq.
     Thomas J. McCammon, Esq.
     SPENCER JOHNSON MCCAMMON LLP
     2727 Camino del Rio South, Suite 140
     San Diego, CA 92108
     Phone: (619) 233-1313



CANADA: RCMP Class Action Lead Counsel Comments on Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
On May 24, 2017, the Merlo/Davidson class action for women in the
RCMP returned to Court for an application to approve a national
settlement of the class action.  The hearing was held before Madam
Justice McDonald at 9:30 a.m. at the Federal Courthouse, 180 Queen
Street West, Toronto.

According to David Klein, lead lawyer in the RCMP class action:
"After more than two years of negotiations, the parties reached a
historic agreement to settle this class action, which concerns
gender and sexual orientation based harassment and discrimination
of women in the RCMP." Mr. Klein adds that "the settlement covers
women who work or worked in the RCMP at any time since September
16, 1974, the date the force swore in its first female recruits".

On October 6, 2016, Commissioner Paulson announced the settlement
and issued a public apology to women in the RCMP who experienced
workplace harassment or discrimination.  The settlement is now
being put to the Federal Court for approval.  So far, over 1,000
women have come forward to advise that they plan to file claims if
the settlement is approved.

Of the lead plaintiff, Janet Merlo, Mr. Klein states: "It took
tremendous persistence and bravery by Janet to get to where we are
today.  We are hopeful that the initiatives in the settlement will
help to provide a supportive work environment for women within the
RCMP. Klein Lawyers is proud to be a part of this historic
moment."

David Klein is a pioneer in Canadian class action litigation.  A
past president of the Trial Lawyers Association of British
Columbia, he has represented plaintiffs in landmark class actions
in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and
Newfoundland & Labrador.  Mr. Klein is included in Best Lawyers in
Canada, is described by Benchmark Canada as a local litigation
star and was named by ACQ Legal Awards as Gamechanger of the Year
(Class Actions). [GN]


CANADA: RCMP Class Action Settlement Approval Hearing Held
----------------------------------------------------------
Colin Perkel, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that two
women who endured years of sexual harassment as RCMP employees
expressed mixed emotions as a landmark class-action suit against
the force edged on May 24 toward final court approval.

Speaking after a settlement hearing, the women expressed hope
their long battle would pave the way for a more hospitable RCMP
workplace.

"It's not a happy day based upon the fact that we've had to take
this action to get change," said Linda Davidson, one of the
representative plaintiffs.  "That's sad.  It's 2017."

Davidson and fellow plaintiff Janet Merlo were among a few dozen
women who sat in the courtroom or spilled into an overflow room as
lawyers urged Federal Court Judge Ann Marie McDonald to sign off
on the agreement in the case.

The deal, which the government did not oppose, would see current
and former female employees who were harassed each receive at
least $10,000 and as much as $220,000.  The settlement also calls
on the RCMP to fight harassment within its ranks.

Although the government has not admitted any wrongdoing, RCMP
Commissioner Bob Paulson apologized publicly last October for what
the women had endured.  However, both Ms. Merlo and Davidson said
they have begun to doubt his sincerity in light of recent damning
reports about harassment in the force.

"Not only are they not changing, but they lack the will and
ability to change," Ms. Merlo said.  "Hopefully, this court order
will be what makes them change."

As many as 20,000 RCMP employees, dating back to Sept. 16, 1974,
when first female recruits were sworn in, are potentially eligible
for compensation.  However, the lawyers expected fewer women would
actually apply.

McDonald said she would rule "very shortly."

According to the agreement, women eligible for the highest level
of compensation suffered ongoing intimidation and bullying, forced
penetrative sex acts, and other egregious harassment that resulted
in suicidal thoughts or attempted suicide, sexual dysfunction, or
the inability to work among other severe effects.
The government has set aside $100 million for claims but the
lawyers stressed there is no cap. In severe cases, relatives of
claimants are each eligible to receive five per cent of the award
to the claimant -- to a maximum of 10 per cent that would be
shared if there are more than two affected relatives.

Ms. Merlo, who called the day bittersweet, said money could never
compensate for the lost careers and broken relationships, but she
took comfort that other RCMP women will now benefit.

"It's too bad we had to do this," Ms. Merlo said.  "But it's good
that it's done."

Key among terms of the deal are provisions that shield claimants'
identities from the RCMP.  Privacy is especially important for
women who still work for the force, court heard.

"All of the information provided during the claims process, both
written and oral, will be kept confidential," co-counsel Megan
McPhee told McDonald.  "The RCMP does not receive any of the
claims and has no right to respond."

Government lawyer Mitchell Taylor said a "surprisingly" large
number of women -- 1,590 -- had opted out of the settlement, most
because they said they had not suffered any harassment or
discrimination.

"We are proceeding nonetheless," Taylor said.  "We think it is a
fair and proper settlement."

Merlo, now of St. John's, N.L., was an RCMP constable from 1991 to
2010 who suffered depression, panic attacks and other health
effects due to her mistreatment.  Ms. Davidson, 58, now of
Bracebridge, Ont., started with the RCMP in 1985.  She became one
of the few women to become a commissioned officer, rising to the
rank of inspector.  Ms. Davidson took medical leave in 2009 and
retired in 2012.

The claims process is to be overseen by former Supreme Court
justice Michel Bastarache, who attended the May 24 approval
hearing.

The government has also agreed to pay $12 million to the two law
firms involved.  In addition, the lawyers will earn 15 per cent of
amounts awarded to claimants.

"We believe this is a superb settlement," said lawyer
David Klein, who represents Ms. Merlo "It was complex, high-risk
litigation." [GN]


CAPT. GEORGE'S: Gagliastre Sues Over Unlawful Wage Deductions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Gagliastre, Zachary Tarry, and Olga Zayneeva, On behalf of
themselves and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Capt.
George's Seafood Restaurants, LP; Captain George's of South
Carolina, LP; Captain George's of South Carolina, Inc.; The
Captain at the Beach, LLC; Captain KDH, LLC; Pit Co 1, LLC;
PitNorth, LLC; Lideslambous, Inc.; Pitsilambous, Inc.; George
Pitsilides; Sherry Pitsilides; Nicole Perkins; and Kristina
Chastain; Doe Corporations 1-4; Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-
01308-RBH (D.S.C., May 19, 2017), alleges that Defendants
repeatedly violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by improperly
applying a tip credit to servers' wages and for impermissible
deductions in violation of the South Carolina Payment of Wages
Act.

Defendants own and operate four seafood buffet restaurants.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Patrick McLaughlin, Esq.
     WUKELA LAW FIRM
     403 Second Loop Rd.
     PO Box 13057
     Florence, SC 29504-3057
     Phone: 843-669-5634
     Fax: 843-669-5150
     E-mail: Patrick@wukelalaw.com

        - and -

     Andrew Biller, Esq.
     Andrew Kimble, Esq.
     MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
     3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
     Cincinnati, OH 45209
     Phone: 513-651-3700
     Fax: 513-665-0219
     E-mail: abiller@msdlegal.com
             akimble@msdlegal.com


CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Faces "Bodansky" Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cavalry Portfolio
Services, LLC. The case is titled as Shaya Bodansky, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff,
v. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-
cv-03231 (E.D.N.Y., May 30, 2017).

Cavalry Portfolio serves debt collection.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


CLEARCOMM BAWA: Sales Associates File Suit Over Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------
AMY BRAILER (203 5th Avenue, Glen Burnie, MD 21061) Resident of
Anne Arundel County, LAUREN BROWN (901 Jay Court, Glen Burnie, MD
21061) Resident of Anne Arundel County KASEY DOLCH (1020 Cape
Splitt Harbour, Pasadena, MD 21122) Resident of Anne Arundel
County, Plaintiffs, Individually and on Behalf of All Similarly
Situated Employees v. CLEARCOMM BAWA, INC. (7553 Governor Ritchie
Highway, Glen Burnie, MD 21061, Serve: Yousef Sihweil, 7694
Dorchester Boulevard, Apt. 1107, Hanover, MD 21076) CLEARCOMM,
INC. (7480 Bryan Dairy Road, Suite 550, Largo, FL 33777, Serve:
Sihweil, Yousef, 7480 Bryan Dairy Road, Suite 550 Largo, FL 33777)
YOUSEF SIHWEIL (1910 Town Centre Boulevard, Unit 820,
Annapolis, MD 21401) Resident of Anne Arundel County SAWSAN
SIHWEIL (1910 Town Centre Boulevard, Unit 820, Annapolis, MD
21401) Resident of Anne Arundel County Defendants, Case No. 1:17-
cv-01391-JFM (D. Md., May 19, 2017), alleges that due to chronic
understaffing and a high turnover rate, Defendants routinely
scheduled Plaintiffs and others similarly situated to work well
over forty (40) hours each week but failed to pay them for
overtime work.

Defendants' pay practices allegedly conflict with the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, and the Maryland
Wage Payment and Collection Law.

Defendants are in the business of selling mobile phones.
Plaintiffs Amy Brailer and Lauren Brown were sales associates.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Benjamin L. Davis, III, Esq.
     George E. Swegman, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
     36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
     Baltimore, MD 21201
     Phone: (410) 244-7005
     Fax: (410) 244-8454
     E-mail: bdavis@nicholllaw.com
             gswegman@nicholllaw.com


CORECIVIC INC: Still Defends "Grae" Lawsuit in Tennessee
--------------------------------------------------------
CoreCivic, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company continues
to defend against the case, captioned Grae v. Corrections
Corporation of America et al.

The Company said, "In a memorandum to the Federal Bureau of
Prisons dated August 18, 2016, the U.S. Department of Justice
directed that, as each contract with privately operated prisons
reaches the end of its term, the BOP should either decline to
renew that contract or substantially reduce its scope in a manner
consistent with law and the overall decline of the BOP's inmate
population. In addition to the decline in the BOP's inmate
population, the DOJ memorandum cites purported operational,
programming, and cost efficiency factors as reasons for the DOJ
directive."

"On February 21, 2017, the newly appointed Attorney General issued
a memorandum rescinding the DOJ's prior directive stating the
memorandum changed long-standing policy and practice and impaired
the BOP's ability to meet the future needs of the federal
correctional system.

"Following the release of the August 18, 2016 DOJ memorandum, a
purported securities class action lawsuit was filed against us and
certain of our current and former officers in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, captioned
Grae v. Corrections Corporation of America et al., Case No. 3:16-
cv-02267. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of a putative class of
shareholders who purchased or acquired our securities between
February 27, 2012 and August 17, 2016.

"In general, the lawsuit alleges that, during this timeframe, our
public statements were false and/or misleading regarding the
purported operational, programming, and cost efficiency factors
cited in the DOJ memorandum and, as a result, our stock price was
artificially inflated. The lawsuit alleges that the publication of
the DOJ memorandum on August 18, 2016 revealed the alleged fraud,
causing the per share price of our stock to decline, thereby
causing harm to the putative class of shareholders.

"We believe the lawsuit is entirely without merit and intend to
vigorously defend against it. In addition, we maintain insurance,
with certain self-insured retention amounts, to cover the alleged
claims which mitigates the risk such litigation would have a
material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of
operations, or cash flows."

CoreCivic, Inc. is one of the nation's largest owners of
partnership correctional, detention, and residential reentry
facilities and one of the largest prison operators in the United
States.


CREDIT CORP: Faces "Tadepalli" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Corp
Solutions Inc. The case is entitled as Phanibhushan Tadepalli, on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, the
Plaintiff, v. Credit Corp Solutions Inc., doing business as Tasman
Credit, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03227 (E.D.N.Y., May 30,
2017).

Credit Corp offers debt purchase and collection. It also provides
lending business offering sustainable loans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CRST INTERNATIONAL: "Perez" Suit Moved to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jesus Perez, as an individual, on
behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general
public, the Plaintiff, v. CRST International, Inc., an Iowan
corporation, CRST Expedited, Inc., an Iowan corporation, and Does
1-100, inclusive, Case No. RIC 1705858, was removed on May 30,
2017, from the Riverside Superior Court, to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California (Eastern Division -
Riverside). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:17-cv-
01081-JGB-PLA to the proceeding.  The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Jesus G. Bernal.

CRST International is a freight company based in Cedar Rapids,
Iowa. Founded in 1955 by Herald and Miriam Smith, it is a
privately held company with a current fleet of about 4,500 trucks
and annual revenues of $1.5 billion.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael S Morrison, Esq.
          Jessica S Choi, Esq.
          ALEXANDER KRAKOW AND GLICK LLP
          401 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1000
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone: (310) 394 0888
          Facsimile: (310) 394 0811
          E-mail: mmorrison@akgllp.com

               - and -

          Nicolas Orihuela, Esq.
          HURWITZ ORIHUELA AND HAYES LLP
          5757 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 503
          Los Angeles, CA 90036
          Telephone: (323) 965 2103
          Facsimile: (323) 965 2146
          E-mail: no@hohlawyers.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Megan Emslie Ross, Esq.
          Christopher Chad McNatt, Jr., Esq.
          SCOPELITIS GARVIN LIGHT
          HANSON AND FEARY LLP
          2 North Lake Avenue Suite 560
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 795 4700
          Facsimile: (626) 795 4790
          E-mail: mross@scopelitis.com
                  cmcnatt@scopelitis.com


DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL: Fights Bernie Supporters' Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer G. Hickey, writing for Fox News, reports that the 2016
presidential campaign is still being litigated -- literally.

As Trump administration controversies command media attention, a
little-noticed set of lawsuits against the Democratic Party
continues to play out in the courts -- including one claiming
coordination with the Clinton campaign against Bernie Sanders
amounted to election fraud.

The case being heard in a Florida courtroom dates back to last
summer, when the Democrats were thrown into turmoil following the
leak of documents that appeared to show some DNC officials sought
to undermine Sanders in the party primary.  Jared Beck, a Harvard
law expert, shortly afterward filed a class-action lawsuit on
behalf of residents of 45 states against the DNC and former
chairwomen Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

The DNC has been trying for months to have the case dismissed, and
scored a temporary victory last year when it was decided the
plaintiffs had improperly filed paperwork.

Beck has been fighting the DNC every step of the way, and is
demanding the party repay individuals and Sanders supporters for
contributions made during the election, alleging misappropriation
of funds.

"If we can't trust the two political parties to run an election in
a fair manner, who can we trust?" Mr. Beck told Fox News.

During the most recent hearing on April 25 before a judge in the
southern district of Florida, the DNC made a strictly legal
argument -- one that surely would have rankled Sanders supporters.

Bruce Spiva, a lawyer for the DNC, argued in its motion to dismiss
that the party holds the right to select its candidate any way it
chooses and is not bound by pledges of fairness.

"We could have voluntarily decided that, 'Look, we're gonna go
into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the
candidate that way.'  That's not the way it was done.  But they
could have.  And that would have also been their right," Mr. Spiva
argued.

Although the Article 5, Section 4 of the Democratic Party charter
stipulates that it will function with total neutrality during
Democratic primaries, the DNC lawyer argued the promise was non-
binding.

"And there's no right to not have your candidate disadvantaged or
have another candidate advantaged.  There's no contractual
obligation here," he said.

"This lawsuit has nothing to do with politics or political
disagreements within the DNC.  This case should concern everyone
because it goes to the heart of the country's democratic
institutions," Beck told Fox News.

A victory by Mr. Beck could have a profound impact on how the
Democratic Party conducts business in 2020 and beyond.  However,
those familiar with election law say he faces an uphill climb.

"I don't think it is going to amount to much," said
Michael Toner, a lawyer with the Wiley-Rein and a former legal
counsel for the Republican National Committee.

"Courts don't typically get in the middle of intraparty disputes
and while I am sure the DNC does not appreciate having to fight
this lawsuit, judges are very reluctant to exercise their
jurisdiction over politics," Mr. Toner said.

The DNC attorneys also contend the suit is meritless, arguing most
Sanders donors do not even support the lawsuit.

"The vast majority of whom almost certainly do not share
Plaintiffs' political views -- have no realistic means of
disassociating from this action, brought in their name against the
political party they likely support," the DNC lawyers wrote in
their motion.

Mr. Toner said the danger to the DNC would come if the lawsuit
entered the discovery phase, which is why an affiliated case
alleging the DNC failed to pay overtime wages poses a potentially
greater threat.

The DNC filed a motion to dismiss in the second class-action
lawsuit, which alleged workers at the Democratic National
Convention and through the election were not paid a minimum wage,
while others were refused overtime compensation guaranteed by
federal and state law.

The 2016 Democratic platform characterized the current federal
minimum of $7.25 per hour as "a starvation wage and must be
increased to a living wage. No one who works full time should have
to raise a family in poverty."

The suit also names the Pennsylvania Democratic Party and others
involved in the party's 2016 national convention in the lawsuit.
The Pennsylvania Democratic Party did not return calls for
comment.

"While the DNC was not the employer in this case, the DNC follows
all employment and wage laws to make sure that everyone who works
a full-time job receives a fair wage," DNC spokesman Michael Tyler
said in a statement to Fox News.

Although the individuals participated in party-building
activities, such as voter registration, soliciting volunteers and
knocking on doors, the national party argues they were not
officially DNC staff.

Justin Swidler, the lawyer behind the suit, told Fox News, "We
believe in fair pay for fair work.  The lawsuit seeks only that.
We believe these ideals are consistent with the platform of the
DNC."

According to individuals familiar with the case, the DNC filed
another motion to dismiss, but neither side anticipates a prompt
resolution of the case given the court's full docket. [GN]


DEVRY UNIVERSITY: "Morrison" Suit Moved to E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Thomas Morrison, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
DeVry University, Inc. and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
BCV-17-100851, was removed on May 30, 2017 from the Kern County
Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California - (Fresno). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:17-at-00433 to the proceeding.

DeVry University is an American for-profit college. The school was
founded in 1931 as DeForest Training School, and officially became
DeVry University in 2002.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Joseph Arturo Escarez, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201 1595
          Facsimile: (310) 551 8347
          E-mail: jescarez@seyfarth.com


DIGITEK SMT: Tel-Aviv Court Stays Motion to Approve Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zvi Gabbay, Esq. -- zgabbay@barlaw.co.il -- of Barnea & Co, in an
article for Lexology, wrote that it is not uncommon for Israeli
incorporated companies to seek investments abroad.  In many cases,
such investments are done through public offerings on
international stock exchanges.  Securities issued by Israeli
companies are traded on the NASDAQ, the London Stock Exchange and
a variety of other exchanges, including Australia.  These
situations, which make perfect sense from a business perspective,
give rise to interesting and sometimes quite complex legal issues.
For example, if a company is incorporated in Israel then Israeli
corporate laws apply to it.  However, if our Israeli company
registered its shares for trading on the NASDAQ then United States
Federal securities laws apply.  Sometimes this combination is
simple to manage, but at the same time -- this combination can
become extremely challenging.

For instance, what happens when investors on a foreign exchange
believe that the management of an Israeli incorporated public
company has misled them? Can they bring a class action against the
Israeli company before the Israeli courts?

The answer to this question was given by the Tel-Aviv District
Court on May 15th, 2017, as it decided to stay a motion to approve
a class action, filed by a class of United-Kingdom investors
against Digitek SMT Ltd, an Israeli incorporate company.

In this matter, Digitek offered, through a Private Placement
Memorandum, loan notes to investors located (solely) in the United
Kingdom.  A number of years later the Company went bankrupt, and
its United-Kingdom investors approached the Tel-Aviv District
Court requesting it to approve a class action that is based on
Israeli corporate law and Israeli contract law.  The Company and
the rest of the respondents filed a motion to dismiss, arguing,
among other things, that this dispute should be adjudicated
pursuant to United-Kingdom law -- the governing law of the Private
Placement Memorandum, and that Israel is not the appropriate forum
to try this case.  As mentioned above, the court sided with the
respondents and placed a stay on the proceedings, while sending
the petitioners back to the United-Kingdom to seek justice.

This decision is important for a number of reasons. First, it
should be noted that the court did not reach its decision without
true deliberation.  It reiterated the protection that Israeli
corporate laws grant investors, and pointed out the fact that in
Israel, investors may use a favourable method of class actions,
that would not be available to them in the United-Kingdom.

That being said, the court explained that in order to determine
the most appropriate forum in this case, it must consider three
sets of considerations: One -- identifying the forum with the most
connections to the dispute; Two -- identifying the reasonable
expectations of the parties with regards to applicable law and
jurisdiction; and Three -- analysing the relevant public policy
considerations that need to be taken into account.

With regards to the first consideration, the court determined that
because the members of the class were all residents of the United-
Kingdom, the offering was done in the United-Kingdom, in English,
pursuant to local law, the United-Kingdom is the most connected
jurisdiction, even though the Company was incorporated and active
in Israel and the respondents are Israeli.  With regards to the
second consideration, the court determined that the United-Kingdom
was clearly the forum where all of the parties expected to
litigate any dispute they have, hence favouring the United-Kingdom
as the most appropriate forum.  With regards to the third
consideration, the court determined that it may certainly take
into account the interests of the local court system, and asked
itself whether under these circumstances the Israeli court system
is "interested" in adjudicating such a dispute, given the
effectiveness and costs of taking on the case.

After all is said and done, the most important lesson we learn
from the Digitek decision is that foreign investors and local
companies need to take into account that in the event of a dispute
that is associated with the offering of securities outside of
Israel, the Israeli court system will be reluctant to adjudicate
the case, and will most probably defer to the jurisdiction in
which the securities were offered.  However, the court did not
slam the door shut and opted not to dismiss the case altogether as
requested by the respondents, which leaves some wiggle room
enabling a different decision in the future.
[GN]


DISH NETWORK: North Carolina Judge Ups Award in TCPA Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Leada Gore, writing for Al.com, reports that a judge in North
Carolina has upped an award for some customers contacted by Dish
Network, a move that could make the company liable for as much as
$60 million in payouts.

Federal Judge Catherine Eagles said Dish and its agent Satellite
Systems Network "willingly and knowingly" violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, which limits telephone solicitations and
requires companies to abide by the Do Not Call List.

More than 220 million Americans have numbers registered on the
list.

In January, a jury in Greensboro, North Carolina awarded $400 each
to more than 50,000 people on the Do Not Call List who filed suit
against the Dish.  Judge Eagle tripled the award from the class
action lawsuit to $1,200 a person.

The suit, filed by Dr. Thomas Krakauer of Bahama, North Carolina,
claimed Dish made 51,119 calls to 18,066 phone numbers.  It was
the first jury trial on a class-action case alleging Do Not Call
violations, the plaintiff's attorneys said.

Dish Network said it is considering an appeal of the January jury
decision.

The settlement covers people who received telemarketing calls from
Dish or Satellite Systems between May 1, 2010 and Aug. 1, 2011.
To be eligible, customers must have been on the Do Not Call list
for 30 days before receiving the calls or be on the internal do-
not-call list for either company. [GN]


DIVERSIFIED ADJUSTMENT: Faces "Frankel" Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Diversified
Adjustment Service, Incorporated. The case is captioned as Julian
Frankel, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Diversified Adjustment Service,
Incorporated, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03233 (E.D.N.Y., May
30, 2017).

The Defendant is a national accounts receivable management and
credit reporting agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DNV GL: Surveyors File Suit Over FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------
MICHAEL GALVAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. DNV GL USA, INC., f/k/a DET NORSKE VERITAS
(USA), INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-01543 (S.D. Tex., May 19,
2017), alleges that Defendant paid its surveyors at a straight
time rate for their overtime hours worked instead of at the time-
and-one-half rate required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant provides a host of services to the maritime, oil and
gas, energy and health care industries of the United States.
Michael Galvan is a surveyor formerly employed by Defendant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Alex Mabry, Esq.
     THE MABRY LAW FIRM, PLLC
     10320 Sommerville Avenue
     Houston, TX 77041
     Phone: (832) 350-8335
     Fax: (832) 831-2460
     E-mail: amabry@mabrylaw.com


DOMINO'S PIZZA: Owner Files Motion to Stay Driver's Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Madison-St. Clair Record,
reports that the owner of Domino's Pizza argues that arbitration
is proper in a delivery driver's class action seeking compensation
for vehicle expenses

MBR Management Corporation filed a motion to stay proceedings on
May 9 through attorneys Rodney Harrison, David Schenberg and
Meredith Lopez of Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC in St.
Louis.

The defendant is asking the court to stay proceedings pending
decisions out of the U.S. Supreme Court in Lewis v Epic Systems
Corporation, Morris v Ernst & Young LLP and N.L.R.B. v Murphy Oil
USA, Inc.  The cases involve an arbitration issue that may be
dispositive of this case.

MBR Management filed a memorandum in support of its motion to stay
proceedings, arguing that plaintiff Jesse Tourville signed an
agreement stating that he would bring any legal action only in
arbitration and only on an individual basis.

"Rather than start down the road of such complex litigation, MBR
requests that this Court await the decision of the Supreme Court,"
the memorandum states.  "The Supreme Court's decision will likely
render unnecessary any briefing of the arbitration issue in this
case, and may dispose of the litigation itself."

Mr. Tourville filed the complaint for himself and all others
similarly situated on April 11, arguing that delivery drivers were
not compensated for vehicular wear and tear, gas and other
driving-related expenses.

Mr. Tourville worked at the Troy Domino's Pizza and alleges that
he and others paid "out-of-pocket" expenses of $13.38 per hour to
provide, operate and maintain their vehicles, losing approximately
$1.43 each hour they worked on the road.

The plaintiffs allege MBR Management failed to compensate at least
the tipped minimum wage rate for each hour worked on the road and
failed to properly reimburse delivery drivers' expenses including
cost for gasoline, vehicle depreciation, insurance, maintenance
and repairs.

Mr. Tourville filed a motion to conditionally certify the proposed
class on April 21 through attorneys Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Todd
Garber and Chantal Khalil of Finkelstein Blankinship, Frei-Pearson
& Garber LLP in New York.

He asks the court to order the defendant to identify all delivery
drivers it has employed at any time during the class period.

In his memorandum in support of the motion to conditionally
certify the class, he argues that the defendant consented to
conditional certification of a nearly identical Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) collective action in another case involving
delivery drivers who alleged minimum wage violations.

In this case, Mr. Tourville argues, "By systematically under-
reimbursing delivery drivers for the significant automotive
expenses they incur while delivering pizzas, MBR pushes the
drivers' effectively hourly wage well below the minimum required
by the FLSA and state minimum wage laws."

Mr. Tourville adds that although discovery has not yet begun, the
evidence justifying conditional certification is compelling.  He
claims he and MBR delivery driver Alexander Smith, who has opted-
in to the collective action, testify that they performed the same
work and are paid and reimbursed the same way.

The memorandum states that delivery drivers are paid at or near
the minimum wage and are reimbursed on a per-delivery basis "that
is insufficient to cover their actual driving expenses, thereby
forcing the drivers' total compensation to fall below minimum
wage."

The plaintiff argues that delivery drivers incur per-mile expenses
at a flat rate of $0.75 to $1.20 per delivery.

However, he alleges delivery drivers' expenses are higher than
other drivers "because they regularly drive in urban areas, in
stop-and-go traffic, in inclement weather, making multiple stops,
frequently turning their engines on and off and -- as a result --
experience lower gas mileage, more rapid vehicle depreciation,
higher insurance rates, and greater vehicular expenses than the
average business driver."

"Because Defendant does not track delivery drivers' actual
expenses, it should provide a reimbursement at least equal to the
IRS reimbursement rate," the memorandum states, which ranges
between $0.535 per mile and $0.575 per mile.

On May 10, MBR Management filed a motion for an extension of time
to file a response to Mr. Tourville's motion for conditional
certification.

The defendant asks the court to extend its deadline to respond to
June 26.

On May 19, Mr. Tourville filed a memorandum in opposition to the
defendant's motion for extension of time to respond.

"A stay would serve no purpose other than to financially burden
Plaintiff and the other members of the proposed collective and
class action by allowing Defendant to preserve an unlawful status
quo where it systematically under-reimburses its pizza delivery
drivers for the expenses it forces them to incur, thereby pushing
the drivers' hourly wages far below the minimum . . ." the
memorandum states.

The plaintiff further argues that arbitration agreements that ban
collective actions in wage and hour agreements are unenforceable.

"Defendant's stay request is predicated on the hope that the
Supreme Court may reverse the Seventh Circuit's holding in the
next term," the memorandum states.  "However, there is no reason
to believe the Supreme Court will overrule this Circuit's well-
considered precedent, and workers would be substantially harmed by
the delay caused by a stay."[GN]

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois case
number 3:17-cv-373


DON GUIDO: Faces "Merola" Suit in District of Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Don Guido Realty
Trust. The case is captioned as Steven Merola, Plaintiff, v. Peter
M. Coco; Don Guido Realty Trust; Olde Center Ventures, Inc.;
Claire Coco; Amy Falloni; Golden Brook, Inc., formerly known as:
Bond Industries, LTD; and Richard Cohen, the Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-10701-GAO (D. Mass., May 16, 2017). The case is assigned
to the Hon. Judge George A. OToole, Jr.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Briefing in Scranton Case Appeal Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
E*TRADE Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that briefing in the
appeal related to the John Scranton class action is scheduled to
continue through 2017.

On April 30, 2013, a putative class action was filed by John
Scranton, on behalf of himself and a class of persons similarly
situated, against E*TRADE Financial Corporation and E*TRADE
Securities in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa
Clara, pursuant to the California procedures for a private
Attorney General action. The complaint alleged that the Company
misrepresented through its website that it would always
automatically exercise options that were in-the-money by $0.01 or
more on expiration date. Plaintiffs allege violations of the
California Unfair Competition Law, the California Consumer
Remedies Act, fraud, misrepresentation, negligent
misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty.

The case has been deemed complex within the meaning of the
California Rules of Court, and a case management conference was
held on September 13, 2013.

The Company's demurrer and motion to strike the complaint were
granted by order dated December 20, 2013. The Court granted leave
to amend the complaint.

A second amended complaint was filed on January 31, 2014.

On March 11, 2014, the Company moved to strike and for a demurrer
to the second amended complaint. On October 20, 2014, the Court
sustained the Company's demurrer, dismissing four counts of the
second amended complaint with prejudice and two counts without
prejudice.

The plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on November 10,
2014.

The Company filed a third demurrer and motion to strike on
December 12, 2014.

By order dated March 18, 2015, the Superior Court entered a final
order sustaining the Company's demurrer on all remaining claims
with prejudice. Final judgment was entered in the Company's favor
on April 8, 2015.

Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal April 27, 2015. Briefing is
scheduled to continue through 2017. The Company will continue to
defend itself vigorously in this matter.

E*TRADE is a financial services company that provides online
brokerage and related products and services primarily to
individual retail investors.


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Consolidated Suit by Rayner & Schwab Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
E*TRADE Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company
continues to defend against a consolidated class action lawsuit by
Ty Rayner and Craig L. Schwab.

On March 26, 2015, a putative class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California by Ty
Rayner, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
naming E*TRADE Financial Corporation and E*TRADE Securities as
defendants. The complaint alleges that E*TRADE breached a
fiduciary duty and unjustly enriched itself in connection with the
routing of its customers' orders to various market-makers and
exchanges. Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, declaratory
relief, restitution, disgorgement of payments received by the
Company, and attorneys' fees.

On July 23, 2016, a putative class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York by Craig L.
Schwab, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, naming
E*TRADE Financial Corporation, E*TRADE Securities LLC, and former
Company executives as defendants. The complaint alleges that
E*TRADE violated federal securities laws in connection with the
routing of its customers' orders to various market-makers and
exchanges. Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, declaratory
relief, restitution, disgorgement of payments received by the
Company, and attorneys' fees.

By stipulation, the Rayner case has been consolidated with the
Schwab case and both matters are now venued in the Southern
District of New York. E*TRADE has moved to dismiss the complaint
in Rayner.

On April 2, 2017, the District Court dismissed the complaint in
Rayner. E*TRADE moved to dismiss the Schwab case on January 11,
2017; and in response, the Schwab plaintiffs submitted an amended
Complaint on February 10, 2017. The amended Schwab complaint
asserts only two claims: violation of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act by E*TRADE Securities LLC and E*TRADE Financial
Corporation; and violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by
E*TRADE's two most recent chief executive officers.

Briefing was expected to continue in April 2017. The Company will
continue to defend itself vigorously in these matters.

E*TRADE is a financial services company that provides online
brokerage and related products and services primarily to
individual retail investors.


ELERTS CORP: Faces Privacy Class Action Over BART Watch App
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rick Hurd, writing for East Bay Times, reports that a lawsuit
alleges that BART and a Boston-based software developer secretly
collected personal information from thousands of passengers
anonymously reporting crimes using the agency's BART Watch mobile
app.

Albany resident Pamela Moreno is the lead plaintiff in the suit,
which seeks unspecified actual and punitive damages against BART
and software developer Elerts Corp.  The suit alleges that the two
compromised the privacy rights of tens of thousands of app users
by violating the Cellular Communications Interception Act and the
Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

BART encourages its riders and others to use the BART Watch app
because of its quick and discreet method for reporting suspicious
activity to BART police.  The app also promises anonymity.

In a statement on May 22, BART said it does not use Elert's system
to randomly track users, and an app's user location information is
only available if users selects an option to share their location
information.  "For all users, sharing their contact information
and location information is optional," BART spokeswoman Alicia
Trost said.

"The safety and privacy of our riders are a priority, and we want
to make clear we are not using Elert's system for any other
purpose than responding to security and safety reports made by our
riders."

According to the lawsuit, the programmers of the app designed it
to collect any smartphone's unique numeric cellular identifier
(IMEI).  The suit alleges the app collected IMEIs and also
periodically monitored the users' locations when they weren't
reporting incidents.  It also states the app tracked the
identities and locations of those reporting incidents anonymously.

The cellphone users did not consent to those tracking practices
and were unaware of them, the lawsuit claims.  It also claims the
app's privacy policy remains vague.

In its statement, BART said the user agreement is clear, and the
privacy policy can be found in multiple areas, including the BART
website on the BART Watch page, the end-user agreement, and the
Elerts website

The lawsuit does not request a specific dollar amount in damages,
but notes that "the amount of controversy exceeds $5 million." It
also is seeking an order prohibiting BART and Elerts from
collecting IMEIs and users' locations.

Ms. Moreno downloaded the app on her Samsung Galaxy S7 in 2016 and
used it regularly as part of her commute.  The lawsuit alleges she
would not have used the app had she known it was collecting her
personal information.  Ms. Moreno was not immediately available
for comment. [GN]


ENERGY TRANSFER: Motions to Dismiss Chancery Court Case Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Transfer, LP said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that Regency and the other
Defendants' Motions to Dismiss the Chancery Court litigation
related to the Regency Merger remains pending.

Following the January 26, 2015 announcement of the Regency Merger,
purported Regency unitholders filed lawsuits in state and federal
courts in Dallas and Delaware asserting claims relating to the
Regency Merger. All Regency Merger-related lawsuits have been
dismissed, although one lawsuit remains pending on appeal. On June
10, 2015, Adrian Dieckman ("Dieckman"), a purported Regency
unitholder, filed a class action complaint on behalf of Regency's
common unitholders in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware. The lawsuit alleges that the Regency Merger breached the
Regency partnership agreement because Regency's conflicts
committee was not properly formed, and the Regency Merger was not
approved in good faith.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, and on March 29, 2016, the
Delaware court granted Defendants' motion and dismissed the
lawsuit.

On April 26, 2016, Dieckman filed his Notice of Appeal to the
Supreme Court of Delaware. This appeal is styled Adrian Dieckman
v. Regency GP LP, et al., No. 208, 2016, in the Supreme Court of
the State of Delaware. Dieckman filed his Opening Brief on June 9,
2016, and Defendants' filed their Answering Brief on July 29,
2016. On August 31, 2016, Dieckman filed his Reply Brief. Oral
argument was held on November 16, 2016 before the Delaware Supreme
Court.

On January 20, 2017, The Delaware Supreme Court issued an order
reversing the judgment of the Court of Chancery that dismissed
Counts I and II of Dieckman's Complaint. On February 21, 2017,
Regency and the other Defendants filed their respective Motions to
Dismiss the Chancery Court matter.

No further updates were provided in the Company's report.

Energy Transfer, LP is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Energy
Transfer Partners, L.P.


ENERGY TRANSFER: Dates to Answer Sunoco Merger Suit Not Yet Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Transfer, LP said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that Defendants' dates to
answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise respond to the Sunoco
Logistics merger litigation lawsuits have not yet been set.

Between January 6, 2017 and February 8, 2017, seven purported ETP
common unitholders ("Plaintiffs") separately filed seven putative
unitholder class action lawsuits challenging the merger and the
disclosures made in connection with the merger. Since then, two of
the Plaintiffs have non-suited their claims. The lawsuits
remaining are styled (a) Shure v. Energy Transfer Partners, L.P.
et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00044-UNA, in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware (the "Shure Lawsuit"); (b)
Verlin v. Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-
00045-UNA, in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware (the "Verlin Lawsuit"); (c) Duany v. Energy Transfer
Partners, L.P. et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00058-UNA, in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware (the "Duany
Lawsuit"); (d) Epstein v. Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. et. al.,
Case No, 1:17-cv-00069, in the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware (the "Epstein Lawsuit") and (e) Sgnilek
v. Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00141,
in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware
(the "Sgnilek Lawsuit" and collectively with the Shure Lawsuit,
Verlin Lawsuit, Duany Lawsuit, and Epstein Lawsuit, the
"Lawsuits").

The Duany Lawsuit and Epstein Lawsuit are filed against ETP, ETP
GP, ETP GP, LLC, ETE, and the members of the ETP Board. The Shure
Lawsuit and Verlin Lawsuit are filed against ETP, ETP GP, the
members of the ETP Board, ETE, Sunoco Logistics, and Sunoco
Logistics GP. The Sgnilek Lawsuit is filed against ETP, ETP GP,
ETP GP LLC, ETE, the members of the ETP Board, Sunoco Logistics
and Sunoco Logistics GP (collectively "Defendants").

Plaintiffs allege causes of action challenging the merger and the
preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus filed in connection
with the merger. According to Plaintiffs, the preliminary joint
proxy statement/prospectus is allegedly misleading because, among
other things, it fails to disclose certain information concerning,
in general, (a) the background and process that led to the merger;
(b) ETE's, ETP's, and Sunoco Logistics' financial projections; (c)
the financial analysis and fairness opinion provided by Barclays;
and (d) alleged conflicts of interest concerning Barclays, ETE,
and certain officers and directors of ETP and ETE.

Based on these allegations, and in general, Plaintiffs allege that
(i) Defendants have violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder and (ii) the members of the ETP
Board have violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Plaintiffs
in the Shure Lawsuit and Verlin Lawsuit also allege that Sunoco
Logistics has violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Plaintiffs also assert, in general, that the terms of the merger
(including, among other terms, the merger consideration) are
unfair to ETP common unitholders and resulted from an unfair and
conflicted process. Based on these allegations, the Sgnilek
Lawsuit alleges that (a) the ETP Board, ETP GP, ETP GP LLC, ETP,
and ETE have breached the covenant of good faith and/or fiduciary
duties, and (b) Sunoco Logistics and Sunoco Logistics GP have
aided and abetted those alleged breaches.

Based on these allegations, Plaintiffs seek to enjoin Defendants
from proceeding with or consummating the merger unless and until
Defendants disclose the allegedly omitted information summarized
above. The Sgnilek Lawsuit also seeks to enjoin Defendants from
proceeding with or consummating the merger unless and until the
ETP Board adopts and implements processes to obtain the best
possible terms for ETP common unitholders. To the extent that the
merger is consummated before injunctive relief is granted,
Plaintiffs seek to have the merger rescinded. Plaintiffs also seek
damages and reimbursement of attorneys' fees.

Defendants' dates to answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise respond
to the Lawsuits have not yet been set.

Defendants cannot predict the outcome of these or any other
lawsuits that might be filed subsequent to the date of the filing
of this quarterly report, nor can Defendants predict the amount of
time and expense that will be required to resolve such litigation.
Defendants believe the Lawsuits are without merit and intend to
defend vigorously against the Lawsuits and any other actions
challenging the merger.

Energy Transfer, LP is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Energy
Transfer Partners, L.P.


ESG USA: "Nelson" Suit Seeks Payment of Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT NELSON and CLAYTON PHILLIPS on Behalf of Themselves and on
behalf of All Others Similarly Situated Plaintiffs v. ESG USA
INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-01572 (S.D. Tex., May 23, 2017),
alleges that the Defendant knowingly and deliberately failed to
compensate the Plaintiffs for their overtime hours at the rate of
one and one-half times their regular rates of pay in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant is an oilfield services company that provides seismic
monitoring services to energy exploration companies.  Plaintiff
worked for Defendant as a wireline specialist/wireline
engineer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lauren M. Serper, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF LAUREN M. SERPER, PC
     3405 Edloe, Suite 200
     Houston, TX 77027
     Phone: (713) 278-9398
     Fax: (713) 785-0808
     E-mail: LOLMS1@aol.com
             laurenserper@gmail.com


EXTREME NETWORKS: Securities Litigation Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Extreme Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the case, In re
Extreme Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation, remains pending.

On October 23 and 29, 2015, complaints were filed alleging
violations of securities laws in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against the Company and three of
its former officers (Charles W. Berger, Kenneth B. Arola, and John
T. Kurtzweil).  Subsequently, the cases were consolidated.
Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated the securities laws by
disseminating materially false and misleading statements and
concealing material adverse facts regarding Extreme Networks'
current financial condition and growth prospects. Plaintiffs seek
damages of an unspecified amount on behalf of a class of investors
who purchased the Company's common stock from September 12, 2013
through April 9, 2015.

On June 28, 2016, the court appointed a lead plaintiff.  On
September 26, 2016, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint.
On November 10, 2016 defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint and on April 27, 2017, the case was dismissed by the
court, with leave to amend the complaint.

Plaintiffs had until May 29, 2017, if they elect to file an
amended complaint.

Extreme Networks, Inc., together with its subsidiaries is a leader
in providing software-driven networking solutions for enterprise
customers.  The Company conducts its sales and marketing
activities on a worldwide basis through distributors, resellers
and the Company's field sales organization. Extreme was
incorporated in California in 1996 and reincorporated in Delaware
in 1999.


FEDERAL EXPRESS: Judge Approves $227MM Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Papantonio, writing for Trofire, reports that a federal judge
approved a $227 million payout for FedEx drivers in 19 states for
the deceptive practice of classifying its drivers as independent
contractors rather than full-time employees.  The class action
settlement covered 19 states across the U.S., and involves 12,000
drivers who had their wages unfairly garnished.

Until 2011, FedEx treated their drivers as independent
contractors, despite the fact that most of these drivers were
working full-time.  This meant the company could pass along the
costs of the truck, cost of the uniform, fuel, and insurance . . .
pass it on directly to the driver.  Not to mention, FedEx didn't
have to pay anything for health care benefits, unemployment
insurance, or overtime pay.

Hopefully, this decision will serve as a warning to other
companies like Uber, or maybe, Lyft, that if they continue to
treat their full-time workers as independent contractors, they
might expect a flurry of expensive lawsuits. [GN]


FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Faces "Stern" Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Firstsource
Advantage, LLC. The case is titled as Aharon Stern, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff,
v. Firstsource Advantage, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
03228 (E.D.N.Y., May 30, 2017).

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

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


GATESTONE & CO: Faces "Bakon" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gatestone & Co.
International, Inc. The case is captioned as Michael Bakon and
Hindy Bakon, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Gatestone & Co.
International, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03239
(E.D.N.Y., May 30, 2017).

Gatestone provides business process outsourcing and contact center
solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


GC SERVICES: Faces "Schwartz" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GC Services Limited
Partnership. The case is entitled as Joel Schwartz, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff,
v. GC Services Limited Partnership, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-
cv-03230 (E.D.N.Y., May 30, 2017).

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GENERAL REVENUE: Faces "Aimee" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
Marie Aimee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, against General Revenue Corporation and John
Does 1-25, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00278-JES-CM (M.D. Fla.,
May 22, 2017), seeks redress for Defendant's alleged actions of
using false, deceptive, and misleading representations or means in
connection with the collection of an alleged debt.  The case
alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

Defendant is a debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael J. Ringelheim, Esq.
     RC LAW GROUP, PLLC
     22345 Dorado Drive
     Boca Raton, FL 33433
     Phone: 201 282 6500
     E-mail: Mringelheim@gmail.com

        - and -

     Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
     MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
     1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
     Ocean, NJ 07712
     Phone: 732 695 3282
     Fax: 732 298 6256
     E-mail: vzelman@marcuszelman.com


GENESCO INC: Faces "Chen" Suit Under FLSA, New York Labor Laws
--------------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA CHEN and DARIO SALAS, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GENESCO, INC. and HAT
WORLD, INC. d/b/a LIDS, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-03767 (N.D.
Ill., May 19, 2017), alleges that Defendants misclassified store
managers as "exempt" from federal and or state overtime
protections.  The case was brought under the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, the New York Labor Law and New
York State Department of Labor Regulations.

Hat World, Inc. owned and/or operated the Lids Sports Group
segment of Genesco, Inc.'s retail operations, including
approximately 1,300 Lids retail stores.  Plaintiffs were employed
by Defendants as store managers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
     OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
     685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 245-1000

        - and -

     Paul W. Mollica, Esq.
     161 N Clark Street, Suite 1600
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Phone: (312) 809-7010

        - and -

     Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
     Camar R. Jones, Esq.
     SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
     1515 S. Federal Hwy
     Boca Raton, FL 33432
     Phone: (561) 447-8888


GLOBAL PAYMENTS: Class Settlement & $325,000 Lawyer Fees Okayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Global Payments Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the court has approved
the settlement agreement in a class action lawsuit.

The Company said, "Heartland, Heartland's board of directors,
Global Payments, Data Merger Sub One, Inc. (a wholly owned
subsidiary of Global Payments, which we refer to as "Data Merger
Sub One") and Data Merger Sub Two, LLC (a wholly owned subsidiary
of Global Payments, which we refer to as "Data Merger Sub Two")
were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit
challenging the merger with Heartland."

"The suit was filed on January 8, 2016 in the New Jersey Superior
Court, Mercer County, Civil Division, and is captioned Kevin
Merchant v. Heartland Payment Systems, et al, L-45-16. The
complaint alleges, among other things, that the directors of
Heartland breached their fiduciary duties to Heartland
stockholders by agreeing to sell Heartland for inadequate
consideration, agreeing to improper deal protection terms in the
merger agreement, failing to properly value Heartland, and filing
a materially incomplete registration statement with the Securities
and Exchange Commission.

"In addition, the complaint alleges that Heartland, Global
Payments, Merger Sub One, and Merger Sub Two aided and abetted
these purported breaches of fiduciary duty.

"On April 12, 2016, solely to avoid the costs, disruption and
distraction of further litigation, and without admitting the
validity of any allegations made by the plaintiff, Heartland and
Global Payments reached an agreement to settle the suit and
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to document the terms
and conditions for settlement of the suit.

"The court has approved the parties' settlement agreement under
which Heartland amended its pre-acquisition disclosures and agreed
to pay Plaintiffs' counsel $325,000 in attorney's fees. The
settlement releases all claims that were or could have been
brought challenging any aspect of the merger with Heartland or the
merger agreement related thereto."

Global Payments is a worldwide provider of payment technology
services delivering innovative solutions to our customers
globally.


HANAHAN, SC: Conditional Certification in FLSA Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned James Regan and Mason Underwood, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
City of Hanahan, Defendant, Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-1077-RMG
(D.S.C.), Judge Richard Mark Gergel, United States District Court,
District of South Carolina, Charleston Division, denied the
Plaintiffs' motion for Conditional Class Certification of Subclass
Two.

James Regan and Mason Underwood filed this class and collective
action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
against Defendant City of Hanahan, alleging violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the South Carolina Payment of
Wages Act ("SCPWA").  Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that the
City, which employed them as firefighters and EMS personnel,
administered two payment plans that violated the FLSA.  The first
payment plan, which was in place through July 2015, allegedly
incorporated illegal sleep time and meal time deductions.  The
City implemented a new payment plan in July 2015 which Plaintiffs
allege did not compensate them for overtime work as required under
the FLSA.

The Plaintiffs have asked the Court to certify this matter as a
collective action for actual damages, liquidated damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) and to
define two subclasses.  On April 18, 2017, the Court granted their
motion for Conditional Class Certification of Subclass One and
ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefing about Subclass
Two in light of three decisions from different Circuit Courts of
Appeals: Gonzalez v. City of Deerfield Beach, Lawrence v. City of
Philadelphia, and Cleveland v. City of Los Angeles.  Both parties
have submitted supplemental briefs, so the Court now considers
Plaintiff's motion for conditional class certification of Subclass
Two.

The City objects to conditional class certification of Subclass
Two, arguing that the pay plan in place from July 2015 did not
violate the law because Plaintiffs had the "legal authority and
responsibility to engage in fire suppression" so were subject to
the FLSA's overtime exemption under 29 U.S.C. Section 207(k).

The Plaintiffs concede that potential members of Subclass Two
were, at various times, assigned to the fire truck.  According to
their Second Amended Complaint, named Plaintiffs Regan and
Underwood were both assigned "at various times" to either the Fire
Department or EMS Division."  While most Plaintiffs were rarely
assigned to the fire truck, they apparently could have been
assigned to the truck on any given shift.  The Plaintiffs also
concede that when they were assigned to the fire truck, they had
the responsibility to engage in fire suppression.

Despite these concessions, Plaintiffs argue that potential members
of Subclass Two only fall under the Section 207(k) exemption
during the times they were assigned to the fire truck but not
during the times they were assigned to the ambulance.  The
Plaintiffs have "acknowledged that this subclass may be limited to
the time when the Plaintiffs were assigned to the ambulance only."
That position is untenable.  Allowing potential members of
Subclass Two to proceed on claims limited to the period of time
when they were assigned to the ambulance would defeat the purpose
of the Section 207(k) exemption which is to allow employers to
adopt work periods longer than seven days for employees, like the
Plaintiffs, who are responsible for fire suppression.  As the
exemption applies an increased overtime threshold to work periods
between seven and twenty-eight days, it would not be feasible to
calculate an employee's overtime entitlement under the standard
40-hour workweek for the few shifts per month he was assigned to
the ambulance and to simultaneously calculate his overtime
entitlement under the Section 207(k) exemption.

For the reasons set forth, the Plaintiffs' motion for Conditional
Class Certification of Subclass Two is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 26, 2017 order and opinion is
available at https://is.gd/tg2bNW from Leagle.com

James Regan, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce E. Miller, Bruce E
Miller Law Office.

Mason Underwood, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce E. Miller, Bruce
E Miller Law Office.

Joseph W. Hamilton, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Bruce E.
Miller, Bruce E Miller Law Office.

Joshua Paul Madden, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce E. Miller,
Bruce E Miller Law Office.

David Migon, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce E. Miller, Bruce E
Miller Law Office.

Bryon Perry, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce E. Miller, Bruce E
Miller Law Office.

Zachary Spitulski, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce E. Miller,
Bruce E Miller Law Office.

Cody Williams, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce E. Miller, Bruce E
Miller Law Office.

David Spuehler, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce E. Miller, Bruce E
Miller Law Office.

Michael Harkey, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce E. Miller, Bruce E
Miller Law Office.

City of Hanahan, Defendant, represented by Bob J. Conley,
Cleveland and Conley, Caroline Wrenn Cleveland, Caroline Wrenn
Cleveland Law Office & Emmanuel Joseph Ferguson, Cleveland and
Conley.


HARBORTOUCH PAYMENTS: "Fabricant" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. HARBORTOUCH PAYMENTS, LLC; and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-03842
(C.D. Cal., May 22, 2017), accuses Defendant of negligently,
knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's
cellular telephone in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff to purchase
Defendants' services in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, and related regulations, specifically the National
Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.

Defendant, HARBORTOUCH PAYMENTS, LLC is a business financing
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
     Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
     Meghan E. George, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
     21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
     Woodland Hills, CA 91367
     Phone: 877-206-4741
     Fax: 866-633-0228
     E-mail: tfriedman@ toddflaw.com
             abacon@toddflaw.com
             mgeorge@toddflaw.com


HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Fire Loss Payment Class Action Certified
------------------------------------------------------------
Judy Greenwald, writing for Business Insurance, reports that a
federal court has certified a class action against a Hartford
Financial Services Group Inc. unit over its method of calculating
payment for a fire loss.

G. Grant Johnson had charged in his lawsuit that Hartford,
Connecticut-based Hartford Casualty Insurance Co. had unlawfully
underpaid him for his loss in calculating depreciation, in
violation the California Insurance Code, according to the May 22
ruling by the U.S. District Court in San Francisco in G. Grant
Johnson v. Hartford Casualty Co., which also denied Hartford's
motion for summary judgment dismissing the case.

Mr. Johnson owns a commercial building at 321-329 Divisadero St.
in San Francisco that suffered damage from a fire causing partial
loss of the 100-year-old structure in December 2013, according to
the ruling.

Hartford paid Mr. Johnson $731,000 under the "actual cost value"
option in his business owners policy, which involves estimating
the cost of repair, and providing the insured with payment in that
amount after deducting a "fair and reasonable amount" for physical
depreciation.

Mr. Johnson spent $644,000 of that on repairs but has not yet
repaired or reconstructed the property's third story, according to
the ruling.

Mr. Johnson charged in his lawsuit that Harford underpaid him by
purposefully miscalculating the actual cost value "depreciating
all components of plaintiff's structural loss without regard to
whether the components were normally subject to repair and
replacement during the useful life of that structure," in
violation of California Insurance Code Section 2051, said the
ruling.

The insurance code prohibits depreciation of components that are
not normally subject to repair and replacement, according to the
ruling. Mr. Johnson also contended Harford underpaid him in
connection with the actual cost value's sales tax component.

"The crux of Harford's arguments" is that "Johnson cannot show
that he has been injured" because it paid him more than he spent
to repair his building, said the ruling.

However, "Hartford's contention that Johnson cannot establish an
'injury in fact' because it has paid him more than it owed him
under the policy assumes its own conclusion," said the ruling.
"The question of how much Hartford owed Johnson is why this suit
has been brought."

The policy language "supports Johnson's positon that the total
amount recoverable under the policy is not limited to the amount
actually spent on repairs, the ruling said.

"I find that Johnson has shown that he has suffered an injury in
fact sufficient to establish standing and that his Section 2051
claims -- the depreciation of components and the depreciation of
the sales tax -- survive summary judgment," said Judge William H.
Orrick, who also refused to dismiss Mr. Johnson's breach of
contract and bad faith claims.

"Material facts are in dispute over Hartford's liability to
Johnson, if any, and the record does not establish as a matter of
law that Hartford's interpretation of its policy is correct," said
the ruling.

In agreeing to certify the case as a class action, Judge Orrick
said, "Common questions predominate."

The judge set June 20 for a case management conference in the
case. [GN]


HERTZ CORPORATION: Faces "Oliva" Suit in S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Hertz
Corporation. The case is titled as Moses Oliva and David Claassen,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. The Hertz Corporation, the Defendants, Case No.
3:17-cv-01083-BAS-NLS (S.D. Cal., May 25, 2017). The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Cynthia Bashant.

Hertz, a subsidiary of Hertz Global Holdings Inc., is an American
car rental company with international locations in 150 countries
worldwide. Hertz is the second largest U.S. car rental company by
sales, locations, and fleet size.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert J. Gralewski, Jr., Esq.
          KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 398 4340
          E-mail: Bgralewski@kmllp.com


HMS HOLDINGS: "Danahar" Securities Suit Transferred to N.D. Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned MARY DANAHAR, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HMS HOLDINGS CORP.,
WILLIAM C. LUCIA, and JEFFREY S. SHERMAN, Defendants, (originally
Case No. 3:17-cv-01494, (D.N.J., March 3, 2017), was transferred
from to the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Texas under Case No. 3:17-cv-01339-L, according to a case
docket dated May 19, 2017.

The case alleges that Defendants made false and/or issued
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose on its financial
report for the quarter ended March 31, 2016 that: (1) the Company
lacked effective internal control over financial reporting; and
(2) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

Defendant HMS Holdings Corp. operates in the healthcare insurance
benefit cost containment market in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
     THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
     275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 686-1060
     Fax: (212) 202-3827

Defendant(s) is represented by:

     Marshall R. King, Esq.
     GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
     200 Park Avenue
     New York, NY 10166
     Phone: (212) 351-4000
     E-mail: mking@gibsondunn.com


HORNET CORP: Faces "Morris" Lawsuit Alleging TCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
George Morris, individually and as a representative of a class,
Plaintiff, v. Hornet Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-
00350-ALM-KPJ (E.D. Tex., May 23, 2017), alleges that Hornet
Corporation or its telemarketing representative or lead generator
made marketing solicitations, i.e., calls for the purpose of
encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property,
goods, or services -- to Plaintiff's residential phone.

Because Plaintiff had not given his written consent to receive
these calls from Defendant, these calls allegedly violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Do Not Call Registry
laws and regulations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC
     1340 N. White Chapel, Suite 100
     Southlake, TX 76092
     Phone: 817-416-5060
     Fax: 817-416-5062
     E-mail: chris@crmlawpractice.com


HOUSTON PIZZA: Delivery Drivers File Suit Over Reimbursements
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned TRAVIS EASON, JR., individually and on behalf
of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. HOUSTON PIZZA
VENTURE, LP, HPV-C LLC, and HPV Staff, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
4:17-cv-01574 (S.D. Tex., May 23, 2017), was brought pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The suit alleges that Defendants employ delivery drivers who use
their own automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to
customers. Instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the
reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their
vehicles, Defendants use a flawed method to determine
reimbursement rates that provides such an unreasonably low
reimbursement rate beneath any reasonable approximation of the
expenses they incur that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause
their wages to fall below the federal minimum wage during some or
all workweeks.

During times relevant, Defendants Houston Pizza Venture, LP, HPV-
C, LLC, and HPV Staff, LLC have owned and operated as many as
approximately 54 Papa John's franchise stores in Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Richard M. Paul III, Esq.
     PAUL LLP
     601 Walnut Street, Suite 300
     Kansas City, MO 64106
     Phone: (816) 984-8100
     Fax: (816) 984-8101
     E-mail: Rick@PaulLLP.com

        - and -

     Ryan Thompson, Esq.
     WATTS GUERRA LLP
     4 Dominion Drive
     Building 3, Suite 100
     San Antonio, TX 78257
     Phone: (210) 527-0500
     Fax: (210) 527-0501
     E-mail: rthompson@wattsguerra.co

        - and -

     Mark A. Potashnick, Esq.
     WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
     11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133
     St. Louis, MO 63141
     Phone: (314) 997-9150
     Fax: (314) 997-9170
     E-mail: markp@wp-attorneys.com


ILLINOIS: Dept. of Corrections Faces "Vasquez" Suit in N.D. Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Illinois Department
of Corrections. The case is captioned as Anthony Vasquez, George
Woodard, Julius Sangster, Bidemi Ajobiewe Jeffrey Alexander, Paul
A. Alston, Michael Anderson, et al., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Marvin Reed,
Warden; Orr, Warden; Lt. Burtle; Lt. Bradshaw; Lt. Cheeks; Major
Cheeks; Lt. Blackley; Lt. Cox; Lt. Dewitt; Sgt. Smith;
C.O. Faul; C.O. Richards; C.O. Turner; C.O. Owajawe; C.O.
Beckham/Beckman; C.O. Sours; C.O. Burgee; C.O. Ruyon; C.O.
Kuforiji; C.O. Wahls; C.O. Green; C.O. Morgan; C.O. Williams;
C.O. Tobin; Illinois Department of Corrections; Donald Stolworthy,
Acting Director of Illinois Department of Corrections; and John R.
Baldwin, Acting Director of the Illinois Department of
Corrections, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04051 (N.D. Ill.,
May 29, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Elaine E.
Bucklo.

The IDOC is the code department of the Illinois state government
that operates the adult state prison system.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Deidre Baumann, Esq.
          BAUMANN & SHULDINER
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 372 8242
          E-mail: baumannesq@gmail.com


ILLINOIS: Department of Corrections Faces "Garcia" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Corrections
Department of the State of Illinois. The case is styled as Martin
Garcia, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. John Baldwin, DIrector/Head of
Corrections Department of the State of Illinois, and Warden
Garrett, Big Muddy River Correctional Center, the Defendants, Case
No. 3:17-cv-00565-NJR (S.D. Ill., May 30, 2017). The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel.

The Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) is the code
department of the Illinois state government that operates the
adult state prison system.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


INSEL AIR: Faces "Saade" Suit in Southern District of Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Insel Air. The case
is titled as Hector G. Saade, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Insel Air, formerly
known as: Insel Air International B.V. LLC, a Netherlands Antilles
limited liability company, and Insel Air Aruba N.C., a Aruban
company, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-22003-KMW (S.D. Fla.,
May 30, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Kathleen M.
Williams.

Insel Air is a Dutch Caribbean carrier that serves as the national
airline of Curacao. It is headquartered in Maduro Plaza,
Willemstad. Insel Air currently serves 22 destinations throughout
the Caribbean, South America and North America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian Michael Torres, Esq.
          BRIAN M. TORRES, P.A.
          One S.E. Third Avenue, Suite 3000
          Miami, FL 33131-1711
          Telephone: (305) 901 5858
          Facsimile: (305) 901 5874
          btorres@briantorres.legal

               - and -

          John Granville Crabtree, Esq.
          CRABTREE & AUSLANDER
          240 Crandon Boulevard, Suite 101
          Key Biscayne, FL 33149
          Telephone: (305) 361 3770
          Facsimile: (305) 437 8118
          E-mail: jcrabtree@crabtreelaw.com

               - and -

          Jose-Luis Baloyra, Esq.
          BALOYRA LAW
          SunTrust Plaza
          201 Alhambra Circle, Suite 601
          Coral Gables, FL 33146
          Telephone: (305) 442 4142
          Facsimile: (305) 442 4377
          E-mail: Jbaloyra@baloyralaw.com

               - and -

          Milton Fuentes, Esq.
          M. FUENTES & CO.
          PO Box 431725
          Miami, FL 33243
          Telephone: (305) 447 1960
          Facsimile: (786) 288 3808
          E-mail: mf@fuenteslaw.org

               - and -

          John Cody German, Esq.
          COLE SCOTT KISSANE PA
          9150 South Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 350 5300
          E-mail: Cody.German@csklegal.com


J&L COLLECTION: Faces "Torres-Garcia" Suit in N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against J&L Collection
Services, Inc.  The case is captioned as Marisol Torres-Garcia,
individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated
consumers, the Plaintiff, v. J&L Collection Services, Inc., doing
business as J&L Teamworks, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02810-
NJV (N.D. Cal., May 16, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon.
Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas.

J&L Collections was founded in 1990. The company's line of
business includes collection and adjustment services on claims and
other insurance.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Veronica Marie Aguilar, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF VERONICA M. AGUILAR
          4231 Balboa Avenue, No. 176
          San Diego, CA 92117
          Telephone: (858) 213 7853
          E-mail: veronica@vaguilarlaw.com


JBS SA: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on May 22
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the American Depositary Receipts of JBS S.A. (OTCQX:
JBSAY) from June 2, 2015 through May 19, 2017, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for JBS investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the JBS class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1130.htmlor call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) JBS executives bribed regulators and politicians to
subvert food inspections of its plants and overlook unsanitary
practices, such as processing rotten meat and running plants with
traces of salmonella; (2) JBS Chairman Joesley Batista was
providing monthly bribery payments to a former Brazilian
government official and a lobbyist; (3) there were irregularities
with the loans JBS received from Brazilian state-owned development
bank BNDES; (4) JBS and other entities controlled by JBS Chairman
Joesley Batista and JBS CEO Wesley Batista made suspicious trades
that exhibit signs of possible insider trading prior to the
revelation of a plea deal by JBS' top executives; and (5) as a
result, defendants' statements about JBS' business, operations and
prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable bases at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.  If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
July 21, 2017.  If you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1130.htmlor to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim or Kevin Chan of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-
3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.  Since 2014, Rosen Law Firm has
been ranked #2 in the nation by Institutional Shareholder Services
for the number of securities class action settlements annually
obtained for investors. [GN]


KAISER FOUNDATION: Sued Over Eating Disorder Treatments
-------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that a Sunnyvale man has filed a class action suit against a
health plan over allegations it does not allow plan physicians to
authorize residential treatment for eating disorders.

Ian Moura filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly
situated on May 1 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc.
alleging violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff suffers from an eating
disorder.  The plaintiff holds Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc.
responsible because the defendant allegedly denied plaintiff's
claim for the residential treatment of his anorexia nervosa.

The plaintiff seeks payment of benefits due to the plaintiff,
disgorgement of profits, interest, all legal fees and any other
relief as this court deems just.  He is represented by Lisa S.
Kantor and J. David Oswalt of Kantor & Kantor LLP in Northridge
and by Kathryn M. Trepinski of the Law Offices of Kathrym M.
Trepinski in Beverly Hills.[GN]

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Case
number 3:17-cv-02475-JCS


KERYX BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Still Defends NY Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------
Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company
continues to defend class action lawsuits.

The Company said, "Four purported class action lawsuits have been
filed against us and certain of our current and former officers
(Gregory P. Madison, Scott A. Holmes, Ron Bentsur, and James
Oliviero). Three of these actions have been filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned
respectively Terrell Jackson v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et
al., No. 1:16-cv-06131 filed on August 2, 2016, Richard J.
Erickson v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 1:16-cv-
06218, filed on August 4, 2016 and Richard King v. Keryx
Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:16-cv-06233 on August 5,
2016.

"The Jackson complaint purports to be brought on behalf of
stockholders who purchased our common stock between February 25,
2016 and August 1, 2016, the Erickson complaint purports to be
brought on behalf of stockholders who purchased our common stock
between March 2, 2016 and July 29, 2016, and the King complaint
purports to be brought on behalf of stockholders who purchased our
stock between February 25, 2016 and July 29, 2016.

"On August 26, 2016, the fourth complaint, captioned Tim Karth v.
Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:16-cv-11745, was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, which complaint was subsequently amended. The Karth
complaint purports to be brought on behalf of stockholders who
purchased our stock between May 8, 2013 and August 1, 2016.

"The Jackson, Erickson and King matters were transferred to the
District of Massachusetts. The Karth plaintiffs have filed a
motion to consolidate the actions and the defendants have joined
in that motion. Each complaint generally alleges that we and
certain of our current and former officers violated Sections 10(b)
and/or 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements
concerning the Company and its business operations and future
prospects in light of the August 1, 2016 announcement of an
imminent interruption in our supply of Auryxia.

"Two stockholder derivative complaints were also filed on December
16, 2016 against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers (Gregory P. Madison, Scott A. Holmes, Ron Bentsur and
James Oliviero), certain of its current directors (Kevin J.
Cameron, Daniel P. Regan, Steven C. Gilman, Michael Rogers and
John P. Butler) and its former directors (Michael P. Tarnok,
Joseph Feczko, Jack Kaye and Wyche Fowler, Jr.), in the Superior
Court of Massachusetts, one captioned Venkat Vara Prasad Malledi
v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 16-3865 and one
captioned James Anderson v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et
al., No. 16-3866.

"Each of these two complaints generally allege that the individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to the Company,
unjustly enriched themselves by their actions, abused their
control positions with the Company, mismanaged the Company and
wasted corporate assets since July 31, 2013 in light of the August
1, 2016 announcement by the Company of an interruption in the
supply of the Company's product Auryxia.

"All of the complaints seek unspecified damages, interest,
attorneys' fees, and other costs. We deny any allegations of
wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend against these lawsuits.
There is no assurance, however, that we or the other defendants
will be successful in our defense of either of these lawsuits or
that insurance will be available or adequate to fund any
settlement or judgment or the litigation costs of these actions.

"Moreover, we are unable to predict the outcome or reasonably
estimate a range of possible losses at this time. A resolution of
these lawsuits adverse to us or the other defendants, however,
could have a material effect on our financial position and results
of operations in the period in which the particular lawsuit is
resolved."

Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. is a commercial stage
biopharmaceutical company focused on bringing innovative medicines
to people with renal disease.


LIFE STORAGE: Still Defends Class Action in New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------
Life Storage, Inc. and Life Storage LP said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4,
2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the
Company intends to vigorously defend a putative class action in
New Jersey.

On or about August 25, 2014, a putative class action was filed
against the Company in the Superior Court of New Jersey Law
Division Burlington County. The action seeks to obtain
declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief for a class of
consumers based upon alleged violations by the Company of the New
Jersey Truth in Customer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act, the
New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the New Jersey Insurance
Producer Licensing Act.

On October 17, 2014, the action was removed from the Superior
Court of New Jersey Law Division Burlington County to the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The Company brought a motion to partially dismiss the complaint
for failure to state a claim, and on July 16, 2015, the Company's
motion was granted in part and denied in part.

On October 20, 2016, the complaint was amended to add a claim that
the Company's insurance program violates New Jersey consumer
protection laws.

The Company intends to vigorously defend the action, and the
possibility of any adverse outcome cannot be determined at this
time.

The Company operates as a self-administered and self-managed real
estate investment trust (a "REIT") that owns and operates self-
storage facilities throughout the United States.


LPL FINANCIAL: Elderly Customers Battling Right to Bring Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mason Braswell, writing for Advisor Hub, reports that a pair of
elderly customers of LPL Financial are battling the firm and their
former broker over their right to bring a class-action lawsuit
alleging churning and inflated mutual fund charges.

The former customers who live in Beaumont, Texas, seek more than
$1 million in damages on behalf of "hundreds" of current and
former clients of Jason N. Anderson, who was affiliated with the
independent broker-dealer from 2007 until LPL fired him in January
2016, according to the lawsuit and Anderson's BrokerCheck history.

LPL challenged the lawsuit, which was originally filed in county
court in Jefferson County, Texas, last November, saying that the
customers under terms of their account agreements are subject to
mandatory arbitration rather than courthouse litigation.  The case
was transferred to federal court in the eastern district of Texas.

A class-action complaint is "superior to all other available
methods" because it avoids a large number of individual complaints
and allows those with small losses to recover damages without
having to pay for litigation costs, lead plaintiffs Elijah Denson
and Olan Weeks said in their initial filing.

The lawsuit alleges that LPL was negligent in failing to train and
supervise Anderson.  LPL fired Anderson in January 2016 for
discretionary trading without authorization, according to his
BrokerCheck history and to the lawsuit.

Messrs. Denson and Weeks, each of whom are over 65, claim to have
suffered a combined $630,000 loss in retirement accounts that were
originally valued at $3.5 million.

"LPL knew (or should have known) Anderson had repeatedly engaged
in such unlawful activity for quite some time," they alleged.

Anderson, who briefly worked for two other firms after leaving LPL
and is not currently registered with the Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority, could not be reached for comment.  His
lawyer, Kelli B. Smith in Beaumont, did not respond to a call for
comment.

A spokesman for LPL did not immediately return a request for
comment.

Messrs. Denson and Weeks have since moved their accounts from LPL
to an unidentified firm, according to the complaint.  They lawyer,
Richard Coffman, did not respond to a request for comment. [GN]


KCG HOLDINGS: Berg Files Suit Over Virtu Financial Merger
---------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT BERG, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. KCG HOLDINGS, INC., CHARLES HALDEMAN,
DEBRA CHRAPATY, DANIEL COLEMAN, PETER R. FISHER, RENE M. KERN,
JAMES T. MILDE, JOHN C. MORRIS, ALASTAIR RAMPELL, DANIEL F.
SCHMITT, LAURIE M. SHAHON, COLIN SMITH, HEATHER E. TOOKES, ADRIAN
WELLER, VIRTU FINANCIAL, INC., and ORCHESTRA MERGER SUB, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-03802 (S.D.N.Y., May 19, 2017),
alleges that the Proxy Statement related to the acquisition of KCG
Holdings, Inc. by Virtu Financial, Inc. and Orchestra Merger Sub,
Inc. omits material information with respect to the Proposed
Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and
misleading. Accordingly, plaintiff alleges that defendants
violated the Securities Exchange Act.

Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of KCG
will receive $20.00 per share in cash.

The case alleges that the Proxy Statement omits material
information regarding (i) KCG's financial projections and the
financial analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor,
Goldman, in support of its so-called fairness opinion, (ii)
potential conflicts of interest of the Company's officers and
directors, (iii) potential conflicts of interest of Goldman, (iv)
the background of the Proposed Transaction.

KCG Holdings, Inc. offers services designed to address trading
needs across asset classes, product types, and time zones.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Timothy J. MacFall, Esq.
     RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
     825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Phone: (516) 683-3516

        - and -

     Brian D. Long, Esq.
     Gina M. Serra, Esq.
     RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
     2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
     Wilmington, DE 19803
     Phone: (302) 295-5310
     Fax: (302) 654-7530

        - and -

     Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
     RM LAW, P.C.
     1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 3112
     Berwyn, PA 19312
     Phone: (484) 324-6800


KCG HOLDINGS: "Pauza" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Virtu Merger
-------------------------------------------------------
Colleen Pauza, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. KCG Holdings, Inc., Charles E. Haldeman,
Jr., Debra J. Chrapaty, Daniel Coleman, Peter R. Fisher, Rene M.
Kern, James T. Milde, John C. Morris, Alastair Rampell, Daniel F.
Schmitt, Laurie M. Shahon, Colin Smith, Heather E. Tookes and
Adrian Weller, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-03885 (S.D.N.Y., May
23, 2017), seeks to enjoin a proposed transaction, pursuant to
which KCG will be acquired by Virtu Financial, Inc., through its
wholly-owned subsidiary Orchestra Merger Sub, Inc.  The proposed
transaction is valued at approximately $1.4 billion.

The case alleges that the Proxy Statement, which recommends that
KCG stockholders vote in favor of the proposed transaction, omits
or misrepresents material information concerning, among other
things: (1) KCG's financial projections, relied upon by KCG's
financial advisor Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC in its financial
analyses; (ii) the data and inputs underlying the financial
valuation analyses that support the fairness opinion provided by
Goldman; and (iii) the background process leading to the Proposed
Transaction.

The failure to adequately disclose such material information
constitutes an alleged violation of the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Act, says the complaint.

KCG Holdings, Inc. is an independent securities firm offering
investors a range of services designed to address trading
needs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
     WEISSLAW LLP
     1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
     New York, NY 10036
     Phone: (212) 682-3025
     Fax: (212) 682-3010
     Email: racocelli@weisslawllp.com

        - and -

     Melissa A. Fortunato, Esq.
     BRAGA EAGEL & SCQUIRE, P.C.
     885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040
     New York, NY 10022
     Phone: 212 308 5858
     Fax: 212 214 0506
     E-mail: fortunato@bespc.com


KCG HOLDINGS: Faces "Siegal" Securities Suit Over Virtu Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRYAN SIEGAL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. KCG HOLDINGS, INC., CHARLES HALDEMAN,
DEBRA CHRAPATY, DANIEL COLEMAN, PETER R. FISHER, RENE M. KERN,
JAMES T. MILDE, JOHN MORRIS, ALASTAIR RAMPELL, DANIEL F. SCHMITT,
LAURIE M. SHAHON, COLIN SMITH, HEATHER E. TOOKES, and ADRIAN
WELLER, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-3886 (S.D.N.Y., May 23,
2017), alleges that Defendants violated the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Act by filing a materially incomplete and misleading
Definitive Proxy Statement in connection with the proposed merger
between KCG, Virtu Financial, Inc., and Orchestra Merger Sub, Inc.

In particular, the Proxy contains materially incomplete and
misleading information concerning: (i) financial projections for
the Company; (ii) the valuation analyses performed by the
Company's financial advisor, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, in support
of its fairness opinion; and (iii) a significant conflict of
interest Goldman faced as a result of its sizeable holdings in
Virtu.

Pursuant to the merger, the Company's shareholders stand to
receive $20.00 in cash for each share of KCG common stock they
own.

KCG HOLDINGS, INC. is a leading independent securities firm.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

        - and -

     Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
     MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
     The Empire State Building
     350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
     New York, NY 10118
     Phone: 212 971 1341
     Fax: (212) 202-7880
     E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com


LERNOUT & HAUSPIE: Court Rules on Recognition of Settlements
------------------------------------------------------------
Quentin Decleve, Esq. -- qdecleve@vbb.com -- of Van Bael & Bellis,
in an article for Mondaq, wrote that on March 23, 2017, the Ghent
Court of Appeal (Hof van Beroep/Cour d'Appel) ("Court of Appeal")
handed down a lengthy judgment on the merits in the well-known
Lernout & Hauspie ("L&H") case.  The judgment contains a specific
section on the recognition in Belgium of two United States opt-out
class action settlements.

Class action suits are legal devices that allow an individual (or
a small group of individuals) to proceed in court on behalf of a
much larger and unnamed group of individuals, who have suffered a
similar injury and who share common claims.

While class actions form an integral part of the judicial system
in the United States, European jurisdictions (with the notable
exception of the Netherlands) tend to be very cautious with
respect to this instrument.  It is only in June 2013 that the
European Union published a recommendation setting out a series of
common, non-binding principles that EU Member States should adopt
in order to put collective redress mechanisms in place.  Based on
this recommendation, some EU Member States that previously did not
allow for collective redress mechanisms have since introduced them
into their legal systems.

In contrast with the American class action system -- where any
individual who fulfils the conditions to be part of a class action
will automatically be considered as part of the class bringing the
action, unless that member expressively indicates his desire to be
excluded from the proceedings (i.e., "opt-out" system) -- most
European systems have embraced an "opt-in" system. In such a
system, plaintiff classes are formed through the express consent
of their members.

The case at hand concerns an interesting scenario in which the
Belgian court, belonging to a jurisdiction in which only opt-in
class actions are allowed, was asked to recognise a U.S. opt-out
class action settlement.

Facts

L&H was a Belgian company incorporated in the 1980's that
specialised in voice recognition.  The company had a spectacular
growth and was listed both on NASDAQ and on the Brussels stock
exchanges.  At its peak, L&H was considered to be a leading
company in its field.

However, L&H went bankrupt in the early 2000's following
significant securities fraud engaged in by its management.

This gave rise to both civil and criminal cases in Belgium against
L&H's key executives, L&H's bank (Dexia Bank) and L&H's statutory
auditor (KPMG).

In the meantime, class actions were also initiated in the United
States against Dexia Bank and KPMG by investors who sought
compensation for the loss suffered.  Those cases were ultimately
settled as KPMG agreed to pay USD 115 million and Dexia Bank
agreed to pay USD 60 million. Importantly, because those cases
arose in the United States, those settlements constituted opt-out
settlements.

Issue

One of the key issues that arose during the proceedings before the
Court of Appeal, was whether the decision of the American courts
approving the class action settlements in the KPMG and Dexia Bank
cases could be recognised in Belgium.  This would consequently
preclude the civil claimants who were part of the class that
benefited from the settlement (but had not opted-out of those
proceedings) from claiming damages in the Belgian procedure.

In order to answer this question, the Court of Appeal turned to
the Belgian provisions governing the recognition and enforcement
of foreign (i.e., non-EU) judgments.  Those rules are contained in
Articles 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 of the Belgian Code of Private
International Law ("CPIL").

Analysis of Court of Appeal's Reasoning

At the outset of its analysis, the Court of Appeal had no
difficulty to establish that the class action settlements reached
in the United States consisted of "judgments" (and were therefore
subject to scrutiny under Articles 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 of the
CPIL), as they were enacted by courts in the United States.

The Court of Appeal then turned to the important question of
whether there was any valid justification to refuse to recognise
the class action settlement in Belgium.  In this regard, the Court
of Appeal turned to Article 25 of the CPIL which provides for
various grounds for refusing to recognise and enforce a foreign
judgment as follows:

A foreign court judgment shall not be recognised and enforced in
Belgium if:

1. the recognition or enforcement of this judgment would lead to a
violation of public policy;

2. the rights of the defence have been violated; [...]

7. only Belgian courts had jurisdiction to rule on the matter; and

8. the foreign court's jurisdiction was based on the mere fact
that the defendant was located in this jurisdiction, but without
any other substantial relationship with this jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs before the Court of Appeal contested the fact that
the U.S. class action settlements should be recognised in Belgium
(as this would result in a limitation of their rights to claim
damages).

More specifically, the plaintiffs argued: (i) that recognising the
U.S. class action settlements would be a violation of public
policy (Article 25, Sec. 1, 1 of the CPIL) as Belgium only
recognises "opt-in" (and not "opt-out") class action mechanisms;
(ii) that the U.S. opt-out class action system violated their
rights of defence (Article 25, Sec. 1, 2 of the CPIL); and (iii)
that the American courts had exceeded this jurisdiction and that
only the Belgian Courts should have been competent to rule on this
matter.

First, with respect to the public policy argument, the Court of
Appeal noted that class action mechanisms have recently been
introduced in Belgian law as well (See, Title II of Book XVII of
the Code of Economic Law) and that, when enacting those new legal
provisions, Parliament had specifically emphasised that class
action mechanisms complied with Article 6 of the European
Convention on Human Rights ("ECHR").  Furthermore, the Court of
Appeal methodically proceeded with a comparison of the American
and the Belgian class action systems, it concluded that the U.S.
class action regime did not offer less procedural guarantees than
the Belgian system.  Indeed, the American class actions system
allows for the right to appeal, organises spread-out publications
and provides for an assessment of adequacy and reasonability of
the settlements before enactment.

Second, the plaintiffs argued that the Court of Appeal should
refuse to recognise the U.S. class action settlements as their
rights of defence had been violated.  This is because some members
of the class were not U.S. residents and had therefore not
sufficiently been informed of the proceedings, including the legal
consequences of the opt-out system.  However, the Court of Appeal
noted that: (i) all the identifiable members of the class actions
had been personally notified of the class action proceedings; (ii)
the class action proceedings had featured in several newspapers
such as The Wall Street Journal and The Wall Street Journal
Europe; (iii) articles had been published in De Tijd and other
Belgian newspapers; (iv) a website had been set up solely for
these class actions' purposes; and (v) the Belgian financial
institutions had also relayed the information. Consequently, the
Court of Appeal concluded that a normal and diligent investor,
placed in the same circumstances, would have been aware of the
action.  As a result, the plaintiffs' rights of defence had not
been violated.

Third, the plaintiffs relied on Articles 25 7 and 8 of the CPIL
and alleged that the American courts had exceeded their
jurisdiction as only the Belgian Courts should have been competent
to rule on this matter. The Court of Appeal dismissed this claim
as well.

With respect to the application of Article 25 7 of the CPIL, the
Court of Appeal found that the plaintiffs did not sufficiently
demonstrate that only Belgian Courts had jurisdiction over the
dispute.

With respect to the application of Article 25 8 of the CPIL, the
Court of Appeal found that the American courts had validly
asserted jurisdiction since L&H had sufficient links with the
United States (one of L&H's headquarters was located in
Massachusetts and the company was listed on the NASDAQ stock
exchange).

Therefore, the Court of Appeal held that none of the grounds
listed under Article 25 of the CPIL could validly be raised in the
case at hand and the U.S. class action settlements had to be
recognised in Belgium.

As a consequence, all civil claimants in the proceedings before
the Court of Appeal who were also part of the class that benefited
from the U.S. settlements, but had not opted-out of those
proceedings, were precluded from asserting their rights before the
Court of Appeal.

Although the end result is not surprising, opt-out class action
settlements will have to be handled with caution.  Indeed, while
it is likely that many L&H Belgian investors were aware of the
existence and the consequences of those settlements, these
investors probably never thought that the settlements would have
consequences for their rights under Belgian Law.  The judgment of
the Court of Appeal does not imply that all class action
settlements will automatically be recognised in the Belgian legal
system.  At the same time, the Court of Appeal's judgment confirms
that U.S. opt-out class action settlements are not, per se,
deprived of any legal effects in Belgium. [GN]


LG ELECTRONICS: Faces "Jung" Suit Over Defective Refrigerators
--------------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS JUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. LG ELECTRONICS USA, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:17-cv-03664-WJM-MF (D.N.J., May 22, 2017), alleges that
Defendant concealed from the consuming public material facts about
defects in its refrigerators.

Allegedly, these refrigerators were manufactured, distributed
and/or sold by Defendant with one or both (depending on model) of
two design defects. The first, the "Fan Defect," causes
refrigerators' fans to malfunction, and thus causes the
refrigerators to fail in their essential function of keeping food
at appropriate temperatures. The second, the "Ice Maker Defect,"
causes the in-door ice makers to become jammed and stop dispensing
ice.

Defendant LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. is a Delaware corporation
that sells home appliances, mobile communications devices and
other electronics in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Janine L. Pollack, Esq.
     Matthew M. Guiney, Esq.
     Kate McGuire, Esq.
     WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
     270 Madison Avenue
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 545-4600
     Fax: (212) 686-0114
     Email: pollack@whafh.com
            guiney@whafh.com
            mcguire@whafh.com


LLR INC: "Doran" Suit Moved to District of Oregon
-------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled TERRI DORAN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LLR
Inc. dba LuLaRoe, the Defendant, Case No. 17CV15823, was removed
on May 18, 2017, from the Multnomah County Circuit Court, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-00781-BR to the proceeding.

The complaint alleges that Defendant manufactures and sells
leggings that have a "materially defective quality and design that
causes them to develop holes, tears, rips, and fading
before, during, and soon after their first use by a consumer," but
advertises the leggings to Oregon consumers as fit for ordinary
use. The complaint further alleges that Defendant is "highly aware
that its leggings are defective, and recklessly continues to
manufacture, market, and sell them to Oregon consumers" through a
"multi-level marketing scheme."

LuLaRoe sells women's dresses, maxi skirts, pencil skirts, a-line
skirts, and sheath dresses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Fuller, Esq.
          OLSEN DAINES PC
          US Bancorp Tower
          111 SW 5th Ave., Suite 3150
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: 503-201-4570
          E-mail: michael@underdoglawyer.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Brad S. Daniels, Esq.
          Rachel Lee, Esq.
          Samantha K. Sondag, Esq.
          STOEL RIVES LLP
          760 SW Ninth Avenue, Suite 3000
          Portland, OR 97205
          Telephone: (503) 224 3380
          Facsimile: (503) 220 2480
          E-mail: brad.daniels@stoel.com
                  rachel.lee@stoel.com
                  samantha.sondag@stoel.com


LTD FINANCIAL: Faces "Stern" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LTD Financial
Services, L.P.  The case is captioned as Aharon Stern, on behalf
of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, the
Plaintiff, v. LTD Financial Services, L.P., the Defendant, Case
No. 1:17-cv-03232 (E.D.N.Y., May 30, 2017).

LTD Financial is a debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MCELVAIN GROUP: Faces "Hoffman" Suit Under FLSA, Ohio Wage Laws
---------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Hoffman (326 Hammond Ave., Mansfield, Ohio 44902) -and-
Tina Rutter (1229 Pawnee Avenue, Mansfield, Ohio 44906) -and-
Tevin Gomez (130 S. Trimble Rd., Apt. 11, Mansfield, Ohio 44906)
Individually and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. McElvain Group Homes (634
McBride Rd., Mansfield, Ohio 44905) -and- Kathy McElvain,
individually (634 McBride Rd., Mansfield, Ohio 44905) Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-01073 (N.D. Ohio, May 22, 2017), alleges that Ms.
Hoffman regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, but was not
paid one and one-half her regular rate for those hours worked over
40.

The case alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

Defendant McElvain Group Homes is a home care staffing agency of
direct care workers and provider of residential care for the
developmentally disabled.  Plaintiff Hoffman worked as a
caregiver, or home health aide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
     COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
     1457 S. High St.
     Columbus, OH 43207
     Phone: 614-949-1181
     Fax: 614-386-9964
     Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

     Peter A. Contreras, Esq.
     CONTRERAS LAW, LLC
     PO Box 215
     Amlin, OH 43002
     Phone: 614-787-4878
     Fax: 614-923-7369
     Email: peter.contreras@contrerasfirm.com


MCCLATCHY COMPANY: Plaintiffs' Appeal in Fresno Bee Case Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The McClatchy Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 26, 2017, that plaintiffs' appeal
remains pending in the case against the Company and The Fresno
Bee.

The Company said, "In December 2008, carriers of The Fresno Bee
filed a class action lawsuit against us and The Fresno Bee in the
Superior Court of the State of California in Fresno County
captioned Becerra v. The McClatchy Company ("Fresno case")
alleging that the carriers were misclassified as independent
contractors and seeking mileage reimbursement."

"In February 2009, a substantially similar lawsuit, Sawin v. The
McClatchy Company, involving similar allegations was filed by
carriers of The Sacramento Bee ("Sacramento case") in the Superior
Court of the State of California in Sacramento County. The class
consists of roughly 5,000 carriers in the Sacramento case and
3,500 carriers in the Fresno case."

The plaintiffs in both cases are seeking unspecified restitution
for mileage reimbursement.  With respect to the Sacramento case,
in September 2013, all wage and hour claims were dismissed and the
only remaining claim is an equitable claim for mileage
reimbursement under the California Civil Code.

In the Fresno case, in March 2014, all wage and hour claims were
dismissed and the only remaining claim is an equitable claim for
mileage reimbursement under the California Civil Code.

The court in the Sacramento case trifurcated the trial into three
separate phases: the first phase addressed independent contractor
status, the second phase will address liability, if any, and the
third phase will address restitution, if any.

On September 22, 2014, the court in the Sacramento case issued a
tentative decision following the first phase, finding that the
carriers that contracted directly with The Sacramento Bee during
the period from February 2005 to July 2009 were misclassified as
independent contractors.

The Company said, "We objected to the tentative decision but the
court ultimately adopted it as final. The court has not yet
established a date for the second and third phases of trial
concerning whether The Sacramento Bee is liable to the carriers in
the class for mileage reimbursement or owes any restitution."

"In June 2016, The McClatchy Company was dismissed from the
lawsuit, leaving The Sacramento Bee as the sole defendant."

The court in the Fresno case bifurcated the trial into two
separate phases: the first phase addressed independent contractor
status and liability for mileage reimbursement and the second
phase was designated to address restitution, if any. The first
phase of the Fresno case began in the fourth quarter of 2014 and
concluded in late March 2015.

The Company said, "On April 14, 2016, the court in the Fresno case
issued a statement of final decision in favor of us and The Fresno
Bee. Accordingly, there will be no second phase. The plantiffs
filed a Notice of Appeal on November 10, 2016."

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

The Company said, "We continue to defend these actions vigorously
and expect that we will ultimately prevail. As a result, we have
not established a reserve in connection with the cases. While we
believe that a material impact on our condensed consolidated
financial position, results of operations or cash flows from these
claims is unlikely, given the inherent uncertainty of litigation,
a possibility exists that future adverse rulings or unfavorable
developments could result in future charges that could have a
material impact. We have and will continue to periodically
reexamine our estimates of probable liabilities and any associated
expenses and make appropriate adjustments to such estimates based
on experience and developments in litigation."

McClatchy is a news and information publisher of publications such
as the Miami Herald, The Kansas City Star, The Sacramento Bee, The
Charlotte Observer,  The (Raleigh) News & Observer, and the (Fort
Worth) Star-Telegram.


MERITOR INC: Sixth Circuit Reversed District Court's Decision
-------------------------------------------------------------
Meritor, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended April 2, 2017, that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has reversed a District Court's
decision and finding that the retiree medical benefits were not
vested for life through the CBAs.

In fiscal years 2002 and 2004, the company approved amendments to
certain retiree medical plans, including health benefits for
retirees (and their surviving spouses) who were formerly United
Auto Workers ("UAW") members at ten former Rockwell International
("Rockwell") plants. Certain of these plan amendments were
challenged in lawsuits that were filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan ("District
Court") alleging the changes breached the terms of various
collective bargaining agreements ("CBAs") entered into by Rockwell
and the UAW for facilities that have either been closed or sold
and alleging a companion claim under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA").

The two class actions lawsuits that were filed in 2004 (Cole v.
ArvinMeritor, et al. and Faust v. ArvinMeritor, et al.) by the UAW
and retirees and surviving spouses claimed that the health
benefits were vested for life through the negotiated CBAs. These
actions were subsequently consolidated.

On December 22, 2005, the District Court issued a preliminary
injunction enjoining the company from implementing changes to
retiree health benefits and ordered the company to reinstate and
resume paying the full cost of health benefits for the UAW
retirees at the levels existing prior to the changes made in 2002
and 2004. In 2006, the District Court granted a motion by the UAW
for summary judgment and granted the UAW's request to make the
terms of the preliminary injunction permanent (the "injunction").
The company accounted for the injunction as a rescission of the
2002 and 2004 plan amendments and began recording the impact of
the injunction in March 2006.

In addition, the injunction ordered the defendants to reimburse
the plaintiffs for out-of-pocket expenses incurred since the date
of the earlier benefit modifications. The company has recorded a
$2 million reserve at March 31, 2017 and September 30, 2016, as
the best estimate of its liability for these retroactive benefits.

In 2007, the company appealed the District Court's order to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The Sixth Circuit
ruled to affirm the District Court's ruling and the company moved
for an en banc rehearing. This motion was held in abeyance while
the parties attempted to settle the case.

In July, 2016 the company moved for re-hearing based on a January
2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision on the subject matter and a
subsequent Sixth Circuit ruling in a separate case on the same
subject matter.  The court granted the re-hearing and in April
2017, the Sixth Circuit issued its decision, reversing the
District Court's decision and finding that the retiree medical
benefits were not vested for life through the CBAs.

The company expects the plaintiffs to appeal for either a re-
hearing en banc with the Sixth Circuit or the Supreme Court, or
both.

Meritor, Inc., headquartered in Troy, Michigan, is a premier
global supplier of a broad range of integrated systems, modules
and components to original equipment manufacturers ("OEMs") and
the aftermarket for the commercial vehicle, transportation and
industrial sectors. The company serves commercial truck, trailer,
military, bus and coach, construction and other industrial OEMs
and certain aftermarkets.


MICHAEL STAPLETON: Faces "Blackmon" Suit for Not Paying OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
PHILLIP BLACKMON, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL STAPLETON ASSOCIATES, LTD. d/b/a
MSA SECURITY, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-01362-B (N.D. Tex., May
22, 2017), alleges that Defendant is violating the Fair Labor
Standards Act by forcing its explosive detection canine handlers
to work a substantial amount of time without properly paying
compensation for all hours worked and by forcing them to work a
substantial amount of overtime without properly paying overtime
compensation, thus depriving them of rightful compensation for
their work that MSA is legally obligated to pay.

Michael Stapleton Associates d/b/a MSA Security is in the business
of providing security, intelligence, training, and investigative
services.  Plaintiff Blackmon worked for Defendant as an explosive
detection canine handler.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert W. Cowan, Esq.
     Justin C. Jenson, Esq.
     BAILEY PEAVY BAILEY PLLC
     440 Louisiana Street, Suite 2100
     Houston, TX 77002
     Phone: (713) 425-7100
     Fax: (713) 425-7101
     E-mail: rcowan@bpblaw.com
             jjenson@bpblaw.com


MOMEL PARTNERS: Baez Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages Under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARCO RUBIO BAEZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. MOMEL PARTNERS, INC., a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. 17CV310564 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 18, 2017), seeks to
recover compensatory damages in the amount of the unpaid minimum
wages for work performed by Employees and unpaid overtime
compensation under the Labor Code.

Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and all current
and former employees within the State of California who, at any
time four years prior to the filing of this lawsuit, are or were
employed by Defendants. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, and
each of them, violated various provisions of the California Labor
Code, relevant orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission, and
California Business & Professions Code.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Yeremian, Esq.
          Roman Shkodnik, Esq.
          DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
          535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 230 8380
          Facsimile: (818) 230 0308
          E-mail: david@yeremianlaw.com
                  roman@yeremianlaw.com


MONSANTO CO: Faces "Abbott" Suit Over Roundup Concentrates Ad
-------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER ABBOTT, Plaintiff, vs. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00315-JHM-CHL (W.D. Ken., May 22, 2017), alleges
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, that
Defendant's advertisement of its Roundup Concentrates as being
capable of making a certain number of gallons, and as being
effective at addressing specific applications are false because
the Roundup Concentrates were in fact only capable of making about
half the number of gallons represented on the front of the bottle
when diluted with water to the strength required for the uses
advertised on the label of each product.  The case alleges
violations of the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act.

Monsanto Co. manufactures agricultural products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     S. Wade Yeoman, Esq.
     Corey Ann Finn, Esq.
     CAUDILL FINN & YEOMAN
     231 S. Fifth Street
     3rd Floor
     Louisville, KY 40202
     Phone: (502) 641-4765
     E-mail: corey@cfylawyers.com
             wade@cfylawyers.com

        - and -

     Martin Jerisat, Esq.
     JERISAT FIRM
     1600 N. Broadway St., Ste. 650
     Santa Ana, CA 92706
     Phone: (714) 571- 5700
            (312) 332- 0333
     Fax: (844) 362- 6610
     E-mail: mjerisat@jlawoffices.com

        - and -

     Aaron Rapier, Esq.
     RAPIER LAW FIRM
     1770 Park St., Suite 200
     Naperville, IL 60563
     Phone: (815) 782-5478
     Fax: (815) 327-3449
     E-mail: arapier@rapierlawfirm.com


NEUROTROPE INC: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on May 22 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against Neurotrope, Inc. ("Neurotrope" or
the "Company") (Nasdaq:NTRP) in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a class
consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
Neurotrope stock on the open market from January 7, 2016 through
April 28, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover
compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse information
regarding the efficacy of its lead product candidate, Bryostatin-
1.  On May 1, 2017, the Company 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."  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.  The Company
also allegedly failed to disclose statements about the efficacy of
the 40 microgram dose in connection with its primary and secondary
endpoints.  On this news, shares of the Company fell from $18.81
per share on April 28, 2017 to a close at $6.97 per share on May
1, 2017.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than July 17, 2017.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of
Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at
tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com.
[GN]


NEW YORK: MTA Faces Class Action Over Lead-Based Paint Chips
------------------------------------------------------------
Ameena Walker, writing for Curbed New York, reports that the MTA
is being hit with yet another class-action lawsuit, this time with
seven train riders accusing the agency of "wrongfully, knowingly,
deliberately, intentionally, and as a matter of policy" allowed
dangerous lead-based paint chips to fall from ill-maintained seven
train stations in Queens.

According to DNAinfo, Jackson Heights residents and business
owners came together, after years of complaining, to hold the
agency accountable for creating a "severe health emergency" after
an analysis conducted in April found the paint chips to contain
almost 50 times the allowable level of lead.

"This isn't something new," said Assemblyman Francisco Moya. "This
is a fight that's been continuing for a number of years and it's
time to call the MTA out."

The plaintiffs say that conditions are the worst at the elevated
structure between 103rd Street and 52nd Street. With the pending
lawsuit, the community is hoping that the MTA will finally fulfill
their promise to repaint the dilapidated stations.

When contacted by DNAinfo, an MTA spokesperson stated that the
agency's own air quality test didn't find any unsafe conditions.

Earlier in May, the agency was at the center of another class-
action lawsuit alleging that the MTA discriminates against people
with disabilities, thanks to a widespread lack of the elevators
and electric lifts.  Following the lawsuit filing, Comptroller
Scott Stringer's office undertook an audit of a random sample of
the subway system's escalators and elevators and found that a
large majority of them weren't being properly repaired or
maintained. [GN]


NICKY MEATBALLS: "Tepole" Suit Alleges FLSA Breach
--------------------------------------------------
MARCO ANTONIO TETLACTLE TEPOLE, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, against NICKY MEATBALLS INC.
(d/b/a POLPETTE), and NICHOLAS MORMANDO, Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-03780 (S.D.N.Y., May 19, 2017), alleges that while
Plaintiff Antonio was employed as a dishwasher and delivery
worker, he was required to spend several hours each day performing
non-tipped duties unrelated to deliveries.

Plaintiff Antonio worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without receiving the applicable minimum wage or appropriate
compensation for the hours over 40 per week that he worked.  The
case alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Polpette is an Italian restaurant owned by Nicholas Mormando.
Plaintiff was employed as a dishwasher and delivery worker.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
     MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
     New York, NY 10165
     Phone: (212) 317 1200


NIKITA LEVY: Settlement Checks Mailed June 2
--------------------------------------------
Alison Knezevich, writing for The Baltimore Sun, reports that
after several years of legal work, settlement checks were mailed
to more than 8,000 former patients of Dr. Nikita Levy, the Johns
Hopkins gynecologist accused of secretly photographing and filming
women during pelvic exams.

Baltimore Circuit Judge Sylvester B. Cox has approved the final
allocation plan, said retired Maryland Court of Appeals Judge Irma
S. Raker, who served as claims adjudicator in the class-action
case.  She said the checks -- which range from $1,876.77 to
$27,934.93 -- were mailed by June 2.

"The goal is to get the award into the hands of the claimants as
soon as reasonably possible and legally possible," Judge Raker
said.

Levy worked for more than two decades at a Hopkins clinic in East
Baltimore.  In 2013, amid a police investigation into the
allegations against him, the doctor killed himself at age 54.
Investigators said they discovered more than 1,300 images that he
secretly compiled.

The judge's approval on May 22of the final distribution amounts
brings some closure to the case, which has been described as the
largest sexual abuse settlement stemming from a single perpetrator
in U.S. history.

In 2014, Cox approved a $190 million settlement between Johns
Hopkins and the patients, but that wasn't the end of the case.

"It was a painstaking, lengthy process," said attorney Jonathan
Schochor, who chaired the plaintiffs' steering committee for the
class action.

Each woman had to be interviewed to assess the extent of damage
she suffered.  Former patients were interviewed and placed into
four categories -- from those with no perceptible injury to those
with "severe" injury.

The largest number of women -- 4,738 -- fell into the "moderate"
category and will receive about $21,500 each, according to Judge
Raker.

Payment uncertain for 2,000 women in class-action lawsuit over
former Hopkins gynecologist

The final settlement amounts are higher than initially expected
because some funds had been set aside for appeals, Judge Raker
said. This past December, women in the class-action case received
letters with preliminary allocations that ranged from $1,750 to
$26,048.

About 2.8 percent of the women appealed their preliminary awards,
Judge Raker said.

Once the appeals were over, the leftover money was distributed
proportionally among the women, she said.

The women could not be identified in Levy's images, so everyone
who had been treated by Levy was eligible to file a claim in the
class action.  Mr. Schochor said that initially, more than 15,200
claims were filed.

More than a third of the initial claims were duplicates, and those
were weeded out, he said. More than 1,000 people were found to not
have been patients of Levy.

Hopkins spokeswoman Kim Hoppe said the hospital system had no
involvement in allocating the money.

RG/2 Claims Administration was the court-appointed claims
administrator.

Over the past several years, some of the women have complained
about issues including the length of the claims process and the
amount of money that will go to the lawyers.  In 2015, Cox awarded
$32 million in attorney's fees -- an amount that was less than
half of what the lawyers sought.

Bessie Smith, 29, was placed in the category of women who had
suffered the most severely but was not satisfied with the amount
of her award.  She appealed, but that was denied.

Ms. Smith said Levy delivered her stillborn son in 2009. When she
found out about the accusations that Levy secretly taped women, it
compounded the trauma she already suffered, she said.

She said she still won't go to see doctors.

"I don't trust them," Ms. Smith said.  "I'll die on the streets
before I go back to Johns Hopkins."

Another woman, 30-year-old LaQuishia Johnson, also said the
experience has damaged her perception of doctors. She said she
suffered two strokes in 2015.

"The reason I had two strokes was that I didn't go to the doctor
because of my anxiety," Ms. Johnson said.

Ms. Johnson said she is "content, [but] not completely satisfied"
with the claims process, which she felt dragged on.

Gregory Dolin, co-director of the Center for Medicine and Law at
the University of Baltimore School of Law, said that frustrations
about the process are understandable, but it's important in a
class action that "you treat like people alike."

"It's not an instantaneous process," he said.  "Of course, they
want to get their settlements and they want to put this behind
them.  I totally get that."

Judge Raker urged women in the case to make sure they have
submitted W-9 forms to RG/2, and ensure that their contact
information is up-to-date.  More information on the case is
available to claimants at drlevyclassaction.com. [GN]


OMEGA PROTEIN: Class Action Transferred to SDNY Court
-----------------------------------------------------
B. Colby Hamilton, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
an investor class action case transferred into the Southern
District on May 19, alleging a fishing operation that produces
food and supplement ingredients misled investors over multiple
federal investigations over environmental law violations and
whistleblower intimidation.

The case, Ahern v. Omega Protein Corporation et al, 1:17-cv-03778,
was moved from the Central District of California at the request
of the plaintiffs to bring it into the same jurisdiction as a
parallel investor suit, Diehl v. Omega Protein Corporation et al,
1:17-cv-02448, already proceeding.

Both cases claim Omega Protein Corporation and its controlling
directors misled investors by not disclosing investigations that
led to drops in the company's stock.

In Ahern, for example, Omega filed reports with the Securities and
Exchange Commission in August and November 2016 that nothing was
likely to affect internal control over reporting.  In December,
the company alerted the SEC that it had pleaded guilty to felony
counts of the Clean Water Act with the U.S. Attorney's Office for
the Western District of Louisiana.

Likewise, in Diehl, Omega filed similar assurances with the SEC
over its internal controls ahead of December 2016, when the
company had to report that it received a subpoena connected to an
investigation into a subsidiary's potential breach of
whistleblower protection protections.

IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund is a party to both cases, and the lead
plaintiff in Diehl.

The plaintiffs in Ahern are represented by Laurence Rosen,
managing partner of The Rosen Law Firm, Tricia McCormick --
TriciaM@rgrdlaw.com -- special counsel at Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd, and Jennifer Pafiti, partner and head of investor relations
at Pomerantz LLP.

The defendants are represented by Kendall Brill Kelly name partner
Laura Brill -- lbrill@kbkfirm.com -- and Joshua Sussman
-- jsussman@kbkfirm.com -- an attorney with the firm. [GN]


OPTUMRX INC: Faces "Johnson" Suit Over Overpriced Victoza
---------------------------------------------------------
RUTH JOHNSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. OPTUMRX INC. AND NOVO
NORDISK INC., Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-00900 (C.D. Cal., May
23, 2017), seeks to redress injuries the Plaintiff allegedly
suffered due to an illegal pricing scheme in which Novo Nordisk, a
drug manufacturer, artificially inflated the price of
Victoza -- an injectable prescription medicine use to treat Type 2
diabetes -- to subsidize the payment of illegal kickbacks to
OptumRx, a pharmacy benefit manager that negotiates drug prices on
behalf of insurers, health plans, and their participants.

OptumRx Inc. is a pharmacy benefit manager.  Novo Nordisk Inc.
manufactures diabetes products including Victoza, an incretin
mimetic drug.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Derek W. Loeser, Esq.
     Gretchen S. Obrist, Esq.
     KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
     1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
     Seattle, WA 98101-3052
     Phone: (206) 623-1900
     Fax: (206) 623-3384
     E-mail: dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
             gobrist@kellerrorhback.com

        - and -

     Juli E. Farris, Esq.
     KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
     801 Garden Street, Suite 301
     Santa Barbara, CA 93101
     Phone: (805) 456-1496
     Fax: (805) 456-1497
     E-mail: jfarris@kellerrohrback.com


ORANGE TREE EMPLOYMENT: Faces "Sanchez" Suit in N.D. Georgia
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Orange Tree
Employment Screening LLC. The case is entitled as David Sanchez,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Orange Tree Employment Screening LLC and Launch
Technical Workforce Solutions, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-
cv-01904-ELR-AJB (N.D. Ga., May 25, 2017). The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Eleanor L. Ross.

Orange Tree provides employment screening and background checking
services for companies and mid-sized organizations in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Weiner, Esq.
          Jeffrey Sand, Esq.
          THE WEINER LAW FIRM, LLC
          3525 Piedmont Road
          7 Piedmont Center, 3rd Floor
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (404) 254 0842
          E-mail: aw@atlantaemployeelawyer.com
                  js@atlantaemployeelawyer.com


OSN DELI: Faces "Kumarasinghe" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against OSN Deli & Grocery,
Corp. The case is captioned as Nalaka G. Kumarasinghe,
individually and in behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. OSN Deli & Grocery, Corp., jointly and
severally, and Vinot Patel, jointly and severally, the Defendant,
Case No 1:17-cv-03226 (E.D.N.Y., May 30, 2017).[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


PARK STATION: Faces "Maurey" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Janel Maurey, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, vs. Park Station 212, LLC, a Florida For Profit Limited
Liability Company, and David Levison, individually, Defendants,
Case No. 6:17-cv-00924-CEM-GJK (M.D. Fla., May 22, 2017), alleges
that Defendants failed to comply with the Fair Labor Standards Act
because Plaintiff and those similarly situated employees,
performed services for Defendants for which no provisions were
made to properly pay them minimum wage for all hours worked.

Defendant operates a restaurant and bar.  Plaintiff worked as
server/bartender.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew R. Gunter, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     20 N. Orange Ave., 16th Floor
     P.O. Box 4979
     Orlando, FL 32802 4979
     Phone: 407 420 1414
     Fax: 407 867 4791
     E-mail: mgunter@forthepeople.com


PERSONAL ENRICHMENT: "Damon" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wage Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTEN DAMON, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. PERSONAL ENRICHMENT THROUGH MENTAL SERVICES,
INC., the Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-01186-EAK-MAP (Fla. Cir.
Ct., 6th Judicial Cir. for Pinellas County, May 18, 2017), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime compensation, minimum wages, liquidated
damages and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).

According to the complaint, until October 2016, PEHMS failed to
pay System Navigator IIs and/or System Navigators and/or Family
Connection Navigators to work in excess of 40 hours a workweek
without paying them overtime compensation as required by the FLSA.

PEHMS provides crisis intervention services, inpatient services
for adults and children, residential services for children, and
community based programs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Angela E. Outten, Esq.
          REESER, RODNITE, OUTTEN
          & ZDRAVKO, LLC
          3411 Palm Harbor Boulevard, Ste A
          Palm Harbor, FL 34683
          Telephone: (727) 787 5919
          Facsimile: (727) 787 6685
          E-mail: aoutten@rrozlaw.com


PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Seeks Dismissal of Oil Spill Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Madison-St. Clair Record,
reports that two pipeline companies seek to dismiss a suit
alleging they contaminated land near Highland following a 2015 oil
spill where 100 barrels of crude oil were accidentally released.

Plains All American Pipeline and Plains Pipeline filed a combined
motion to dismiss the complaint on April 20 through attorney
Alphonse Pranaitis -- apranaitis@rssclaw.com -- of Rynearson Suess
Schnurbusch & Champion LLC in Edwardsville.

They argue that the plaintiffs' complaint does not identify a
physical injury to a property where they have an ownership or
possessory interest.

"Indeed, the complaint is devoid of any factual description as to
any property owned or leased by any of the three plaintiffs, and
any specific physical injury to plaintiff-owned property whether
by environmental contamination, oiling or some other mechanism,"
the motion states.

The defendants further argue that the claims under the federal Oil
Pollution Act should be dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to
satisfy the pre-litigation notice standards and they don't seek
recovery for economic losses from actual damage to any property.
Instead, they seek economic damages stemming from "stigma" and the
perception of risk held by "potential buyers."

They also argue that the plaintiffs' claims are "devoid of case-
specific facts."

"The location, nature, and extent of Plaintiffs' alleged actual
legal injuries and damages are a mystery. Plaintiffs' class
allegations are little more than a regurgitation of the rule
requirements," the motion states.

Plaintiffs Kevin Nodine, Cheryl Morr and David Medlock filed the
complaint on Feb. 15 through the Driscoll Firm in St. Louis.

They allege a pipeline fitting ruptured or burst at the Pocahontas
pump Station on the MP 29 pipeline near the border of Bond and
Madison Counties on July 10, 2015.  The defendants own and operate
the MP 29 pipeline.

The incident allegedly caused more than 4,000 gallons of crude oil
to spill into the surrounding waterways in and near Highland,
including the creek adjacent to Medlock's property, over which he
has exclusive possession, the suit states.

The spill also allegedly contaminated the lake, which was detected
by a resident who reported the spill on an emergency hotline.

Highland is situated next to Silver Lake, a 574-acre body of water
that provides the community with its drinking water. Highland also
supplies water to the villages of Grantfork, Pierron and St. Jacob
from the lake.

A 12-mile stretch of drainage ditches run near the Pocahontas pump
station to allow rainwater to flow into Little Silver Creek and
then into Silver Lake.

On the day of the oil spill, rainwater was flowing into the
drainage ditches, causing the spilled oil to flow from the
impaired containment dike at the station into the drainage
ditches, toward the creek and ultimately to Silver Lake, the suit
states.

The plaintiffs claim the oil contamination caused damages on
Highland residents' properties and the environment. The impacted
area allegedly includes 380 residential parcels and 120
agricultural parcels.

The suit states that the pipeline's leak detection system at the
Pocahontas Pump Station was defective and failed to set off any
alarms when the oil spilled into the containment dike, a backup
storage container.

The plaintiffs also allege the defendants were aware that erosion
had caused leakage between a drain pipe and a catchment berm of
the containment dike but they failed to make any immediate
repairs.

The suit states that while the defendants made a public apology
for the oil spill, they have not compensated the community
affected by the contamination.

The Pocahontas Pump Station is located in a rural agricultural
area about 2.5 miles from the town of Pocahontas and six miles
from the Capwood Pipeline that runs from All America's Patoka
Station to Wood River, the suit states.

The plaintiffs claim an appraisal company found that residential
properties in or near an area affected by an oil spill experienced
a reduction in property values in excess of 10 percent.

They seek an order requiring the defendants to restore the
properties and waterways affected by the spill.  They also seek
compensation for damages, fees and court costs, punitive damages
and individual relief.

The lawsuit also names John Doe 1-10 as defendants, which include
unknown corporations or partnerships. [GN]

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois case
number 3:17-cv-163


PRINCETON UNIVERSITY: Trustees Sued for Fiduciary Duty Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
ELYSEE NICOLAS, Individually and as representative of a class of
participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the Princeton
University 403(b) Plan, Plaintiff, vs. THE TRUSTEES OF PRINCETON
UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-03695 (D.N.J., May 23,
2017), alleges breach of fiduciary duties under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.

According to the complaint, because the marketplace for retirement
plan services is established and competitive, and because the Plan
has billions of dollars in assets, the Plans haves tremendous
bargaining power to demand low-cost administrative and investment
management services and well-performing investment funds. But
instead of leveraging the Plans' massive bargaining power to
benefit participants and beneficiaries, Defendant failed to
investigate, examine and understand the real cost to Plans'
participants for administrative services, thereby causing the
Plans to pay unreasonable and excessive fees for investment and
administrative services. Defendant caused Plaintiff to pay an
asset-based fee for administrative services that increased as the
value of his participant account rose, even though no additional
services were being provided. Further, Defendant selected and
retained investment options for the Plans that historically and
consistently underperformed their benchmarks and charged excessive
investment management fees, as well as share classes that were
more expensive than other share classes readily available to
qualified retirement plans that provided Plan investors with the
identical investment at a lower cost.

Defendants are the trustees of the Plan that provides the primary
source of retirement income for many employees of Princeton
University.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph J. DePalma, Esq.
     LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG LLC
     570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
     Newark, NJ 07102
     Phone: (973) 623-3000
     Fax: (973) 623-0858
     E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com


QUINTIS: Piper Alderman Files Suit Over Galderma Deal Loss
----------------------------------------------------------
Tom Lodewyke, writing for Lawyers Weekly, reports that Piper
Alderman has announced a proposed class action on behalf of
shareholders in ASX-listed sandalwood producer Quintis.

Piper Alderman announced the class action on May 19, seeking to
recover the losses suffered by investors who purchased shares or
bonds in Quintis between 17 December 2016 and 9 May 2017.

The claim is based on Quintis' failure to disclose the loss of its
long-term supply contract with pharmaceutical company Galderma, a
subsidiary of Nestle.

Although it lost the contract on 16 December 2016, Quintis did not
disclose this fact until 10 May 2017, almost five months later.

During this period Quintis reaffirmed its FY17 Cash EBITDA
guidance by reference to factors that included the existence of
the Galderma contract, Piper Alderman said in a statement.

Quintis' share price fell from $1.07 to 29.5 cents after it
announced the loss of the contract.  This reduced its market
capitalisation by $309 million.  The company went into a trading
halt on 17 May, which it said will last for up to a week.

"It is hard to imagine a more egregious contravention of the
Corporations Act obligation to make continuous disclosure of
information that is likely to have a material effect on the price
of a security or the prohibition against conduct that is
misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive," said
Piper Alderman litigation partner Simon Morris.

"The severity of the market's reaction strongly points to the
distorting effect on the share price. Investors who have suffered
losses have a right to be compensated."

The class action will be funded by Litigation Capital Management
(LCM), as long as it is satisfied that the claim is commercially
and legally viable.  Under the LCM funding agreement, participants
in the class action will not be required to pay any fees unless
the claim succeeds. [GN]


RETAILMENOT INC: Faces "Payne" Suit Over Sale to Harland
--------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH BLAKE PAYNE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. RETAILMENOT, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2017-0390- (Ch. Del., May 22, 2017), seeks to enforce
Plaintiff's right to inspection of books and records in order to
determine whether wrongdoing or mismanagement has taken place such
that it would be appropriate to file claims for breach of
fiduciary duty, and to investigate the independence and
disinterestedness of the Company's directors generally and with
respect to the Company's proposed acquisition by Harland Clarke
Holdings Corp. and R Acquisition Sub, Inc.

RetailMeNot, Inc. is a digital savings destination connecting
consumers with retailers, restaurants and brands, both online and
in-store. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
     Craig J. Springer, Esq.
     David M. Sborz, Esq.
     ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC
     3801 Kennett Pike Building C, Suite 305
     Wilmington, DE 19807
     Phone: (302) 504-4957

        - and -

     Randall J. Baron, Esq.
     David T. Wissbroecker, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: (619) 231-1058

        - and -

     Christopher H. Lyons, Esq.
     414 Union Street, Suite 900
     Nashville, TN 37219
     Phone: (615) 244-2203

        - and -

     W. Scott Holleman, Esq.
     JOHNSON & WEAVER
     99 Madison Avenue
     5th Floor New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 802-1486


RIALTO, CA: "Blanco" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW BLANCO and RICHARD ROYCE, on behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF RIALTO,
the Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-00994-R-DTB (C.D. Cal., May 18,
2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and other compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, costs of suit and reasonable
attorney fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs are employed by the
Defendant. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of
themselves and all similarly situated individuals who Defendant
failed to properly compensate for overtime hours worked within the
three years prior to filing this action.

Rialto is a city in San Bernardino County, California, United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David E. Mastagni, Esq.
          Isaac S. Stevens, Esq.
          Ace T. Tate, Esq.
          MASTAGNI HOLSTEDT
          A Professional Corporation
          1912 "I" Street
          Sacramento, CA 95811
          Telephone: (916) 446 4692
          Facsimile: (916) 447 4614
          E-mail: davidm@mastagni.com
                  istevens@mastagni.com
                  atate@mastagni.com


ROMBOUT VILLAGE: Judge Tosses Shareholder Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
John Ferro, writing for Poughkeepsie Journal, reports that a judge
has denied class-action status for two shareholders suing the
board of a local, cooperative apartment complex.

In his decisions, state Supreme Court Judge James Brands rejected
a request to join lawsuits filed on behalf of two shareholders at
Rombout Village, a 144-unit cooperative complex in the Town of
Fishkill.

The motions were part of larger actions that challenge the
authority of boards of cooperative apartment complexes to impose
fines on tenant-owners.

Class actions are rare in actions against cooperative boards,
experts have said.

The lawsuits claim Rombout Village's management illegally imposed
fines on shareholders.  Those issues, detailed in an April 30
Poughkeepsie Journal report, remain before the court.

At issue was whether the two lawsuits, filed on behalf of Rombout
Village shareholders Francis Hilton and Henry and Elizabeth Leake,
met all the requirements to be joined.

Brands ruled they did not.

In his decisions signed on May 19, one for each case, Judge Brands
said the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the cases derived
from the same transaction, occurrence or series of transactions or
occurrences, as required by state law.

Mr. Hilton's case, he noted, pertains to fines and fees she
incurred while battling with Rombout Village management over the
repair of a faulty air conditioner.

The Leakes' case is asserted not only by the husband and wife, he
noted, but also by a commercial enterprise owned by Henry Leake.
The Leakes are challenging fines relating to snow removal and
"objectionable conduct," among other claims.

"As such, these cases do not lend themselves to joinder or class
action certification," Brands wrote.

Matthew Noviello, the attorney for the plaintiffs, said he is
reviewing the decisions and considering whether to appeal. [GN]


RUCKUS WIRELESS: June 15 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss "Hussey"
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MIGUEL HUSSEY, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. RUCKUS WIRELESS,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-02991-EMC (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Edward M. Cohen of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California moved the hearing on the
Defendants' motions to dismiss and a Case Management Conference to
June 15, 2017, at 11:15 a.m.

On March 21, 2017, the Court granted a Scheduling Order setting
the hearing for the Defendants' motions to dismiss and a Case
Management Conference for June 15, 2017, at 1:30 p.m.

In light of a scheduling conflict, on May 19, 2017, the parties
contacted the Court staff to determine whether the Court could
move the hearing to the morning of June 15, 2017.

On May 22, 2017, the Court staff indicated that it is available on
June 15, 2017 at 11:15 a.m.

The parties stipulated and agreed that the hearing will be moved
to and take place on June 15, 2017, at 11:15 a.m.

David T. Wissbroecker, the ECF User whose identification and
password are being used to file the Stipulation and Proposed
Scheduling Order, attested that Joseph E. Floren, Laura Kabler
Oswell and David Priebe have concurred in the filing.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 26, 2017 stipulation and order
is available at https://is.gd/23UKrU from Leagle.com

Miguel Hussey, Plaintiff, represented by David Todd Wissbroecker,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Miguel Hussey, Plaintiff, represented by Edward M. Gergosian,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Frank James Johnson, Johnson &
Weaver, LLP.

City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System, Plaintiff,
represented by Danielle Suzanne Myers, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP, David Todd Wissbroecker, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, Shawn A. Williams, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & William
Scott Holleman, Johnson and Weaver, LLP.

Ruckus Wireless, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joseph Edward
Floren, Attorney at Law, Karen A. Pieslak Pohlmann, Morgan Lewis
and Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, Kevin Michael Benedicto, Morgan,
Lewis and Bockius LLP & Marc J. Sonnenfeld, Morgan Lewis and
Bockius LLP, pro hac vice.

Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Joseph Edward Floren, Attorney at Law, Karen A. Pieslak Pohlmann,
Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, Kevin Michael
Benedicto, Morgan, Lewis and Bockius LLP & Marc J. Sonnenfeld,
Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP, pro hac vice.

Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Defendant, represented by John J.
Clarke, Jr., DLA Piper LLP, pro hac vice, David Allen Priebe, DLA
Piper LLP, Isabelle Louise Ord, DLA Piper LLP & Jeanette Eva
Thurber Barzelay.


SALOV NORTH: Olive Oil Settlement Fairness Hearing Held
-------------------------------------------------------
Ted Frank and Will Chamberlain of Competitive Enterprise Institute
states that when companies deceive consumers, the class action
device provides a way to compensate those harmed.  And if
plaintiffs' lawyers obtain money for the class, they are lawfully
entitled to a reasonable percentage of the recovery.  But in too
many settlements, the same lawyers who rail against deceptive
marketing tactics use deceptive settlement provisions to unfairly
appropriate the lion's share of the money for themselves.

Kumar v. Salov North America Corp., where the attorneys look to
get over 300% of what their clients will, is a good example of
this unwelcome phenomenon.  The defendants market Filippo Berio
olive oil throughout the United States. (Salov is an acronym for
Societa per Azoni Lucchese Olii e Vini [Society for Oils and Wines
of the Province of Lucca], a company founded by the real Filippo
Berio's daughter. CEI thought Filippo Berio was like Aunt Jemima
or Chef Boyardee. Though there apparently really was an Ettore
Boiardi.)

Until 2015, the phrase "Imported from Italy" appeared in the
corner of Filippo Berio labels.  The plaintiff argued this was
deceptive, because many olives used to make Filippo Berio came
from places other than Italy: Greece, Tunisia, and elsewhere, even
if the phrase was accurate because the ultimate product was
bottled in Italy.  Indeed, the lead plaintiff, Rohini Kumar,
testified in a deposition that she thinks "imported from" means
"shipped out of." (Salov, the maker, argued that the back of the
bottle had a disclaimer about the origin of the olives to boot,
right next to the "sell-by date" that Kumar testified she always
looked at.)

So you can see that the lawsuit was going to run into trouble if
it went to a jury trial. (We haven't even mentioned that Salov was
hoping to get to impeach Kumar as a convicted felon, but maybe the
evidence of the drunk-driving conviction gets excluded.) This
likely explains why the settlement is a weak settlement -- but it
doesn't justify a settlement where the attorneys get more than the
class.

Whether or not this "Imported from Italy" puffery truly misled
consumers, the settlement the parties reached is puffed up beyond
belief.  The class will probably recover about $320,000 in cash;
roughly 65,000 class members jumped through the hoops to file
claims worth about $5 each.  But class counsel is asking for
$987,500 in fees, triple what the class will actually receive. How
did class counsel justify such a disproportionate fee?

Here's how: embedded deep in the settlement agreement is a "kill-
switch" provision that allows the defendants to cancel the entire
settlement if their total payout of claims, fees, and
administrative costs exceeds $5,000,000. Based on this provision,
the parties argue that the defendants "made available" $5,000,000
to the class.  The problem? This number bears no resemblance to
reality, because the settlement throttles the number of claims.
Anyone who purchased Filippo Berio is a class member; but only
those class members who are willing to attest, under oath, that
they relied on the tiny "Imported from Italy" wording can file
claims.  The parties admitted, in their own briefing, that this
requirement meant there was almost no way the $5,000,000 figure
could be reached without massive fraud.  In their words, the kill-
switch provision was an "escape valve," not a good-faith estimate
of class recovery.

The settlement also includes an injunction, as so many puffed up
settlements do, prohibiting the use of the "Imported from Italy"
wording on Filippo Berio bottles for three years.  This is yet
more illusory relief.  The defendants removed the "Imported from
Italy" wording from their label two years ago; precluding the
defendants from doing something they had already stopped doing is
not compensation for any alleged past injury.  Moreover, the price
of Filippo Berio has stayed the same since the label changed,
suggesting that the "Imported from Italy" representation never
really had any effect on the price of the product.  Class counsel
proffered an expert who, by studiously ignoring the evidence of
prices after the label change and engaging in questionable data
coding, argued this would save the class $19 million.  Such
quackery is a typical tactic in creating an illusion of relief,
and shouldn't justify attorneys' fees.

Class action settlements should be less misleading than the
practices targeted by the underlying lawsuits.  But here, lawyers
have used deceptive provisions to manufacture $24 million in
settlement value out of thin air.  In reality, this is a $1.3
million dollar settlement, and the lawyers are claiming almost 75%
of the fund.  Lawyers who are granted the privilege of litigating
on behalf of a class should not appropriate the lion's share of
the money for themselves.  CEI is objecting to the settlement and
the fee request, with CEI attorney Ted Frank, a class-member and
long-time Filippo Berio consumer, as the client. (His
grandmother's spaghetti-sauce recipe has not yet been subpoenaed.)
CEI previously won objections in Pearson v. NBTY, Dry Max Pampers,
Baby Products, and Allen v. Similasan against similarly abusive
settlements on these principles, resulting in millions more
dollars going to consumers instead of lawyers.

The fairness hearing was May 30 in Oakland.[GN]

The case is Kumar v. Salov North America Corp., No. 4:14-cv-02411-
YGR (N.D. Cal.).


SAN FRANCISCO BART: "Moreno" Hits Illegal Data Collection
---------------------------------------------------------
Pamela Moreno, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit
District, a public entity, Elerts Corp., a Delaware corporation,
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-02911, (N.D. Cal., May 22, 2017),
seeks actual, liquidated and punitive damages, injunctive relief,
reasonable litigation expenses and attorneys' fees, pre- and post-
judgment interest and such other and further relief for violation
of the Cellular Communications Interception Act, Consumers Legal
Remedies Act and privacy rights pursuant to the California
Constitution.

Elerts provided the smartphone application for the San Francisco
Bay Area Rapid Transit District, a governmental agency tasked with
providing transportation across the Bay Area. This app allows
riders an easy way to send a report to police about safety or
security concerns. Defendants have allegedly been using it to
secretly collect users' unique mobile device identification
numbers, to periodically track their precise locations. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eve-Lynn Rapp, Esq.
      Nina Eisenberg, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
      San Francisco, CA 94107
      Tel: (415) 212-9300
      Fax: (415) 373-9435
      Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com
             neisenberg@edelson.com


SCARLET N GREY: Faces Suit for Underpaying Ranch Hands
------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO CAMPOSANO, on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. SCARLET N GREY LLC, INFINITY
TEXAS DEVELOPMENT, INC., DONALD TANDY, TRACY TANDY and DAVID
ANTONIONO, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-01537 (S.D. Tex., May 19,
2017), alleges that Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff, PEDRO
CAMPOSANO, and its other ranch hands for all hours worked and also
failed to pay appropriate overtime wages when they
work/worked more than forty (40) hours in a workweek as required
by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant Scarlet N Grey (d/b/a as Scarlet & Grey Farms) is an
equestrian facility that offers boarding and care for horses and
horse training services.  Plaintiff was a former employee of
Defendants as a ranch hand.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gregg M. Rosenberg, Esq.
     Tracey D. Lewis, Esq.
     ROSENBERG & SPROVACH
     3518 Travis Street, Suite 200
     Houston, TX 77002
     Phone: (713) 960-8300
     Fax: (713) 621-6670


SCHLICHTER & BOGARD: "Casey" Suit Moved to S.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jessica Casey, Melody Edwards, and
Debbie Foster, individually and on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Roger C. Denton,
individually; Schlichter, Bogard & Denton, L.L.P.; Michael S.
Burg, individually; Burg, Simpson, Eldredge, Hersh & Jardine,
P.C.; Michael A. London, individually; Douglas & London, P.C.;
Mark R. Niemeyer, individually; Niemeyer, Grebel & Kruse,LLC;
Daniel P. Massey, individually; Daniel Massey Law Firm, P.C.;
David M. Peterson, individually; Peterson & Associates, P.C.;
Gregory McEwen, individually; and McEwen Law Firm, Ltd., Case No.
17-L-250, was removed on May 16, 2017, from St. Clair County
Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois (East St. Louis). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-00521-DRH-RJD to the proceeding. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge David R. Herndon.

Schlichter & Bogard is a national law firm based in St. Louis,
Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kevin Rogers, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF KEVIN ROGERS
          307 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 305
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 332 1188

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christopher P. Montville, Esq.
          Michael L. O'Donnell, Esq.
          Thomas J. Palazzolo, Esq.
          Peter W. Herzog, III, Esq.
          WHEELER, TRIGG ET AL. - CO
          370 Seventeenth Street, Suite 4500
          Denver, CO 80202-5647
          Telephone: (303) 244 1800
          Facsimile: (303) 244 1879
          E-mail: montville@wtotrial.com
                  odonnell@wtotrial.com
                  palazzolo@wtotrial.com
                  pherzog@wtotrial.com


SEAFOOD ON THE TABLE: Faces "Del Valle" Suit Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH J. DEL VALLE, and other similarly-situated individuals,
Plaintiff, v. SEAFOOD ON THE TABLE, INC. D/B/A AROMAS DEL PERU,
CARLOS M. VIDAL, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-21906-
UU (S.D. Fla., May 22, 2017), was brought by Plaintiff as a
collective action to recover from Defendants overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorney's
fees under the provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of
Plaintiff, and all other current and former employees similarly
situated.

Plaintiff worked in excess of forty (40) hours during one or more
weeks on or after May 2014, without being compensated minimum and
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, says the
complaint.

Corporate Defendant AROMAS DEL PERU is a Peruvian restaurant.
Plaintiff was employed as server.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Zandro E. Palma., Esq.
     ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
     9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
     Miami, FL 33156
     Phone: (305) 446-1500
     Fax: (305) 446-1502
     E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Asks Court to Quash Subpoena on Abry
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned as SUSAN MOJICA AND THOMAS MOJICA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
PLAINTIFFS, v. SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., the DEFENDANT, Case No.
1:17-cv-10701 (D. Mass., May 16, 2017), Securus Technologies asks
the Court to grant its motion to quash Plaintiffs' subpoena duces
tecum to Abry Partners, LLC and their subpoena ad testificandum to
Mr. Bob Pan.

Securus said, "Plaintiffs' Subpoenas should be quashed for three
reasons:

     a. Plaintiffs seek documents and information that they have
already received directly from Securus, rendering the Subpoenas
impermissibly duplicative and cumulative.

     b. To the extent that Plaintiffs seek additional documents
and information, those documents and information are irrelevant
because they do not concern the rates and fees at issue in the
underlying lawsuit.

     c. Portions of the Subpoenas should be quashed because Judge
Timothy L. Brooks of the United States District Court for the
Western District of Arkansas previously quashed subpoenas in this
case that sought these same documents because they are overbroad.

Plaintiffs' subpoena duces tecum to Abry requests these categories
of documents:

     a. Documents and Data Prepared by [Abry] Regarding Securus's
operations, revenue, costs, profits, and/or present valuation;

     b. Communications which [Abry] sent or received Regarding
Securus's operations, revenue, costs, profits, and/or present
valuation;

     c. Documents and Data which [Abry] provided to any of [its]
investors, or potential investors, Regarding Securus's operations,
revenue, costs and/or profits, including but not limited to, any
investor presentations;

     d. Documents and Data provided to [Abry] by Castle Harlan,
LLC in connection with [Abry's] acquisition of Securus on April
30, 2013 (Request 4); and

     e. Documents and Data reflecting Securus's total costs,
revenue, earnings, and/or profit on monthly, quarterly and annual
basis since Abry's acquisitions of Securus on April 30, 2013.

Plaintiffs' subpoena ad testificandum to Mr. Pan seeks to depose
him about the following topics:

     a. His responsibilities regarding Abry's investment in
Securus;

     b. Securus's total costs, revenue, earnings, and/or profit on
a monthly, quarterly and annual basis relating to the provision of
inmate calling service (ICS);

     c. Information Abry provided to Abry's investors, or
potential investors, regarding Securus's revenue, costs, profits,
and/or present valuation, including, but not limited to any
investor presentations; and

     d. Abry's acquisition of Securus from Castle Harlan, LLC on
April 30, 2013.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter A. Muhic, Esq.
          Donna Siegel Moffa, Esq.
          Monique Myatt Galloway, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          E-mail: pmuhic@ktmc.com
                  dmoffa@ktmc.com
                  mmyattgalloway@ktmc.com

               - and -

          Yechiel Michael Twersky, Esq.
          Peter R. Kahana, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875 3052
          Email: mitwersky@bm.net
                  pkahana@bm.net

               - and -

          Amy C. Martin, Esq.
          P.O. Box 765
          Fayetteville, AR 72702
          E-mail: theamymartin@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Stephanie A. Joyce, Esq.
          Joshua A. Fowkes, Esq.
          ARENT FOX LLP
          1717 K Street, N.W.
          Washington, D.C. 20006
          Telephone: (202) 857 6081
          Facsimile: (202) 857 6395
          E-mail: stephanie.joyce@arentfox.com
                  joshua.fowkes@arentfox.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth B. Herrington, Esq.
          Megan Braden, Esq.
          Craig A. Stanfield, Esq.
          Arcangelo S. Cella, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          77 West Wacker Dr.
          Chicago, IL 60601-5094
          Telephone (312) 324 1445
          Fax 312.324.1001
          E-mail: Beth.Herrington@morganlewis.com
                  Megan.Braden@morganlewis.com
                  Craig.Stanfield@morganlewis.com
                  arcangelo.cella@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Robert L. Jones, III, Esq.
          Kerri E. Kobbeman, Esq.
          CONNER & WINTERS
          4375 North Vantage Drive, Suite 405
          Fayetteville, AR 72703


SPRINT CORPORATION: "Scott" Suit Moved to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Tashian Scott, on his own behalf
and on behalf of all those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Credico (USA) LLC, Sprint Corporation, Sprint/United Management
Corporation, Legion, Latitude Group, and Alon Brener, an
individual, Case No. RG 17856280, was removed on May 18, 2017 from
the Alameda County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California (San Francisco). The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-02846-EMC to the proceeding.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Edward M. Chen.

Credico provides outsourced face-to-face sales. The Company offers
sales campaigns, planning, and strategy and training programs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Albert Rosenfeld, Esq.
          WEINBERG ROGER & ROSENFELD
          1001 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 200
          Alameda, CA 94501-1091
          Telephone: (510) 337 1001
          Facsimile: (510) 337 1023
          E-mail: courtnotices@unioncounsel.net

               - and -

          Caren P. Sencer, Esq.
          David William Masamit Fujimoto, Esq.
          WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD
          1001 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 200
          Alameda, CA 94501-1091
          Telephone: (510) 337 1001
          Facsimile: (510) 337 1023
          E-mail: csencer@unioncounsel.net
                  dfujimoto@unioncounsel.net

The Defendants are represented by:

          Harold M. Brody, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          2049 Century Park East, 32nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 557 2900
          Facsimile: (310) 557 2193
          E-mail: hbrody@proskauer.com

               - and -

          Elise Charlotte O'Brien, Esq.
          RYNN JANOWSKY LLP
          4100 Newport Place Drive, Suite 700
          Newport Beach, CA 92660-2423
          Telephone: (949) 752 2911
          Facsimile: (949) 752 0953
          E-mail: elise@rjlaw.com

               - and -

          Rachel S. Brass, Esq.
          GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          555 Mission Street, Suite 3000
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2933
          Telephone: (415) 393 8200
          Facsimile: (415) 393 8306
          E-mail: rbrass@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Nicole Ann Eichberger, Esq.
          Proskauer Rose LLP
          650 Poydras Street, Suite 1800
          New Orleans, LA 10036
          Telephone: (504) 310 4088
          Facsimile: (504) 310 2022
          E-mail: neichberger@proskauer.com


STRAD ENERGY: Field Technicians File Suit for Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN CLARK, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff, v. STRAD ENERGY SERVICES USA LTD. and STRAD
OILFIELD SERVICES INC., both Colorado corporations, Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-01242 (D. Col., May 22, 2017), alleges that
although Plaintiff was required to work more than forty (40) hours
per workweek and/or twelve (12) hours per day, and did so
frequently, Plaintiff was not compensated at the mandated time and
one-half rate for all of his overtime hours.  The case alleges
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

STRAD ENERGY SERVICES USA LTD. is an oilfield service company
headquartered in Denver, Colorado. Plaintiff worked for Strad as a
field service technician providing labor at various locations in
North Dakota.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brian D. Gonzales
     THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC
     242 Linden Street
     Fort Collins, CO 80524
     Phone: (970) 214-0562
     E-mail: BGonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com


SUNPOWER CORP: July 21 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------
Lundin Law PC, a shareholder rights firm, on May 22 announced a
class action lawsuit against SunPower Corporation ("SunPower" or
the "Company") (Nasdaq: SPWR) concerning possible violations of
federal securities laws between February 17, 2016 through
August 9, 2016 inclusive (the "Class Period").  Investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the Class Period
should contact the firm prior to the new July 21, 2017 lead
plaintiff motion deadline.

You can also call Brian Lundin, Esq., of Lundin Law PC, at 888-
713-1033, or e-mail him at brian@lundinlawpc.com.

No class has been certified in the above action yet.  Until a
class is certified, you are not considered represented by an
attorney. You may also choose to do nothing and be an absent class
member.

According to the Complaint, throughout the Class Period, SunPower
made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose: that a substantial number of its customers were adopting
a longer-term timeline for project completion; that SunPower's
near-term economic returns were deteriorating due to aggressive
PPA pricing by new market entrants; that market disruption in the
YieldCo environment was impacting the Company's assumptions
related to monetizing deferred profits; that as a result, demand
for SunPower's products was significantly declining; that in
response, the Company implemented a manufacturing realignment that
would result in significant restructuring charges; that the
Company's fiscal year 2016 guidance was overstated; and that as a
result of the above, SunPower's statements about its business,
operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.  When this information was released, shares of
SunPower fell in value materially, which harmed investors
according to the Complaint.

Lundin Law PC -- http://lundinlawpc.com/-- was founded by Brian
Lundin, Esq., a securities litigator based in Los Angeles
dedicated to upholding shareholders' rights. [GN]


SURFSTITCH: Share Trading Halted Amid Shareholder Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stuart Condie, writing for Australian Associated Press, reports
that Surfstitch shares have been placed in a trading halt while
the online sports apparel retailer assesses a $100 million
shareholder class action alleging it failed to disclose the true
state of its finances.

The company on May 24 confirmed it had received a statement of
claim filed in Queensland's Supreme Court and that it had
requested its shares be placed in a halt possibly until May 26
while it looks it over.

Law firm Quinn Emanuel claims that SurfStitch failed to tell
shareholders it was trading at a loss and then tried to cover it
up.

Quinn Emanuel said Surfstitch should never have made or repeated
its 2015/16 earnings guidance of $15 million to $18 million.
Underlying earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and
amortisation for the period -- which excluded share based
payments, acquisition-related costs and impairment charges -
announced in August 2016 turned out to be a loss of $18.8 million.

The company's shares have tumbled in value amid a series of
guidance downgrades.

Surfstitch shares closed at an all-time low of 6.8 cents on
May 23 -- down 97 per cent from a high of $2.13 in November 2015 -
- after the firm on May 22 again downgraded its earnings guidance,
said it will close its US office and expects its full-year loss to
double.

Backed by litigation funder Vannin Capital, the class action is
open to anyone who purchased or held shares between August 27,
2015 and June 8 last year. [GN]


TAMKO BUILDING: High Court Denies Petition to Block Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Larimore, writing for The Joplin Globe, reports that
calling courts in Missouri "hostile" and "runaway," TAMKO Building
Products President and CEO David Humphreys indicated he may seek
to move the company out of the state after the U.S. Supreme Court
denied TAMKO's petition to block a class-action lawsuit against it
that was filed in Jasper County three years ago.

Mr. Humphreys said in a statement that the decision means TAMKO
"will need to reconsider our presence in Missouri versus other
states where the rule of law outweighs the rule of trial lawyers."

Mr. Humphreys would not elaborate further when the Globe sought
more information about TAMKO's plans.

TAMKO was founded in Joplin in 1944. The company has operations on
High Street and Range Line Road and its headquarters at 220 W. 4th
St.  In 2014, it also purchased the Commerce Bank Corporate Center
at 211 S. Main St. to be remodeled for TAMKO use.  The company
also has a plant in Lamar, as well as plants and operations in 10
other states, and operates in all 50 states.

"We and other Missouri-based companies will continue to face
wasteful and expensive litigation in Missouri's trial lawyer-
friendly courts, which have been labeled as the No. 4 judicial
hellhole in the U.S.," Mr. Humphreys said in his statement,
referencing a report by the American Tort Reform Association that
criticized what it calls the most defendant-friendly courts in the
country.

"The (U.S. Supreme) Court missed a chance to reign in Missouri's
runaway courts which have been particularly hostile to TAMKO in
retaliation for our efforts to reform the trial bar's special
interest grip on Missouri's judge selection process."

By denying TAMKO's petition for a writ of certiorari, the U.S.
Supreme Court let stand rulings in the Jasper County Circuit Court
and Missouri's Southern District Court of Appeals that found a
class-action suit can be brought against the company despite its
contention that an agreement printed on the packaging compelled
any customer complaints to be handled through private arbitration.

The suit, filed in 2014 by a Texas County man, Lee Hobbs, and by
Jonesburg United Methodist Church, located in Montgomery County,
alleged TAMKO sold defective shingles that failed before their
guaranteed 30-year warranty. The shingles, the suit said, began
"warping, curling and beginning to fail," which then allegedly led
to structural problems at the church and Hobbs' house by allowing
moisture to penetrate the roof.

In addition to contending the arbitration agreement required
disputes to be resolved privately, TAMKO said the shingles became
damaged due to normal weather damage and improper installation.

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

The suit had been on hold for more than a year while the question
of whether it could even be brought was examined in courts. Both
the Jasper County Circuit Court in 2014 and Missouri's Southern
District Court of Appeals in 2016 disagreed with TAMKO's
contention, and the May 22 Supreme Court denial means the suit's
issues can now be addressed in Jasper County Circuit Court.

The attorney representing TAMKO in the proceedings, Paul Clement,
said in another statement provided by the company that TAMKO is
"disappointed that the Supreme Court declined to rectify the
Missouri courts' refusal to enforce the plaintiffs' agreements to
arbitrate their disputes with TAMKO."

The Holland Law Firm, based in St. Louis, which is representing
Hobbs and the church, has not returned messages seeking comment.

Attempts to reach Hobbs and the church directly were not
successful.[GN]


TARGET CORP: Settles 2013 Data Breach with States for $18.5MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Masunaga, writing for The Los Angeles Times, reports that
Target Corp. will pay $18.5 million to 47 states, including
California, and the District of Columbia as part of a settlement
over a 2013 data breach that compromised tens of millions of
customers' credit and debit card information.

California will receive more than $1.4 million from the
settlement, the largest amount of any state, according to
California Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra.  His office said that money
would be used toward enforcing consumer protection laws.

"Families should be able to shop without worrying that their
financial information is going to get stolen, and Target failed to
provide this security," Mr. Becerra said in a statement.  "This
should send a strong message to other companies: You are
responsible for protecting your customers' personal information."

Alabama, Wisconsin and Wyoming were not part of the settlement
announced on May 23.

As part of the settlement, the Minneapolis-based retailer will
also be required to employ an executive to manage a "comprehensive
information security program" and advise the company's chief
executive and its board of directors, according to the statement
from Becerra's office.

Target must hire an independent third party to do a comprehensive
security assessment, according to a statement from the New York
attorney general's office.  It has to add other cybersecurity
measures, including encrypting payment card information so the
data are useless if stolen, separating its cardholder data from
the rest of its computer network and instituting password rotation
policies and two-factor authentication for certain accounts.

Target said it was "pleased to bring this issue to a resolution
for everyone involved." The retailer added that the costs
associated with this settlement were "already reflected in the
data breach liability reserves that Target has previously
recognized and disclosed."

The 2013 data breach led to the resignation of longtime Target CEO
Gregg Steinhafel. It also hurt the company's sales and profits.

Target has since overhauled its security systems and settled other
lawsuits related to the breach, including one from credit card
company Visa Inc. A $10-million settlement for a class-action
lawsuit brought by consumers is still going through the court
system, though it received approval from a federal judge in 2015.
[GN]


TIPTON COUNTY, TN: "Pierson" Sues Over Privacy Rights Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH PIERSON, CINDY COCKRELL, as parent and next friend of
A.C., a disabled minor, and KAMERON STOTT, Plaintiffs, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. WILLIAM BIBB,
in his capacity as Superintendent of TIPTON COUNTY SCHOOLS, TIPTON
COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, a/k/a TIPTON COUNTY SCHOOLS, and TIPTON
COUNTY, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-02356 (W.D. Tenn., May 23,
2017), seeks to obtain redress and relief for Defendants' alleged
negligent and reckless violations of Plaintiff's privacy rights.
Allegedly, Defendants failed to properly safeguard and protect
personally identifiable information and disclosed it to
unauthorized third parties, without authorization, in violation of
state and federal statutes, and applicable common law.

Tipton County Board of Education a/k/a Tipton County Schools is a
school system employing over 1,900 individuals, with headquarters
located at 1580 Highway 51 South, Covington, TN 38019.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Griffin Shaw, Esq.
     J. Houston Gordon, Esq.
     Amber Griffin Shaw, Esq.
     GORDON SHAW LAW GROUP, PLLC
     Suite 300, Hotel Lindo Building
     114 West Liberty Avenue
     P.O. Box 846
     Covington, TN 38019-0846
     Phone: (901) 476-7100
     Fax: (901) 476-3537
     E-mail: lawjhg@comcast.net

        - and -

     Kasey Culbreath, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF KASEY A. CULBREATH, P.C.
     PO Box 879
     185 Wesley Reed Drive, Suite D
     Atoka, TN 38004

        - and -

     Jere W. Mason, Esq.
     Bryan Huffman, Esq.
     HUFFMAN LAW FIRM
     131 W. Liberty Ave.
     Covington, TN 38019

        - and -

     Leah Forrester Keiser, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS D. FORRESTER
     114 W. Liberty Ave, Suite 202
     PO Box 1038
     Covington, TN 38019

        - and -

      Raynor, Esq.
     RAYNOR LAW FIRM
     7615 Highway 51, Suite 92
     Brighton, TN 38011


TOKIO MARINE: Calif. Court Denies Bid to Stay Discovery in "Azad"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MOHAMMED AZAD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TOKIO
MARINE HCC - MEDICAL INSURANCE SERVICES GROUP, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 17-cv-00618-PJH (N.D. Cal.), Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California denied, as premature, without prejudice, the
Defendants' motion to stay discovery in the case pending the
resolution of a number of motions to dismiss the complaint and
vacated the case management conference set for June 15, 2017.

This putative class action was filed on Feb. 7, 2017 by Plaintiffs
Mohammed Azad and Danielle Buckley.  The Plaintiffs make claims
against Tokio Marine HCC-Medical Insurance Services Group, a
seller of short-term medical insurance, and other entities who
allegedly worked with HCC.  Also named as Defendants are HCC Life
Insurance Co., a subsidiary of Tokio Marine Holdings, LLC; Health
Insurance Innovation, Inc.; and Consumer Benefits of America.

HCC contracted with the Plaintiffs to provide them short-term
medical insurance policies.  HCC Life Insurance was the
underwriter on the polices.  HII is allegedly a "close affiliate"
of HCC that works with HCC "in the sale, administration, and/or
servicing" of the policies.  CBA provides discounts and other
benefits to its members, and allegedly "works with" the other
defendants to provide HCC policies to consumers.

The Plaintiffs allege that HCC falsely represented that their
policies provided comprehensive coverage and fair claim
processing.  In reality, HCC misled policyholders about the scope
of the coverage and made it unreasonably difficult to make a
claim, the Plaintiffs further allege.  The Plaintiffs add that HCC
had a common policy and practice of marketing their polices in a
misleading manner, delaying and refusing to pay claims, providing
deliberately unhelpful customer service, and generally obstructing
policyholders' claims in bad faith.

The Plaintiffs assert claims for (i) violations of the California
Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); (ii) violations of the California
False Advertising Law ("FAL"); (iii) breach of contract; (iv)
breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing; and (v)
unjust enrichment.  The putative class is all "individuals who
have purchased HCC health insurance policies from Defendants in
the State of California, and/or all California residents for whom
HCC denied their insurance claim, since a date to be ascertained
through discovery."

On April 13 and 14, 2017, the Defendants separately filed motions
to dismiss the complaint and/or strike its allegations, which are
all noticed for hearing on June 14, 2017.  Currently, the initial
case management conference is scheduled for the following day,
June 15, 2017.

On April 20, 2017, the Defendants filed a motion to stay discovery
pending resolution of the motions to dismiss.  Their motion to
stay argues that they should not face "costly and burdensome
discovery" in light of the pending motions to dismiss, which are
potentially "meritorious and case dispositive."  The stay would
cause no harm to the Plaintiffs, because it is "limited and brief"
and the motions to dismiss will be heard by the court in a few
weeks.  The Defendants thus argue that the two-part test for a
stay is met.  The Plaintiffs respond that defendants have not
shown an "immediate and clear possibility" that the dispositive
motions will be granted.  Moreover, the Plaintiffs allege that a
stay would prejudice them by delaying resolution of their claims.

The Court finds that the Defendants' motion to stay discovery is
premature.  It is the Defendants' "heavy" burden to show "good
cause" to justify a stay.  The Plaintiffs have not served any
discovery on defendants (to the court's knowledge), and they
cannot do so until after the Rule 26(f) conference.  The Court
cannot evaluate the burden and proportionality of the discovery
until the requests are actually made.  The Court therefore denied
the Defendants' motion to stay discovery because the Defendants
have not met their burden.

The Court held that the denial is without prejudice to the
Defendants later seeking a stay or protective order should any
actual discovery requests be unduly burdensome or disproportionate
to the needs of the case at this stage.

However, it is not this Court's typical practice to conduct a CMC
until the pleadings are settled.  Although the parties stipulated
to schedule the initial CMC on June 15, 2017, the Court finds that
conducting a CMC on that date would be inappropriate in light of
the Defendants' pending motions to dismiss.  The Court therefore
vacated the June 15, 2017 case management conference.

The Court will reschedule the initial CMC once it has ruled on the
pending Rule 12(b) motions.  Insofar as the date of the Rule 26(f)
conference is based on the date of the initial CMC, no discovery
will be permitted, by operation of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, until the Court has ruled on the motions and
rescheduled the initial CMC.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 26, 2017 order is available at
https://is.gd/MaJp8s from Leagle.com

Mohammed Azad, Plaintiff, represented by David F. Slade, Carney
Bates & Pulliam, PLLC.

Mohammed Azad, Plaintiff, represented by James Allen Carney,
Carney Bates Pulliam, PLLC, Jay B. Angoff, Mehri and Skalet,
Matthew

Thomas Prewitt, Cuneo Gilbert and LaDuca LLP, Michael J. Flannery,
Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, Rachel Geman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann
& Bernstein, LLP & Kelly M. Dermody, Leiff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein LLP.

Danielle Buckley, Plaintiff, represented by David F. Slade, Carney
Bates & Pulliam, PLLC, James Allen Carney, Carney Bates Pulliam,

PLLC, Jay B. Angoff, Mehri and Skalet, Matthew Thomas Prewitt,
Cuneo Gilbert and LaDuca LLP, Michael J. Flannery, Cuneo Gilbert &

LaDuca, LLP, Rachel Geman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
& Kelly M. Dermody, Leiff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP.

Tokio Marine HCC - Medical Insurance Services Group, Defendant,
represented by Gerard G. Pecht, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP,
Joshua

David Lichtman, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Michael Scott
Incerto, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Michelle Lynnea Mello,
Norton Rose

Fulbright US LLP & Sumera I. Khan, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP,
pro hac vice.

Health Insurance Innovations, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Garry W. O'Donnell, Greenspoon Marder, P.A. & Daniel J. Herling,
Mintz

Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo P.C..

HCC Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Gerard G.
Pecht, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Joshua David Lichtman, Norton

Rose Fulbright US LLP, Michael Scott Incerto, Norton Rose
Fulbright US LLP, Michelle Lynnea Mello, Norton Rose Fulbright US
LLP &

Sumera I. Khan, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, pro hac vice.

Consumer Benefits of America, Defendant, represented by Howard
Michael Garfield, Haight, Brown, & Bonesteel, David W. Evans,
Haight

Brown & Bonesteel LLP & Renata Louise Hoddinott, HAIGHT BROWN
BONESTEEL LLP.


U.S. CONCRETE: To Defend Against "Ruedelstein" Suit
---------------------------------------------------
U.S. Concrete, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that Hans Ruedelstein,
individually and on behalf of all others situated, filed on March
28, 2017, a purported class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court of Northern Texas, Fort Worth Division, against the
Company, William J. Sandbrook, William M. Brown and Joseph C.
Tusa, Jr. alleging violations of certain federal securities laws.
The case was filed purportedly on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's stock between March 6, 2015 and March 23, 2017. The
complaint does not specify an amount of damages sought.

The Company denies the allegations in the complaint and intends to
vigorously pursue its defense.

U.S. Concrete, Inc. is a producer of ready-mixed concrete in
select geographic markets in the United States and the U.S. Virgin
Islands.


UNITED PARCEL: Trial Scheduled for August 2017 in "Morgate" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that trial is scheduled
for August 2017 in the case, Morgate v. The UPS Store, Inc. et al.

The Company said, "UPS and our subsidiary The UPS Store, Inc. are
defendants in Morgate v. The UPS Store, Inc. et al., an action in
the Los Angeles Superior Court brought on behalf of a certified
class of all franchisees who chose to rebrand their Mail Boxes
Etc. franchises to The UPS Store in March 2003. Plaintiff alleges
that UPS and The UPS Store, Inc. misrepresented and omitted facts
to the class about the market tests that were conducted before
offering the class the choice of whether to rebrand to The UPS
Store."

"We have filed a motion to decertify the class, which is currently
scheduled to be heard in May 2017. Trial is scheduled for August
2017."


UNITED PARCEL: Continues to Defend Against Wright and Zislin Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company
continues to vigorously defend the case, Ryan Wright and Julia
Zislin v. United Parcel Service Canada Ltd.

The Company said, "We are a defendant in Ryan Wright and Julia
Zislin v. United Parcel Service Canada Ltd., an action brought on
behalf of a certified class of customers in the Superior Court of
Justice in Ontario, Canada. Plaintiffs filed suit in February
2007, alleging inadequate disclosure concerning the existence and
cost of brokerage services provided by us under applicable
provincial consumer protection legislation and infringement of
interest restriction provisions under the Criminal Code of
Canada."

"Partial summary judgment was granted to us and the plaintiffs by
the Ontario motions court in August 2011, when it dismissed
plaintiffs' complaint under the Criminal Code and granted
plaintiffs' complaint of inadequate disclosure.

"We appealed the Court's decision pertaining to inadequate
disclosure in September 2011 and continue to vigorously defend all
other allegations.

"There are multiple factors that prevent us from being able to
estimate the amount of loss, if any, that may result from this
matter, including: (1) we are vigorously defending ourselves and
believe that we have a number of meritorious legal defenses; and
(2) there are unresolved questions of law and fact that could be
important to the ultimate resolution of this matter.

"Accordingly, at this time, we are not able to estimate a possible
loss or range of loss that may result from this matter or to
determine whether such loss, if any, would have a material adverse
effect on our financial condition, results of operations or
liquidity."


UNITED STATES: Summary Judgment Partially OK'd in FS's Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned KATHLEEN BREEN, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
ELAINE L. CHAO, SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 05-0654 (PLF)
(D.D.C.), for the reasons set forth in the Opinion issued as of
May 26, 2017, Judge Paul L. Friedman, United States District
Court, District of Columbia, (i) granted the Defendants' motion
for summary judgment in part and denied in part; (i) denied the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment with respect to the
Plaintiffs' disparate treatment claim under the ADEA; (iii)
granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment with respect
to the Plaintiffs' disparate impact claim under the ADEA; and (iv)
entered judgment for the Defendants on the Plaintiffs' disparate
impact claim.

The Plaintiffs, former flight service ("FS") specialists with the
Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA"), brought this suit against
the FAA and the Department of Transportation alleging
discrimination on the basis of age, in violation of the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 ("ADEA").  The Defendants
terminated the Plaintiffs' employment pursuant to a reduction in
force ("RIF") that involved outsourcing the FS function to
Lockheed Martin, a private company.  The Plaintiffs allege (i) a
disparate treatment claim -- that the FAA decided to outsource the
FS function because of the age of the FS specialists, and (ii) a
disparate impact claim -- that the FAA's decision had a
disproportionate impact on workers over the age of 40.

The Defendants have moved for summary judgment on both theories.
As to the disparate treatment claim, they contend that (i) the RIF
applied to every FS specialist, regardless of age; (ii) the agency
had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for outsourcing the FS
function; and (iii) comments made by FAA managers about age and
the aging workforce were not made by decision makers in the A-76
process or the 2005 RIF decision and, in any event, were
legitimate in the context in which they were made.  As for the
disparate impact claim, the Defendants argue that there can be no
disparate impact claim based on the RIF or, alternatively, on the
2002 decision to designate the FS function as "non-core," because
neither was a facially neutral employment policy or practice.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 26, 2017 order
https://is.gd/0Hu4Sw is available at from Leagle.com

Kathleen A. Breen, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Christopher
Corman, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.

Kathleen A. Breen, Plaintiff, represented by Shaylyn Capri
Cochran, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC & Lenore Cooper Garon,
Law Office of Lenore C. Garon, PLLC.

Milton J. Torres III, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Christopher
Corman, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Shaylyn Capri Cochran,
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC & Lenore Cooper Garon, Law
Office of Lenore C. Garon, PLLC.

Richard C. Anderson, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Christopher
Corman, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Shaylyn Capri Cochran,
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC & Lenore Cooper Garon, Law
Office of Lenore C. Garon, PLLC.

Ronald J. Consalvo, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Christopher
Corman, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Shaylyn Capri Cochran,
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC & Lenore Cooper Garon, Law
Office of Lenore C. Garon, PLLC.

Mark Jaffee, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Christopher Corman,
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Shaylyn Capri Cochran, Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC & Lenore Cooper Garon, Law Office of
Lenore C. Garon, PLLC.

Darrell G. Mounts, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Christopher
Corman, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Shaylyn Capri Cochran,
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC & Lenore Cooper Garon, Law
Office of Lenore C. Garon, PLLC.

John O'Connell, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Christopher
Corman, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Shaylyn Capri Cochran,
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC & Lenore Cooper Garon, Law
Office of Lenore C. Garon, PLLC.

Michael J. Sheldon, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Christopher
Corman, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Shaylyn Capri Cochran,
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC & Lenore Cooper Garon, Law
Office of Lenore C. Garon, PLLC.

Jerry Vanvacter, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Christopher
Corman, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Shaylyn Capri Cochran,
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC & Lenore Cooper Garon, Law
Office of Lenore C. Garon, PLLC.

Marion C. Blakey, Defendant, represented by Adam D. Kirschner,
U.S. Department of Justice, Brian G. Kennedy, U.S. Department of
Justice, Elizabeth L. Kade, U.S. Department of Justice & Lisa
Zeidner Marcus, U.S. Department of Justice.

Ray H. LaHood, Defendant, represented by Adam D. Kirschner, U.S.
Department of Justice, Brian G. Kennedy, U.S. Department of
Justice, Lisa Zeidner Marcus, U.S. Department of Justice &
Elizabeth L. Kade, U.S. Department of Justice.


UNIV OF SOUTH CALIFORNIA: "Alvarado" Suit Moved to C.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Elizabeth Alvarado and Jose Ramos,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. University of Southern California, DOES
1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. BC658703, was removed on May 16,
2017, from Superior Court of CA County of Los Angeles, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District Of California (Western
Division - Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:17-cv-03671-GW-AJW to the proceeding. The case is assigned
to the Hon. Judge George H. Wu.

The University of Southern California is a private research
university founded in 1880 with its main campus in Los Angeles,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alex P Katofsky, Esq.
          Daniel F Gaines, Esq.
          Kenneth S Gaines, Esq.
          GAINES AND GAINES APLC
          27200 Agoura Road Suite 101
          Calabasas, CA 91301
          Telephone: (818) 703 8985
          Facsimile: (818) 703 8984
          E-mail: alex@gaineslawfirm.com
                  daniel@gaineslawfirm.com
                  ken@gaineslawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Andrew McTernan, Esq.
          Ekwan E Rhow, Esq.
          BIRD MARELLA BOXER WOLPERT
          NESSIM DROOKS LINCENBERG AND RHOW
          1875 Century Park East 23rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201 2100
          Facsimile: (310) 201 2110
          E-mail: am@birdmarella.com
                  erhow@birdmarella.com


UNIVERSAL HANDICRAFT: Faces "Land" Suit in S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Universal
Handicraft, Inc. The case is captioned as Millie Land, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Universal Handicraft, Inc., doing business as: Deep Sea Cosmetics,
doing business as: Adore Organic Innovations, and Shay Sabag
Segev, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-21947-CMA (S.D. Fla., May
25, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Cecilia M.
Altonaga.[BN]

Universal Handicraft was founded in 2001. The company's line of
business includes the retail sale of specialized lines of
merchandise.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Houchin, Esq.
          Ronald Marron, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696 9006
          E-mail: mike@consumersadvocates.com
                  ron@consumersadvocates.com

               - and -

          Cullin Avram O'Brien, Esq.
          CULLIN O'BRIEN LAW, P.A.
          6541 NE 21st Way
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33308
          Telephone: (561) 676 6370
          Facsimile: (561) 320 0285
          E-mail: cullin@cullinobrienlaw.com


UPTOWN COMMUNICATIONS: Davis Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DUNBAR DAVIS and REGAN LAING, on behalf of
themselves, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. UPTOWN COMMUNICATIONS & ELECTRIC
INC., and JONATHAN SMOKLER, an individual, and DANIEL GREENBERG,
an individual, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-03990-LB
(E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to:

   1. preliminarily approve a proposed Settlement Agreement;

   2. approve a proposed Notice of Settlement and approve a
      proposed Claim Form and Release;

   3. certify, for settlement purposes only, the settlement class
      of:

      a. under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3), all individuals
         who worked as cable installers/technicians for
         Defendants at any time between August 6, 2011 through
         the date of this Order, and who may be owed unpaid
         overtime wages for all hours worked over forty and
         statutory damages ("New York class"); and

      b. under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), all individuals who
         worked as cable installers/technicians for Defendants at
         any time between July 18, 2013 through the date of this
         Order, and who may be owed unpaid overtime wages for all
         hours worked over forty and statutory damages ("Federal
         class");

   4. appoint Named Plaintiffs as Class Representatives;

   5. appoint Borrelli & Associates, P.L.L.C. as Class Counsel;

   6. appoint Arden Claims Service, LLC as the Claims
      Administrator for this settlement; and

   7. approve the Parties' proposed schedule for the filing of a
      motion for final approval, for class members to opt out or
      file objections to the proposed settlement, and scheduling
      a fairness hearing.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BYV25qiu

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq.
          Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
          Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
          BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
          655 Third Avenue, Suite 1821
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 679 5000
          Facsimile: (212) 679 5005


VANGUARD GROUP: Bid to Dismiss "Taksir" Partly Granted
------------------------------------------------------
Judge Cynthia M. Rufe of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in
part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the case ALEX TAKSIR and
ORIT TAKSIR, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE VANGUARD GROUP, INC., Defendant,
Civil Action No. 16-5713 (E.D. Pa.), alleging that the Defendant
overcharged customers on securities transactions.

Plaintiffs Alex Taksir and Orit Taksir, who are married, hold
approximately $600,000 in assets with the Defendant, qualifying
them for the Defendant's "Voyager Select" program, which is
available to clients with between $500,000 and $1 million in
assets.  The Plaintiffs allege that, under the terms of the
program posted on the Defendant's Web site, they should be charged
a $2 brokerage commission for each securities transaction executed
using the Defendant's services.  However, on May 12, 2016, the
Plaintiffs purchased shares of Nokia Corp. (Mr. Taksir purchased
1,100 shares and Mrs. Taksir purchased 384 shares) and each was
charged a $7 commission instead.

Mr. Taksir complained about the alleged overcharge, but was
informed by the Defendant that the Plaintiffs' trades were not
eligible for the $2 commission due to "IRS nondiscrimination
rules" -- an exception to the Voyager Select program not listed on
the Defendant's Web site.  The Plaintiffs allege that no such IRS
rules exist, and that Mrs. Taksir was charged $2 for another
purchase of Nokia shares six weeks later, suggesting the
Defendant's application of the "IRS nondiscrimination rules" is
arbitrary.  The Plaintiffs allege that other Vanguard clients are
similarly being overcharged on securities transactions.

The Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on behalf of themselves and a
proposed class of all other Vanguard clients who "purchased
securities pursuant to Vanguard's Voyager Select program and/or
other Vanguard Enhanced Services from the inception of the
Enhanced Services through the present and paid a commission and
sales charge greater than the terms prescribed by the respective
services."  They assert two claims: (i) breach of contract; and
(ii) violation of Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Law ("UTPCPL").  The Defendant has moved to
dismiss, arguing primarily that the Plaintiffs' claims are
preempted by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of
1998 ("SLUSA").  The Defendant also argues that the Plaintiffs'
UTPCPL claim fails because the Plaintiffs have not pleaded
justifiable reliance.

The parties disagree regarding the applicable standard for
determining whether SLUSA's "in connection with" requirement is
met.  The Defendant argues that fraud or deception is "in
connection with" a covered securities transaction for SLUSA
purposes so long as it "coincided" with a covered securities
transaction, relying on the Supreme Court's 2006 opinion in
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Dabit.  The
Plaintiffs respond that the "in connection with" requirement is
met only where fraud or deception was "material to" a decision to
engage in a covered securities transaction, an interpretation
predicated on the Supreme Court's -- opinion in Chadbourne & Parke
LLP v. Troice.  Because the "in connection with" requirement is
not met, the Plaintiffs' claims avoid SLUSA's bar.  The
Defendant's motion to dismiss will be denied to the extent it is
based on SLUSA.

The Defendant also moves to dismiss the Plaintiffs' UTPCPL claim
on the ground that Plaintiffs have failed to allege justifiable
reliance.   The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has announced and
applied a broad rule that private plaintiffs must allege
justifiable reliance to state a claim under the UTPCPL.  Here, the
Plaintiffs do not allege justifiable reliance, and more or less
disclaim it, as they argue that the Defendant's alleged
misrepresentations concerning its brokerage commissions did not
induce them to maintain an account with the Defendant or to engage
in any securities transactions.  The Plaintiffs' UTPCPL claim will
thus be dismissed with prejudice, as the Plaintiffs have not
requested leave to amend and amendment would be futile.

For these reasons, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the Defendant's motion to dismiss.  The Plaintiffs' UTPCPL claim
will be dismissed with prejudice for failure to plead justifiable
reliance, and Plaintiffs' claim for breach of contract may
proceed.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 26, 2017 memorandum opinion is
available at https://is.gd/dwypAw from Leagle.com

Alex Taksir, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher L. Nelson, The
Weiser Law Firm, P.C..

Alex Taksir, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan M. Zimmerman, The
Weiser Law Firm, Samuel L. Rosenberg, Law Offices of Samuel L.
Rosenberg & James M. Ficaro, The Weiser Law Firm PC.

Orit Taksir, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher L. Nelson, The
Weiser Law Firm, P.C., Jonathan M. Zimmerman, The Weiser Law Firm,
Law Offices of Samuel L. Rosenberg & James M. Ficaro, The Weiser
Law Firm PC.

The Vanguard Group, Defendant, represented by Stuart T. Steinberg,
Dechert LLP & Selby Brown, Dechert LLP.


VASCO DATA: Motion to Dismiss "Rossbach" Class Action Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
VASCO Data Security International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4,
2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that
defendants' motion to dismiss a class action complaint remains
pending.

On July 28, 2015 a putative class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, captioned Linda J. Rossbach v. Vasco Data Security
International, Inc., et al., case number 1:15-cv-06605, naming
VASCO and certain of its current and former executive officers as
defendants and alleging violations under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended. The suit was purportedly filed on behalf
of a putative class of investors who purchased VASCO securities
between April 28, 2015 and July 28, 2015, and seeks to recover
damages allegedly caused by the defendants' alleged violations of
the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint seeks certification as
a class action and unspecified compensatory damages plus interest
and attorneys' fees.

Pursuant to a September 1, 2015 scheduling order entered by the
court, the lead plaintiff, once appointed, will have sixty days to
file an amended complaint or notify the defendants that the lead
plaintiff intends to rely on the current complaint. On January 30,
2017, the appointed lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint in
which the allegations regarding OFAC related matters were dropped
and replaced with allegations regarding public disclosures made by
the defendants in April 2015 as compared to public statements made
in July 2015, generally regarding the strength of the Company's
business and its future prospects.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on March
31, 2017.

Although the ultimate outcome of litigation cannot be predicted
with certainty, the Company believes that this lawsuit is without
merit and intends to defend against the action vigorously. VASCO
is indemnifying Messrs. Hunt, Valcke, and Bown for this matter.

VASCO Data Security International, Inc. designs, develops and
markets digital solutions for identity, security, and business
productivity that protect and facilitate transactions online, via
mobile devices, and in-person.


WELLPET LLC: Court Dismisses "Made in the USA" Label Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reena R. Bajowala, Esq. -- rbajowala@jenner.com -- of Jenner &
Block LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that a federal court
in Chicago recently dismissed a lawsuit brought by Dale Sabo, an
Illinois resident seeking to represent a multi-state class of
consumers who bought defendant Wellpet LLC's pet food products.
Mr. Sabo alleged that the products were falsely labeled "Made in
the USA," but instead contain vitamins and minerals sourced from
outside the United States in violation of Illinois, California,
New York and six other state consumer fraud statutes.  Mr. Sabo
alleged that he places a premium on American-made products and is
willing to pay more for them.  In addition, he claims that a
majority of Americans feel the same way, particularly given recent
reports of recalls linked to foreign-sourced ingredients.

To prevail on a consumer fraud claim, though, a plaintiff must
plead actual damages, i.e., actual pecuniary loss. The court found
that plaintiff failed to do so.  While Sabo alleged that he "paid
more for the products than they were actually worth," the court
held that he failed to provide the factual foundation "to moor his
subjective estimation of the products' worth."  Neither did he
allege that products that lacked domestic-source designations were
less expensive. As a result, "while he alleges that he (and other
consumers) are willing to pay a premium for goods made in the
United States, he stops short of alleging that he in fact paid
more for defendant's . . . American-made" products. Because the
damages allegation was too speculative, the Court dismissed the
lawsuit. [GN]

Sabo v. Wellpet, LLC, 2017 WL 1427057, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___ (N.D.
Ill. Apr. 4, 2017).


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Ninth Circuit Appeal Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
The Williams Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the class action
plaintiffs' petition for permission to appeal an order with the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit remains
pending.

The Company said, "Direct and indirect purchasers of natural gas
in various states filed an individual and class actions against
us, our former affiliate WPX and its subsidiaries, and others
alleging the manipulation of published gas price indices and
seeking unspecified amounts of damages. Such actions were
transferred to the Nevada federal district court for consolidation
of discovery and pre-trial issues. We have agreed to indemnify WPX
and its subsidiaries related to this matter."

"In the individual action, filed by Farmland Industries Inc.
(Farmland), the court issued an order on May 24, 2016, granting
one of our co-defendant's motion for summary judgment as to
Farmland's claims. On January 5, 2017, the court extended such
ruling to us, entering final judgment in our favor. Farmland has
appealed.

"In the putative class actions, on March 30, 2017, the court
issued an order denying the plaintiffs' motions for class
certification. On April 13, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a petition
for permission to appeal such order with the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

"Because of the uncertainty around the remaining pending
unresolved issues, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of
potential exposure at this time. However, it is reasonably
possible that the ultimate resolution of these actions and our
related indemnification obligation could result in a potential
loss that may be material to our results of operations. In
connection with this indemnification, we have an accrued liability
balance associated with this matter, and as a result, have
exposure to future developments in this matter."

Williams is an energy infrastructure company focused on connecting
North America's significant hydrocarbon resource plays to growing
markets for natural gas and NGLs.


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Settles Claims Related to Geismar Incident
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Williams Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company has
settled or agreed in principle to settle numerous personal injury
claims related to the Geismar Incident.

The Company said, "On June 13, 2013, an explosion and fire
occurred at our Geismar olefins plant and rendered the facility
temporarily inoperable (Geismar Incident). As a result, there were
two fatalities and numerous individuals (including employees and
contractors) reported injuries. We are addressing the following
contingent liabilities in connection with the Geismar Incident."

"On October 21, 2013, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) issued an Inspection Report pursuant to the Clean Air Act's
Risk Management Program following its inspection of the facility
on June 24 through June 28, 2013. The report notes the EPA's
preliminary determinations about the facility's documentation
regarding process safety, process hazard analysis, as well as
operating procedures, employee training, and other matters.

"On June 16, 2014, we received a request for information related
to the Geismar Incident from the EPA under Section 114 of the
Clean Air Act to which we responded on August 13, 2014. The EPA
could issue penalties pertaining to final determinations.

"Multiple lawsuits, including class actions for alleged offsite
impacts, property damage, customer claims, and personal injury,
have been filed against us. The first two trials, for nine
plaintiffs claiming personal injury, were held in Louisiana state
court in Iberville Parish, Louisiana in September and November
2016. The juries returned adverse verdicts against us, our
subsidiary Williams Olefins, LLC, and other defendants.

"To date, we have settled those cases as well as settled or agreed
in principle to settle numerous other personal injury claims, and
such aggregate amount greater than our $2 million retention
(deductible) value has been or will be recovered from our
insurers. We believe these settlements to date substantially
resolve any material exposure to such claims arising from the
Geismar Incident. We believe that any additional losses arising
from our alleged liability will be immaterial to our expected
future annual results of operations, liquidity, and financial
position and will be substantially covered by our general
liability insurance policy, which has an aggregate limit of $610
million applicable to this event."

Williams is an energy infrastructure company focused on connecting
North America's significant hydrocarbon resource plays to growing
markets for natural gas and NGLs.


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Dismissal of Shareholder Suit Under Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Williams Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the plaintiff in a
shareholder litigation has taken an appeal from the dismissal of
its complaint.

The Company said, "Between October 2015 and December 2015,
purported shareholders of us filed six putative class action
lawsuits in the Delaware Court of Chancery that were consolidated
into a single suit on January 13, 2016. This consolidated putative
class action lawsuit relates to our terminated merger with Energy
Transfer Equity, L.P. (Energy Transfer). The complaint asserts
various claims against the individual members of our Board of
Directors, including that they breached their fiduciary duties by
agreeing to sell us through an allegedly unfair process and for an
allegedly unfair price and by allegedly failing to disclose
allegedly material information about the merger. The complaint
seeks, among other things, an injunction against the merger and an
award of costs and attorneys' fees."

"On March 22, 2016, the court granted the parties' proposed order
in the consolidated action to stay the proceedings pending the
close of the transaction with Energy Transfer. The plaintiffs have
not filed an amended complaint.

"A purported shareholder filed a separate class action lawsuit in
the Delaware Court of Chancery on January 15, 2016. The putative
class action complaint alleged that the individual members of our
Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among other
things, agreeing to the WPZ Merger Agreement, which purportedly
reduced the merger consideration to have been received in the
subsequently proposed but now terminated merger with Energy
Transfer. The plaintiff filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss,
which the court granted on January 13, 2017.

"On September 2, 2016, the same purported shareholder filed a
derivative action claiming that the members of our Board of
Directors breached their fiduciary duties by executing the WPZ
Merger Agreement as a defensive measure against Energy Transfer.
On September 28, 2016, we requested the court dismiss this action
also.

"On March 7, 2016, a purported unitholder of WPZ filed a putative
class action on behalf of certain purchasers of WPZ units in U.S.
District Court in Oklahoma. The action names as defendants us,
WPZ, Williams Partners GP LLC, Alan S. Armstrong, and Donald R.
Chappel and alleges violations of certain federal securities laws
for failure to disclose Energy Transfer's intention to pursue a
purchase of us conditioned on us not closing the WPZ Merger
Agreement when announcing the WPZ Merger Agreement. The complaint
seeks, among other things, damages and an award of costs and
attorneys' fees. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on
August 31, 2016.

"On October 17, 2016, we requested the court dismiss the action,
and on March 8, 2017, the court dismissed the complaint with
prejudice. On April 7, 2017, the plaintiff filed a notice of
appeal. We cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss at
this time."

Williams is an energy infrastructure company focused on connecting
North America's significant hydrocarbon resource plays to growing
markets for natural gas and NGLs.


WOOD GROUP PSN: "Salinas" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wage Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROLAND SALINAS, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated,
the Plaintiff, v. WOOD GROUP PSN COMMISSIONING SERVICES, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00177 (S.D. Tex., May 29, 2017), seeks
to recover all unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
and attorneys' fees under Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

According to the complaint, by failing to pay Salinas and those
similarly situated to him overtime at one-and-one-half times their
regular rates, Wood Group PSN violated the FLSA's overtime
provisions. Wood Group PSN owes Salinas and those similarly
situated to him the difference between the rate actually paid and
the proper overtime rate. Because Wood Group PSN knew, or showed
reckless disregard for whether, its pay practices violated the
FLSA, Wood Group PSN owes these wages for at least the past three
years.

Wood Group provides onshore and offshore operations and
maintenance.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          James A. Jones, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877 8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877 8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

               - and -

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


WORLD WRESTLING: Bid to Dismiss Laurinaitis Amended Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company's
motion to dismiss the Laurinaitis plaintiffs' amended complaint
remains pending.

The Company believes all claims and threatened claims against the
Company in these various lawsuits are being prompted by the same
plaintiffs' lawyer and are without merit.  The Company intends to
continue to defend itself against these lawsuits vigorously.


The Company said, "On October 23, 2014, a lawsuit was filed in the
U. S. District Court for the District of Oregon, entitled William
Albert Haynes III, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.  This complaint
was amended on January 30, 2015 and alleges that the Company
ignored, downplayed, and/or failed to disclose the risks
associated with traumatic brain injuries suffered by WWE's
performers and seeks class action status.  On March 31, 2015, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the first amended class action
complaint in its entirety or, if not dismissed, to transfer the
lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut.  Without addressing the merits of the Company's
motion to dismiss, the Court transferred the case to Connecticut
on June 25, 2015.  The plaintiffs filed an objection to such
transfer, which was denied on July 27, 2015."

"On January 16, 2015, a second lawsuit was filed in the U. S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, entitled
Evan Singleton and Vito LoGrasso, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment,
Inc., alleging many of the same allegations as Haynes.

"On February 27, 2015, the Company moved to transfer venue to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut due to forum-
selection clauses in the contracts between WWE and the plaintiffs
and that motion was granted on March 23, 2015.  The plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint on May 22, 2015 and, following a
scheduling conference in which the court ordered the plaintiffs to
cure various pleading deficiencies, the plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint on June 15, 2015.

"On June 29, 2015, WWE moved to dismiss the second amended
complaint in its entirety.

"On April 9, 2015, a third lawsuit was filed in the U. S. District
Court for the Central District of California, entitled Russ
McCullough, a/k/a "Big Russ McCullough," Ryan Sakoda, and Matthew
R. Wiese a/k/a "Luther Reigns," individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.,
asserting similar allegations to Haynes."

The Company again moved to transfer the lawsuit to Connecticut due
to forum-selection clauses in the contracts between WWE and the
plaintiffs, which the California court granted on July 10, 2015.

On September 21, 2015, the plaintiffs amended this complaint and,
on November 16, 2015, the Company moved to dismiss the amended
complaint.

Each of these suits seeks unspecified actual, compensatory and
punitive damages and injunctive relief, including ordering medical
monitoring.  The Haynes and McCullough cases purport to be class
actions.

On February 18, 2015, a lawsuit was filed in Tennessee state court
and subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Tennessee, entitled Cassandra Frazier,
individually and as next of kin to her deceased husband, Nelson
Lee Frazier, Jr., and as personal representative of the Estate of
Nelson Lee Frazier, Jr. Deceased, v. World Wrestling
Entertainment, Inc.

A similar suit was filed in the U. S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas entitled Michelle James, as mother and
next friend of Matthew Osborne, minor child, and Teagan Osborne, a
minor child v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. These lawsuits
contain many of the same allegations as the other lawsuits
alleging traumatic brain injuries and further allege that the
injuries contributed to these former talents' deaths.

WWE moved to transfer the Frazier and Osborne lawsuits to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut based on forum-
selection clauses in the decedents' contracts with WWE, which
motions were granted by the respective courts.

On November 23, 2015, amended complaints were filed in Frazier and
Osborne, which the Company moved to dismiss on December 16, 2015
and December 21, 2015, respectively.

On November 10, 2016, the Court granted the Company's motions to
dismiss the Frazier and Osborne lawsuits in their entirety.

On June 29, 2015, the Company filed a declaratory judgment action
in the U. S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
entitled World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. Robert Windham,
Thomas Billington, James Ware, Oreal Perras and various John and
Jane Does seeking a declaration against these former performers
that their threatened claims related to alleged traumatic brain
injuries and/or other tort claims are time-barred.

On September 21, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
this complaint, which the Company opposed.

The Court previously ordered a stay of discovery in all cases
pending decisions on the motions to dismiss.  On January 15, 2016,
the Court partially lifted the stay and permitted discovery only
on three issues in the case involving Singleton and LoGrasso. Such
discovery was completed by June 1, 2016.

On March 21, 2016, the Court issued a memorandum of decision
granting in part and denying in part the Company's motions to
dismiss the Haynes, Singleton/LoGrasso, and McCullough lawsuits.
The Court granted the Company's motions to dismiss the Haynes and
McCullough lawsuits in their entirety and granted the Company's
motion to dismiss all claims in the Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit
except for the claim of fraud by omission.

On March 22, 2016, the Court issued an order dismissing the
Windham lawsuit based on the Court's memorandum of decision on the
motions to dismiss.

On April 4, 2016, the Company filed a motion for reconsideration
with respect to the Court's decision not to dismiss the fraud by
omission claim in the Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit and, on April 5,
2016, the Company filed a motion for reconsideration with respect
to the Court dismissal of the Windham lawsuit.

On July 21, 2016, the Court denied the Company's motion in the
Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit and granted in part the Company's
motion in the Windham lawsuit.

On April 20, 2016, the plaintiffs filed notices of appeal of the
Haynes and McCullough lawsuits.

On April 27, 2016, the Company moved to dismiss the appeals for
lack of appellate jurisdiction, which motions were granted and the
appeals were dismissed with leave to appeal upon the resolution of
all of the consolidated cases.

The Company has filed a motion for summary judgment on the sole
remaining claim in the Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit.

Lastly, on July 18, 2016, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut, entitled Joseph M.
Laurinaitis, et al. vs. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. and
Vincent K. McMahon, individually and as the trustee of certain
trusts.  This lawsuit contains many of the same allegations as the
other lawsuits alleging traumatic brain injuries and further
alleges, among other things, that the plaintiffs were
misclassified as independent contractors rather than employees
denying them, among other things, rights and benefits under the
Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), the National Labor
Relations Act (NLRA), the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA),
federal tax law, and various state Worker's Compensation laws.
This lawsuit also alleges that the booking contracts and other
agreements between the plaintiffs and the Company are
unconscionable and should be declared void, entitling the
plaintiffs to certain damages relating to the Company's use of
their intellectual property. The lawsuit alleges claims for
violation of RICO, unjust enrichment, and an accounting against
Mr. McMahon.

The Company and Mr. McMahon moved to dismiss this complaint on
October 19, 2016.  On November 9, 2016, the Laurinaitis plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint.

On December 23, 2016, the Company and Mr. McMahon moved to dismiss
the amended complaint.

The Company believes all claims and threatened claims against the
Company in these various lawsuits are being prompted by the same
plaintiffs' lawyer and are without merit.  The Company intends to
continue to defend itself against these lawsuits vigorously.

WWE is an integrated media and entertainment company, principally
engaged in the production and distribution of content through
various channels, including its premium over-the-top WWE Network,
television rights agreements, pay-per-view event programming, live
events, feature films, licensing of various WWE themed products,
and the sale of consumer products featuring its brands.


WORLD WRESTLING: To Defend Against "Bagwell" Case in Connecticut
----------------------------------------------------------------
World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company
intends to continue to defend itself vigorously in the case,
Marcus Bagwell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.

On August 9, 2016, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Connecticut entitled Marcus Bagwell,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.  The lawsuit alleges claims
for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust
enrichment and violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade
Practices Act, C.G.S. Sec.42-110a, et seq., principally arising
from WWE's alleged failure to pay royalties for streaming video on
WWE Network.

On September 7, 2016, a motion for leave to amend was filed along
with a proposed amended complaint that, among other things, sought
to add Scott Levy as an individual plaintiff and WCW, Inc. as a
defendant.

On November 4, 2016, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for
leave to amend and plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on
November 7, 2016.

On December 2, 2016, the Company moved to dismiss the amended
complaint.

The Company believes all claims against the Company in this
lawsuit are without merit and intends to continue to defend itself
vigorously.

WWE is an integrated media and entertainment company, principally
engaged in the production and distribution of content through
various channels, including its premium over-the-top WWE Network,
television rights agreements, pay-per-view event programming, live
events, feature films, licensing of various WWE themed products,
and the sale of consumer products featuring its brands.


YUPPTV INC: Faces "Unchageri" Suit Alleging TCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
CHANDAN UNCHAGERI, Plaintiff, v. YUPPTV, INC. and YUPPTV USA INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03862 (N.D. Ill., May 23, 2017), seeks
monetary damages and injunctive relief on behalf of Plaintiff and
a class of similarly situated consumers, as a result of alleged
unsolicited telemarketing text messages sent to his and the
proposed class members' cellular telephones in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant YuppTV, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is the parent
company of co-Defendant YuppTV USA Inc. YuppTV, Inc.

YuppTV USA, Inc. is an internet based television service that
specializes in providing South Asian media programming to
audiences living in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lance A. Raphael, Esq.
     Craig R. Frisch, Esq.
     THE CONSUMER ADVOCACY CENTER, P.C.
     180 West Washington Street, Suite 700
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: (312) 782-5808


* Consumer Advocates Braces for Potential Class Action Threats
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brenda Craig, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that
consumer advocates see potential storm clouds on the horizon and
they are standing-at-the-ready to fight any forthcoming threat
that might preclude consumers from using class action suits to
pursue justice.

For years, the fine print section of contracts, particularly in
the financial services industry, has often asked consumers to sign
away their right to group lawsuits and accept forced arbitration
in the event of a dispute.

In the wake of the 2008 financial meltdown the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau (CFPB) did a very thorough analysis and compared
the outcomes of class actions suits and arbitrations. In 2015 the
CFPB released a study that showed consumers usually got the wrong
end of the stick in forced arbitrations.

In addition, the CFPB said the arbitration process was secretive,
it kept bad corporate behavior out of the headlines and allowed
corporations to get away with small amounts of compensation when
larger amounts were due.

Concerned about what it called "Contract Gotchas", particularly in
the banking and credit card industry, the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau is set to rebalance the relationship between
consumers and corporations with some proposed new rules expected
to take effect in the coming months.

Companies would be able to keep those fine print arbitration
clauses but they will no longer be able to block consumer class
action suits.

"Class actions serve important accountability purpose especially
in the financial services industry as we just saw in the Wells
Fargo recent accounts scandal where they opened as many as 3.5
million bogus accounts," says Amanda Werner who works as an
Arbitration Campaign Manager with Public Citizen and Americans for
Financial Reform, two consumer advocate and public justice groups
that are fighting potential threats to class actions.

"Generally when banks do something wrong they do it on a systemic
level and restoring the right to class actions keep the financial
sector accountable.  Class actions scare banks and lenders because
they know they are going to subject to more scrutiny than they
have in the past," she says.

The new arrangement is not popular with corporations or the US
Chamber of Commerce.  They consider class action suits to be "too
broad" and an "abuse" of the system that costs American business
millions of dollars every year.  The Chamber is in full support of
the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Bill which recently passed
through Congress and is awaiting a hearing in the Senate. Critics
say it would collar class actions by saddling litigants with very
tight restrictions.

"That bill is really a frontal attack on class actions," says
Jocelyn Larkin, the Executive Director of the Impact Fund which
provides consumers and communities with legal assistance. "It's
been condemned by the American Barr Association and by the Liberty
Caucus.  It undermines class actions, and it will create havoc in
the courts should it ever be signed into law."

Consumer advocate Amanda Werner also points to the Congressional
Review Act (CRA).  She says it has been used to get rid of a
number of Obama era regulations and could also be used to derail
the changes the CFPB has in mind regarding forced arbitration. "As
soon as the CFPB rule comes into effect legislators could use the
CRA to get rid of it."

"We are watching that very closely.  The really dangerous thing
about that is that it only requires 51 votes and also allows them
to get around the filibuster rules.  We are definitely talking to
people on the Hill right now and shoring them up to make sure
Republicans can't come after the CFPB's Arbitration rule," says
Ms. Werner. [GN]


* Foley & Lardner Attorney Discusses Class Action Reform Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Jason P. Britt, Esq. -- jbritt@foley.com -- of Foley & Lardner
LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, wrote that while
the Congressional legislative agenda has taken a back seat in the
headlines lately, the fact remains that there still is an agenda,
and it includes class action reform.

The agenda item of interest is H.R. 985, the Fairness in Class
Action Litigation and Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act
of 2017 (the "Fairness in Class Action Act") which would also lead
to multi-district litigation (MDL) reform.  With class actions
posing a major threat to corporate bottom lines, and MDLs a large
driver of litigation in federal courts (the current MDL listing
includes numerous OEMs and suppliers), the automotive industry has
a vested interest in how class action and MDL reform plays out.

The Fairness in Class Action Act passed the House in March and is
currently awaiting action by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
While that committee appears preoccupied at the moment, any
realistic scenario for the next almost two years will involve
Republican control of both houses of Congress and the White House,
with litigation reform a priority, and the Fairness in Class
Action Act is a useful preview to see what steps Washington may
take to pare back these mass actions.

In this post, the law firm takes a look at how the Fairness in
Class Action Act would reshape class actions in federal court.
Class actions are often won and lost at the certification stage:
class actions can turn from a manageable dispute with one
plaintiff into a "bet-your-company" lawsuit with thousands based
on a single certification order.  The Fairness in Class Action Act
takes several steps to make these orders tougher for class action
plaintiffs to get -- some of the key ones are explained here.

Mandating Ascertainability
One of the conflicts among federal appeals courts is to what
extent plaintiffs seeking to bring a class action have to show
that members of the class are "ascertainable."  This essentially
asks how hard a court will have to work to decide whether a given
party is in fact a member of a class the plaintiffs seek to
certify.  Some courts have taken the approach that the standard is
a low one, and that all plaintiffs need to show is that there are
objective criteria that can be used to determine class membership.
Other courts take this requirement a step further, and demand that
plaintiffs also show that there is an "administratively feasible"
step for determining membership on a class-wide basis.  For some
cases, this can be the difference between certifying a class,
creating huge exposure for a defendant, and not certifying a
class--such as where a plaintiff suing tire and automobile
manufacturers cannot point to an easy way to determine which
potential class members actually experienced a flat tire, even
though standing by itself, getting a flat tire could be an
objective criteria.

The Fairness in Class Action Act would resolve this split, by
adopting the more restrictive definition: mandating that any
plaintiff seeking to certify a class show that "there is a
reliable and administratively feasible mechanism" for both
determining class membership and for distributing any monetary
relief to the class.  This would, in practice, largely require
plaintiffs seeking to certify a class to point to a database,
list, or other source of information that could be used to show
class membership, and remove the ability of courts to rely on
methods like self-certification.  For product liability and fraud
actions in particular, this kind of reform would sharply curtail
plaintiffs' ability to certify class actions.

Class Member Injury
Another requirement for classes under the Fairness in Class Action
Act is that plaintiffs show that "each proposed class member
suffered the same type and scope of injury as the named class
representative."  Any certification order in a case seeking
"monetary relief for personal injury or economic loss" would need
to include "a determination, based on a rigorous analysis of the
evidence presented, that" this requirement was met.

This requirement would be another major shake-up for the class
action bar: currently, some courts hold that the "possibility or
indeed inevitability" that some class members may not have been
injured by the defendants does not defeat certification.  These
courts would likely need to change course should the Fairness in
Class Action Act (or something like it) pass: shrugging off the
"inevitability" of uninjured class members is inconsistent with
requiring plaintiffs to show that each class member "suffered the
same type and scope of injury" as the named plaintiff.

Appeals From Class Certification
Currently, the rules governing class certification do not require
appeals courts to entertain appeals taken from class certification
decisions: instead, appeals courts "may permit an appeal from an
order granting or denying class-action certification."  In
practice, appeals courts take these appeals in specific
situations, such as where the appeals court believes that the
certification order effectively ended the litigation, or where
there is a novel legal question the appeals court feels a need to
address quickly.  Of course, a business's appetite for risk and
determination of whether it is willing to roll the dice on a $100
million class action may not align with three judges' idea of
whether certification effectively ends a case.

The Fairness in Class Action Act would change this approach.
Instead of leaving appeals of class certification decisions up for
discretionary review, the Act would make appeals of class
certification rulings -- whether a grant or a denial of class
certification -- available as of right.  Thus, rather than face
situations in which a certified class and the prospect of trial
and a major judgment, combined with a denial of appeals court
review, forces a defendant's hand into settlement, there will
always be a crack at review of a certification decision.

Mandatory Discovery Stays
Another step taken to reduce the costs of class actions -- while
it would not necessarily make class certification more difficult
like the steps above -- is a mandatory stay of discovery during
the pendency of certain motions, like motions to dismiss or
motions to strike class allegations.  While discovery frequently
does not ramp up during motions to dismiss at the outset of the
case, the statutory language is not limited to motions to dismiss
at the pleadings stage: such motions filed while discovery is
ongoing would presumably also stay discovery.  These could take
the form of motions to dismiss based on a lack of injury (a rash
of these motions were filed in pending cases after the Supreme
Court's Spokeo decision), or of motions to strike the class
allegations after the pleadings are closed, but before discovery
is complete.  Staying discovery while these motions are pending
forestalls the ability of plaintiffs to impose discovery costs on
defendants and leverage outsized individual settlements, even as
defendants fight whether the case should be a class action in the
first place. [GN]


* Securities Industry Expresses Concern on BIC Exemption Rule
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jed Horowitz and Mason Braswell, writing for Advisor Hub, report
that Secretary of Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta's
acknowledgment that he has no legal basis to prevent the fiduciary
rule from taking effect on June 9 has focused proponents and
opponents of the rule on how it will be enforced.

The securities industry's major concern is that as of January 1,
2018 when the rule's best-interest contract (BIC) exemption takes
effect for retirement accounts, customers will be able to
participate in class-action lawsuits charging violations of the
rule's prudence and loyalty standards that go into effect in June.

The cost of such lawsuits has been a major concern of industry
trade groups and of companies like Bank of America which is
largely prohibiting Merrill Lynch brokers from using the exemption
to offer commission-based retirement accounts.  It also appears to
still be in Secretary Acosta's sightlines.

"Certainly, it is important to ensure that savers and retirees
receive prudent investment advice, but doing so in a way that
limits choice and benefits lawyers is not what this administration
envisions," he wrote in the "Wall Street Journal" op-ed piece on
May 23.

The Labor Department will continue to review the rule to ensure it
abides by President Trump's executive order to ensure that
regulations do not have harmful consequences, Acosta wrote.

"I'll take this as a win but we're not going to stop fighting,"
said Marnie Lambert, a lawyer in Columbus, Ohio, who is president
of the Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association, which
represents plaintiffs' lawyers.  "The next six months will show a
lot of fighting both ways, with people doubling down on why
changes don't need to be made or do need to be made."

The first phase of the rule taking effect in June requires
advisors to abide by customer loyalty and prudence standards,
meaning that "advice must be based on the interests of the
customer, rather than the competing financial interest of the
adviser or firm."

That raises the possibility that a broker who sells a product that
is suitable to a customer's goals and risk tolerance but that has
a higher commission could be accused of violating the standard.

A "Frequently Asked Questions" update on the rule that the DOL
released on May 22 in parallel with Secretary Acosta's essay noted
that while brokerage firms can write their best-interest contracts
permitting commissions to require an IRA investor to pursue
individual claims through arbitration, they "must preserve the
investors' ability to bring class action claims in court."

Securities industry officials vowed to continue fighting for
change despite losing their attempt to delay the fiduciary rule's
implementation date.

"We hope that upon the Department's completion of its wholesale
rule review, they will conclude, as we believe the evidence
clearly shows, that dramatic and fundamental changes are
appropriate and necessary," wrote Kenneth E. Bentsen, Jr., head of
the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, who has
long battled against the class-action enforcement mechanism.

Dale Brown, head of the independent broker-dealer trade group, the
Financial Services Institute, said in a statement that the
decision not to further extend the DOL fiduciary rule's
applicability date "will push the cost of retirement advice and
planning services out of the reach of Main Street investors" and
promised to "work with Secretary Acosta and Congress and through
the legal system to bring clarity to our members."

The rule's still-standing enforcement mechanism remains in the
focus of consumer groups.

"Retirement savers need an enforceable fiduciary standard and a
Department of Labor that is prepared to hold firms accountable for
compliance," Americans for Financial Reform, a coalition of more
than 200 consumer, labor civil rights and business groups, said in
a statement that italicized its enforcement focus.

The stocks of publicly traded independent and regional brokerage
firms were initially battered by Secretary Acosta's decision to
let the rule implementation proceed. [GN]


* Securities Litigation in Non-U.S. Jurisdictions Rises
-------------------------------------------------------
Naomi Barzel, writing for Finance Magnates, reports that |
Financial Recovery Technologies (FRT), a company that provides
securities class action recovery services, conducted research
showing that there is a shift in focus outside the traditional
U.S. securities litigation endeavors for institutional investors.
These latter are now focusing on the damage done in other
locations and antitrust related violations.  As a result, there
has been a rise in litigation taking place in non-U.S.
jurisdictions during 2016.

The report, Securities Litigation and Class Action Trends -- 2016
Year in Review, revealed that institutional investors were able to
recover billions in global antitrust settlement case.  The FRT
notes that the investors saw an increase in opportunities in these
areas of class action cases.  Outside the U.S. and Canada, a
record number of actions have been filed with an almost 56% rise
from 2015. Several of them were multiple charges filed against the
same defendant by different organizers of litigation.

Institutions discovered that complex cases required improved
capabilities and domain expertise to manage risks, while
recovering damages caused by traded securities outside the U.S.
One such case involved Volkswagen, where three actions were
proposed in Germany and two additional actions in the Netherlands.

Such cases involve alleged misconduct affecting non-securities
markets.  In 2016, almost $2 billion was recovered in settlement
funds just in the Credit Default Swap (CDS) antitrust case.  At
the moment, over $3 billion are held for disbursement from cases
involving FOREX, ISDAfix, LIBOR, and Euribor.  There are more than
40 active cases in differing stages of litigation within U.S.
borders and worldwide, and institutions are learning that each
case requires its own unique data and analysis that usually dates
back 5-10 years.

Rob Adler, President of FRT, said: "Institutional investors are
waking up to the massive pool of settlements that are currently
available, and will be, as a result of global and antitrust
litigation.  While the filing and claims processes are challenging
for even the best staffed institutions, the opportunity to
maximize recoveries on this scale is too great to pass up."

Financial Recovery Technologies is a technology-based services
company that assists the investment community identify its
members' eligibility, file actions, and recover funds that become
available in class action settlements involving securities. In
January, Finance Magnates covered Michael Cotter had stepped into
his role as Chief Revenue Officer in the company. [GN]



* SoKor Should Widen Class Action for Consumers, Watchdog Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kim Yoon-mi, writing for The Korea Herald, reports that Kim Sang-
jo, nominee for head of South Korea's antitrust watchdog Fair
Trade Commission, said South Korea should adopt class action in
broader sectors to enhance the rights of minority consumers
against corporate wrongdoings.

In a report submitted to Rep. Park Yong-jin of the ruling
Democratic Party of Korea for Kim's parliamentary confirmation
hearing, Kim said the scope of the sectors that enable class
action should be gradually expanded to help a new system settle in
society in a smooth manner.

Class action is currently available only in the securities sector.

Kim said that when considering the expansion of the class action
system, court costs for the management of suits, time and money
costs should also be factored.

Issues such as price collusions and violations on
labeling/advertisement urgently need class action, as such
corporate wrongdoings incur damage on many consumers even though
individual damage might be small, he said.

Class action enables the whole consumer group to get compensation
from a company, if an individual consumer of the group wins a
lawsuit against the firm.

He also said the FTC should impose higher fines on conglomerates
that funnel contracts and business orders to their affiliates.

If he takes office, he will seek to comprehensively reform the
FTC's fining system, he said. [GN]





                         *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Marion
Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala,
Joy A. Agravantefor, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2017. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Joseph Cardillo at 856-381-
8268.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *