---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Monday, June 12, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 116



                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: $5M Partial Deal in Water Contamination Case Approved
ABM INDUSTRIES: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Fowler" Class Suit
ALBERT COST: Faces "Hassane" Lawsuit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
ALL VALLEY: Faces "Becerra" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ALLSCRIPTS HEALTH: Bid to Certify Junk Fax Class Denied

ASANKO GOLD: Sued in E.D.N.Y. Over Misleading Company Reports
AUSTRALIA: VBA Faces Class Suit Over Home Defects
AUSTRALIA: Manus Island Detainees Start Class Action
AUSTRALIA: Not Represented at Jakarta Class Action Hearing
BARACK OBAMA: Texas Court Dismisses "Pennie" Suit

BARD: Barrie Woman Joins PerFix Plug Hernia Mesh Class Action
BJ'S WHOLESALE: Class Action Over Excessive Sales Tax Can Proceed
BNC BANCORP: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Action
BRIGANTINE INC: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Pataky" Suit
CARTER HOLT: Faces Class Action Over Faulty Shadowclad

CELADON GROUP: Indiana Court Trims "Blakley" Suit
CHIPOTLE: Confirms Nine Louisiana Stores Affected by Data Breach
CLEVELAND, OH: Benesch Atty Comments on Speeding Tickets Ruling
COMPLETE LANDSCAPE: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, Action Says
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: American Osment Loses Summary Judgment Bid

CORECIVIC: Inmates Forced to Clean Jail, Class Suit Says
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Class Counsel Directed to Explain Withdrawal
DELOITTE: Awaits Ruling on Appeal in Philip Audit Class Action
DIRECTV LLC: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Ruling in "Perez" Suit
DOVEX FRUIT: Defends Piece-Rate Pay

EQT PRODUCTION: Coalbed Methane Suits Moving Forward
FOREX CAPITAL: Aug. 11 Pretrial Conference Set in Class Action
FOX NEWS: Founder's Death Won't Discrimination Lawsuits
FYRE MEDIA: Lawsuits Advance on Dual Civil, Criminal Tracks
GATHERAPP INC: Faces "Foley" Suit Alleging TCPA Violation

GENERAC POWER: Craftwood II, Inc. Alleges Violation of TCPA
GENERAL MOTORS: July 26 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
GOOGLE INC: Law Firm Drops Some Charges in Suit Over Nexus 5X
GREAT LAKES: Seeks Dismissal of Repayment Program Class Action
GRIFFIN PARKING: "Milton" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime

HILLTOP MANAGEMENT: Faces "Ramos" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
HONDA MOTORS: Accord, Crosstour Owners Sue Over Starter Problems
INNOVATIVE AFTERMARKET: Bare Appeals S.D.W.V. Ruling to 4th Cir.
JELLY BELLY: Faces Class Action Over Sport Beans
KENTUCKY: Unions Seek Injunction on "Right-To-Work" Law

KING DIGITAL: Judge Allows Candy Crush Class Action to Proceed
KMART: Judge Approves $5.2MM Data Breach Class Action Settlement
KMART CORP: Allocation Plan for Data Breach Settlement Filed
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Must Defend Against Shareholders' Suit
LINCOLN, CA: Faces "Jackson" Class Suit over Water Charges

LION BIOTECHNOLOGIES: June 13 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
MAPMAN LLC: Denial of Class Certification Bid Affirmed
MARK LINE: Employees File Class Action Following Closure
MEGA AWNING: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Martinez" Suit Claims
MISSOURI: Inmates File Class Action Over Parole Denials

NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Judge Dismisses Suit Over Cheerleaders' Wages
NEW PRIME: 1st Cir. Refuses to Compel Arbitration of Class Action
NFL ENTERPRISES: Cheerleaders' Antitrust Class Action Dismissed
NIGERIA: Lagos High Court Forbids LGs from Issuing Marriage Cert.
N.L.R. COUNTER: Faces "Guiracocha" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law

NORTHLAND GROUP: Illegally Collects Debt, "Young" Suit Claims
NOVASTAR: Sept. 13 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
OCEAN CITY, MD: Lifeguard Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
OKLAHOMA HEART: Sued Over Failure to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages
PANERA BREAD: Being Sold Too Cheaply, "Remorenko" Suit Says

PETCO ANIMAL: "Michel" Class Suit Transferred to S.D. Cal.
PFIZER: Wants District Court to Exclude Expert Testimony
PNI DIGITAL: "T.A.N." Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Action Over Retirement Plan
QUEBEC: Court Okays Class Action vs. Montreal Transit Authorities

QUEBEC: Settlement in Westmount Hockey Coach Sex Abuse Case OK'd
RADFORD STUDIO: "Dye" Class Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
RED EYED JACK'S: "Davis" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
ROYAL BANK: Seeks to Avoid High Court Action by Shareholders
ROYAL BANK: Shareholder Group Agrees to Settle Class Action

SAMSUNG: Faces Multiple Lawsuits on Battery Issues
SANTA MONICA, CA: Court Dismisses Suit Over AirBnb Ordinance
SCOUT PETROLEUM: Pa. Court Issues Ruling on Class Arbitrability
SCRUB INC: Judge Breaks Up Airport Janitors' Wage Class Action
SEPHORA: Settles Asian Customers' Discrimination Class Action

SIRTEX: Shareholder Class Action May Cost as Much as $280MM
SOUTH DAKOTA: Winner School District Marks End of 10-Year Suit
SPOTIFY: Settles Class Action Suits With $43.4-Mil. Fund
ST. STEPHENS: Cemetery Mismanagement Class Action Pending
STAR NISSAN: Must Face Former Salesmen's Wage Class Action

STATE STREET: Missouri Fund Settles Securities Suit for $123MM
SUNRIDER CORPORATION: Sued in Cal. Over Unlawful Pyramid Scheme
SURFSTITCH: Founder to Watch Asset Sell-Off After Class Action
TANGOE INC: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Action
TIME WARNER: Chicago Firm Seeks to Lead as Plaintiff in TCPA Suit

TIMMINCO LTD: Ontario Court Declines to Grant Retroactive Relief
TITEFLEX CORP: Settles Class Action Over Defective Gas Tubing
TITLEMAX INC: Objections to Order Denying Rule 56(d) Overruled
TRADER JOE'S: Suit over Underfilled Canned Tuna Dismissed
TRANS UNION: Loses Bid to Seek Review of Summary Judgment

TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Plaintiffs Die Waiting for Settlement Checks
U.S. STEEL: Suit Says Clairton Coke Pollution Harming Residents
UCP INC: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
UNILEVER: Faces Fraud Class Action Over "Natural" Claims
VANGUARD: Breach of Contract Claim Can Proceed, Judge Rules

VIRGINIA: Judge Won't Reconsider Drivers' Class Action v. DMV
VISA INC: Broadway Grill Sues Over Alleged Antitrust Violations
WELLPET LLC: Class Action Over "Made in the USA" Label Tossed
WELLS FARGO: Judge Wants Full Pay for Account-Scandal Victims
YELLOWPAGES: 9th Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Class Action

ZILLOW: Bay Area Homeowners, Agents React to Zestimates Lawsuit
ZONI LANGUAGE: 2nd Cir. Affirmed Wage & Overtime Suit Dismissal
ZOOMPASS HOLDINGS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
ZOOMPASS HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Class Action in New Jersey

* Chesley Wins Beverly Hills Supper Club Faulty Wiring Class Suit
* Employers Still Contend with Class Action Waivers Issue
* IT Industry Faces Employee Age Discrimination Issue
* McKenzie Lake Commences Hernia Mesh Class Action in Canada



                            *********


3M COMPANY: $5M Partial Deal in Water Contamination Case Approved
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Brackin, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal judge has approved a $5 million partial settlement in a
dispute over water contamination in northern Alabama.

Following a hearing on May 10, U.S. District Judge Abdul Kallon
granted a joint motion for final approval of a proposed settlement
agreement, which was filed by the West Morgan-East Lawrence Water
and Sewer Authority, a water utility in north Alabama, and Daikin
America Inc.

Under the terms of the settlement, Daikin agreed to pay $5
million, with the majority of the money to be used to fund a new
granular activated carbon filtration system.

The complaint, originally filed in 2015 in the federal court in
Birmingham, Alabama, accused multiple corporate defendants of
contributing to perfluorooctane sulfonate and perfluorooctanic
acid contamination in the Tennessee River.

In June 2016, the Decatur-based water utility was forced to issue
an advisory to its customers against drinking their tap water,
based on the level of the chemicals in the water. Gov. Robert
Bentley later issued a statement indicating that all Alabama
drinking water had been brought into compliance.

According to the May 10 order, the court found the settlement
agreement to be "fair, just, reasonable, valid, and adequate."

Judge Kallon also found that the settlement amount would be used
to directly benefit the class members.

The order certified the settlement class as property owners who
use water provided by the West Morgan-East Lawrence Water and
Sewer Authority, along with a number of other north Alabama water
providers.

The settlement ends Daikin's involvement in the matter, though
claims remain pending against defendants 3M and Dyneon.

The case is captioned, WEST MORGAN-EAST LAWRENCE WATER AND SEWER
AUTHORITY, individually, and TOMMY LINDSEY, LANETTE LINDSEY, and
LARRY WATKINS, individually, and on behalf of a class of persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. 3M COMPANY, DYNEON, L.L.C., and
DAIKIN AMERICA, INC., Defendants. Case 5:15-cv-01750-AKK (N.D.
Ala.).


ABM INDUSTRIES: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Fowler" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Maurice Fowler filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit titled Maurice Fowler v. ABM Industries Incorporated,
et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-01235-CJC-DFM, in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, Los Angeles.

The appellate case is captioned as Maurice Fowler v. ABM
Industries Incorporated, et al., Case No. 17-80093, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner MAURICE FOWLER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Marina N. Vitek, Esq.
          ROXBOROUGH POMERANCE NYE & ADREANI LLP
          5820 Canoga Avenue
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367-6549
          Telephone: (818) 992-9999
          E-mail: mnv@rpnalaw.com

               - and -

          Allen B. Felahy, Esq.
          FELAHY LAW GROUP
          550 S. Hope Street, Suite 26555
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (323) 645-5197
          Facsimile: (323) 645-5198
          E-mail: afelahy@felahylaw.com

Defendants-Respondents ABM INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED, a Delaware
corporation; ABM ONSITE SERVICES-WEST, INC., a Delaware
Corporation; and ABM INDUSTRY GROUPS, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, are represented by:

          Daniel F. Fears, Esq.
          Laura Fleming, Esq.
          Sean A. O'Brien, Esq.
          PAYNE & FEARS LLP
          4 Park Plaza
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 851-1100
          Facsimile: (949) 851-1212
          E-mail: dff@paynefears.com
                  lf@paynefears.com
                  sao@paynefears.com


ALBERT COST: Faces "Hassane" Lawsuit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
ALIOUNE HASSANE, individually and in behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, against ALBERT COST CUTTERS CORP.
d/b/a FAT ALBERT, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-04082 (S.D.N.Y., May
31, 2017), alleges that the defendant promised to pay the
plaintiff approximately $9.00 per hour through 2016, and then
$11.00 per hour through the present. The defendant, however, pays
the plaintiff approximately no wages for approximately between one
and one and one-half hours per week, and has paid the plaintiff at
the promised rate for the rest of the hours worked per week.
Because the defendant does not pay the plaintiff for all hours
worked, the plaintiff's hourly rate drops below the minimum wage
each week.

The case alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Minimum Wage Act, the New York Labor Law, and the Wage Theft
Prevention Act.

The defendant's business is a supermarket or grocery store.  The
defendant employs the plaintiff as a security officer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John M. Gurrieri, Esq.
     Brandon D. Sherr, Esq.
     Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
     277 Broadway, Suite 408
     New York, N.Y. 10007-2036
     Phone: (212) 229-2249
     Fax: (212) 229-2246
     E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com
             bsherr@zellerlegal.com
             jazeller@zellerlegal.com


ALL VALLEY: Faces "Becerra" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Becerra, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. All Valley Washer Service, Inc. and Does 1
through 100, Case No. BC663448 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 31, 2017), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the California Labor Code.

All Valley Washer Service, Inc. is doing business by installing,
servicing, and leasing laundry equipment within Los Angeles,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul K. Haines, Esq.
      Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
      Andrew J. Rowbotham, Esq.
      Stephanie A. Keirig, Esq.
      HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
      2274 East Maple Avenue
      El Segundo, CA 90245
      Telephone: (424) 292-2350
      Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
      E-mail: phaines@haineslaw.com
              fschmidt@haineslaw.com
              arowbotham@haineslaw.com
              skierig@haineslaw.com


ALLSCRIPTS HEALTH: Bid to Certify Junk Fax Class Denied
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned PHYSICIANS HEALTHSOURCE, INC., an Ohio
corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. ALLSCRIPTS HEALTH
SOLUTIONS, INC. and ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE LLC, Defendants, No. 12
C 3233 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Jeffrey Cole of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, denied the Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

The Plaintiff filed this suit five years ago under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.  The Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendants violated the Act by sending it anywhere from 32 to 36
faxes between July 2008 and December 2011, on an average of about
once a month.  In August of 2015, three years after the suit was
filed, the Defendants sought and obtained from the Federal
Communications Commission a retroactive waiver of the requirement
that even faxes sent with permission have an opt-out notice.

The Plaintiff has moved for certification of the "junk fax" case
as a class action under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3).  The
Plaintiff hopes to certify two classes of fax recipients in this
case:

     a. Class A.  All persons or entities who were successfully
sent one or more faxes stating: (1) The Ten Second Stimulus
Survey, and were sent April 28, 2009, April 30, 2009, and May 7,
2009; (2) Backup Tape Sale Purchase 5 backup tapes before May 29,
2009, and were sent on May 19, 2009; (3) EHR Stimulus Tour --
Coming to Lexington KY, and were sent on Sept. 29, 2009, and Oct.
6, 2009; (4) You're Invited Live Web Event with Glen Tullman, and
were sent on Dec. 1, 2009; (5) EHR Stimulus Tour -- Coming to
Indianapolis, IN, and were sent on Jan. 22, 2010, and Feb. 1,
2010); (6) Are You Feeling Lucky Win $105 in Copy Paper, and were
sent on March 4, 2010; (7) Spring Savings when you order online,
and were sent on April 2, 2010; (8) You're Invited -- Exclusive
EHR Summit at ACE 2010, and were sent on June 2, 2010; (9) Have
you ordered your 2011 Codebooks?, and were sent on June 22, 2010;
(10) Take Me Out to the Ballgame, and were sent on June 23, 2010;
(11) Free Webinar Allscripts Payerpath Denial Management, and were
sent on July 16, 2010; (12) Allscripts You're Invited Tiger/PM
User Group Meeting and Opening Door to the Digital Office, and
were sent Aug. 12, 2010; (13) Allscripts End of Summer Special
when you order online, and were sent Aug. 18, 2010; (14)
Allscripts How do I pay for an Electronic Health Record now when
my Stimulus payments won't come until later, and were sent on
Sept. 21, 2010, Oct. 14, 2010, and Oct. 28, 2010;   (15) How Do I
pay for an Electronic Health Record when my Stimulus payments
won't come until later, and was sent on Sept. 30, 2010; (16)
Allscripts Tiger EHR Enablement Program Exclusive Program for
Tiger Clients, and were sent on Oct. 26, 2010, and Nov. 30, 2010;
(17) Backup Tape Sale Purchase 5 backup tapes before Dec. 31,
2010, and were sent Dec. 2, 2010; (18) Tiger EHR Enablement
Program, and was sent on Dec. 29, 2010; (19) Allscripts would like
to wish you a Happy Valentine's Day and Give You a Free Gift, and
were sent on Feb. 4, 2011; (20) Allscripts Prepare for ICD-10-CM,
and were sent on March 23, 2011; (21) Have you ordered your 2012
Codebooks?, and were sent on June 3, 2011; (22) Backup Tape Sale
Purchase 5 backup tapes before Dec. 31, 2011, and were sent on
Nov. 1, 2011, and Dece. 1, 2011; and (23) Allscripts Paperless
Year End, and were sent on Dec. 5, 2011; and (24) New Customer
Appreciation Copy Paper Special, and were sent on Jan. 6/7, 2010.

     b. Class B.  All persons or entities who were successfully
sent one or more faxes stating: (1) Backup Tape Sale Purchase 5
backup tapes before Dec. 31, 2011, and were sent on Dec. 1, 2011;
(2) Allscripts Paperless Year End, and were sent on Dec. 5, 2011;
and (3) New Customer Appreciation Copy Paper Special, and were
sent on Jan. 6/7, 2010).

The Defendants objected to certification and have filed a cross-
motion for summary judgment, submitting that the Plaintiff gave
its express permission to send it faxes advertising the
Defendants' goods and services.

Judge Cole held, among other things, that ". . . many may not have
been vexed by deleting an email once a month and would not choose
to litigate as the plaintiff did here, or, unlike the plaintiff
here, might have bothered to complain to the sender or sought to
opt out.  Many may have given express permission to the
defendants.  Many, many more may have, as the defendants claim,
simply consented, in layman's terms, to receiving the faxes.
Although that would not qualify as express permission and preclude
a claim from a legal standpoint, it wouldn't result in an actual
claim being filed."

A full-text copy of the Court's June 2, 2017 memorandum opinion
and order is available at https://is.gd/sPvYnZ from Leagle.com

Physicians Healthsource, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Brian J.
Wanca -- bwanca@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca.

Physicians Healthsource, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Phillip
A. Bock -- phil@classlawyers.com -- Bock Law Firm, LLC dba Bock,
Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim, LLC, Glenn L. Hara --
ghara@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca, James Michael Smith -
- jim@classlawyers.com -- Bock Law Firm, LLC dba Bock, Hatch,
Lewis & Oppenheim, LLC, John P. Orellana -- johno@classlawyers.com
-- Bock, Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim, LLC, Julia Lynn Titolo, Bock,
Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim, LLC, Kerry Ann Bute -- kbute@mrjlaw.com
-- Montgomery, Rennie & Johnson, LPA, Matthew Elton Stubbs --
mstubbs@mrjlaw.com -- Montgomery Rennie & Jonson, Max G. Margulis
-- MaxMargulis@MargulisLaw.com -- Margulis Law Group, Ross Michael
Good -- rgood@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson Wanca, Ryan M. Kelly -
- rkelly@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca, Tod Allen Lewis --
tod@classlawyers.com -- Bock Law Firm, LLC dba Bock, Hatch, Lewis
& Oppenheim, LLC & Wallace Cyril Solberg --
wsolberg@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson Wanca.

Allscripts-Misy's Healthcare Solutions, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Livia McCammon Kiser -- LKISER@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley
Austin LLP, Andrew Jacob Chinsky -- LAWRENCE.FOGEL@SIDLEY.COM --
Sidley Austin LLP & Lawrence P. Fogel, Sidley Austin LLP.

Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Livia McCammon Kiser, Sidley Austin LLP.

Allscripts Healthcare, LLC, Defendant, represented by Livia
McCammon Kiser, Sidley Austin LLP.


ASANKO GOLD: Sued in E.D.N.Y. Over Misleading Company Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nopharat Sumethasorn, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Asanko Gold Inc., Peter Breese, Gregory
McCunn, and Fausto Di Trapani, Case No. 1:17-cv-03280 (E.D.N.Y.,
May 31, 2017), alleges that the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements because they misrepresented and failed
to disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to the
Company's business, operational and financial results, which were
known to the Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them.
Specifically, the Defendants made false and misleading statements
and failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's Mineral Resource
Estimates are flawed; (2) some of the Company's resources models
exhibit signs that they have been "smeared," which would cause
estimates of their ore contents to be inflated; and (3) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

Asanko Gold Inc. engages in the exploration, development, and
production of gold properties. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      Phillip Kim, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      275 Madison Ave., 34th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 686-1060
      Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
      E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
              pkim@rosenlegal.com


AUSTRALIA: VBA Faces Class Suit Over Home Defects
-------------------------------------------------
Aisha Dow and Richard Baker, writing for The Age, report that an
unprecedented class action is being levelled against Victoria's
building regulator for failing to protect dozens of home owners
from shoddy and dangerous building work.

Victims of a disastrous townhouse development in Diamond Creek in
Melbourne's outer suburbs claim they suffered financial losses and
physical and psychiatric injuries as a result of the inaction of
the Victorian Building Authority.

It is believed the case could spark a rush of legal action from
other Victorians who feel abandoned by the VBA, which has been
slammed for being asleep at the wheel while defects plague the
industry.

Many of Victoria's new residential buildings are riddled with
faults, and experts say new laws may have to be introduced to
manage mass demolitions of apartments.

In May a statement of claim was lodged in the Victorian Supreme
Court by Melbourne solicitor Sarah Hinchliffe, who is representing
36 home owners.

The case centres on a planning saga involving dozens of townhouses
in the Rangeview Estate in Melbourne's north-east, where total
costs of defects have been estimated at more than $7.6 million.
The builder, David Brayer, was stripped of his registration for
three years.

Young couple Erin and David Robertson said they were overjoyed to
buy their first home in the estate in 2010, but were left
devastated after they received a knock on their front door a few
days later.

"Two of our neighbours were standing there.  To be honest I
thought they were coming to greet us and to say welcome.  But we
were incredibly wrong about that," Mrs Robertson said.

"They informed us that we had bought into a property where there
were a huge amount of building defects.  We had bought a lemon.

"We said goodbye and shut the door and I think I just started
crying."

Mrs Robertson said they later discovered that the slab had been
built lower than ground level, which meant water ran underneath
the house, causing the floor skirting to swell up, discolour and
grow mould.

But that was only the start of their problems.

According to a building consultant who assessed the Rangeview
properties, the walls between the homes do not have proper fire
separation, and could quickly collapse during a blaze.

The VBA is accused through the class action of knowing the
deficiencies were capable of "causing death or serious injury" in
the event of a fire.

Another owner, Steve Balfour, said he first complained to the
building authority about the fire threat in August 2013, and an
inspection was later conducted.

But Mr Balfour said it took the VBA almost another two years to
take any action on the fire safety issues.

It was only in June 2015 after he rang the VBA and told them he
would be contacting the local council, that the authority passed
on its concerns about Rangeview, he said. The council's building
surveyor went on to find 10 breaches of building regulations that
needed to be urgently fixed.

The Supreme Court claim includes a written concession by the VBA
in March 2016 that it had not overseen works at the Rangeview
Estate as well as it should have.

"Prior to June 2015, the VBA did not engage with the municipal
building surveyor towards ensuring he take appropriate actions at
his disposal under The Building Act . . . This in part led to the
non-compliant matters identified at the estate not being resolved
as soon as they might have been," the VBA correspondence states.

A spokesman for the VBA said it had not yet received the writ, but
planned to defend the case.

"The VBA maintains that in this matter we have carried out our
statutory responsibilities.  This includes investigating the
builder, which subsequently led to the cancellation of his
registration," the spokesman said.

He said an investigation was also ongoing into the building
surveyor.

Former federal independent senator for Victoria John Madigan is
cited in the claim after he visited the estate in February last
year.

"What I saw when I visited the site was disgraceful.  While the
major defects were to the roofing, the external cladding, the
electrics and to fire separation walls, there were a multitude of
other defects and generally, the level of workmanship on display
was extraordinarily poor," Mr Madigan is quoted as saying.

The litigation caps years of tumult for the state's building
regulator, which emerged from the ashes of the Victorian Building
Commission which was abolished by opposition leader Matthew Guy
when he was planning minister in the former Coalition state
government.

Mr Guy replaced the commission with the VBA after a series of
financial and conflict of interest scandals brought to the surface
widespread public dissatisfaction with the performance of the
regulator.

But confidence in the VBA remains low.

This prevalence of poor workmanship (in particular waterproofing)
has been blamed on its failure to ensure builders and developers
adhere to existing codes and standards.

Builders Collective of Australia president Phil Dwyer said in the
15 years he had been working with building consumers, not once had
their problems been resolved by the VBA or building commission.

Instead he said many builders and buyers spent up to $100,000
fighting disputes in the Victorian Civil and Administrative
Tribunal.

"The VBA has any amount of powers to be able to assist people, but
instead of assisting people they put them on a merry-go-round and
claim they don't have the powers to do anything for them,"
Mr Dwyer said.

"The VBA at the moment is a toothless tiger." [GN]


AUSTRALIA: Manus Island Detainees Start Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Megan Neil, writing for News, reports that fifty current and
former Manus Island detainees will give evidence in a class action
their lawyers say will shine a light on conditions in the offshore
immigration detention centre.

The 1905 group members are seeking compensation for alleged
physical and psychological injuries they argue they suffered as a
result of the conditions on which they were held on Manus Island.
They are also seeking additional damages for false imprisonment
after the PNG Supreme Court ruled the detention of asylum seekers
on Manus Island was unconstitutional.

The case, due to begin in the Victorian Supreme Court, is expected
to be the largest trial concerning immigration detention in
Australia.

Slater and Gordon practice group leader Rory Walsh says the case
will shine a light on the conditions experienced by Manus Island
detainees.

"This case will be the largest and most forensic public
examination of the events and conditions at the Manus Island
detention centre, which have been shrouded in secrecy until now,"
Mr. Walsh said last month.

Mr. Walsh has also said the class action will determine a number
of important legal issues that could have far-reaching
implications on Australia's offshore detention policy.

"One of the central disputes of this action is whether the
Commonwealth is in effective control of the Manus Island detention
centre and therefore owes a duty of care to protect the people
being held there from foreseeable harm."

The Australian government and the companies that have managed the
Manus Island Regional Processing Centre, G4S Australia and
Broadspectrum (formerly Transfield Services), deny the claims.

The Commonwealth argues that once they arrived in PNG, the
detainees were subject to the laws of PNG and the control of the
PNG government.

Victorian Supreme Court Justice Michael McDonald has already made
it clear the trial is not a commission of inquiry into the merits
of the Commonwealth's offshore detention policy.
The judge-only trial will hear from 41 current or former Manus
Island detainees who remain in PNG.

Slater and Gordon wants the federal government to bring the
detainees to Melbourne to testify and otherwise may ask for a
hearing in PNG.

The trial will also hear from lead plaintiff Iranian-born Majid
Karami Kamasaee, who spent 10 months at the Manus Island facility
and now lives in community detention in Melbourne, and 10 other
former Manus detainees now being held in detention in Australia.
The six-month trial is set down to begin on May 29 but there is
expected to be an application to delay the start until May 31,
after the parties were involved in further pre-trial legal
applications on May 26. [GN]


AUSTRALIA: Not Represented at Jakarta Class Action Hearing
----------------------------------------------------------
Jewel Topsfield, Amilia Rosa and Karuni Rompies, writing for The
Sydney Morning Herald, report that the Australian government says
it will not be represented before a Jakarta court hearing a $103
million class action on behalf of 115 youths incarcerated in
Australia for alleged people smuggling.

Indonesian children were jailed alongside hardened adult criminals
in Australian jails after the Australian Federal Police used a now
completely discredited method of taking wrist X-rays to determine
their age.

"Australia has requested the court dismiss the proceedings," a
spokesman for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade told
Fairfax Media.

He said the Australian government had conveyed its position in
writing to the Central Jakarta District Court that as a sovereign
state, its agencies were not subject to the jurisdiction of the
court.

"The Australian Government will not be represented at the
proceedings."

The lawyer representing the Indonesian juveniles, Lisa Hiariej,
said the case -- on behalf of 31 alleged people smugglers who were
jailed while juveniles and 84 who were put in immigration
detention -- was being brought to an Indonesian court because it
was a human rights case.

"The Australian government has put Indonesian minors into
Australian adult jail. And in such case[s] state immunity and
jurisdiction do not apply," Ms Hiariej said.  "Besides, they are
poor children - there is no way they can go to Australia to bring
up their case."

The plaintiffs are suing the Immigration Department, the
Australian Federal Police, the Commonwealth Director of Public
Prosecutions and the Attorney-General's Department.

Ms Hiariej said she would be given a copy of the letter from the
Australian government in court on May 30 and would ask for a month
to respond.

The action comes as Ali Jasmin, who was arrested in 2009 while
working as a cook on a people-smuggling boat when he was just 13,
is appealing to have his conviction overturned by the Western
Australian Criminal Court of Appeal.

A decision in that case is expected within weeks, which could pave
the way for others who were incarcerated while still minors to
take legal action in the Australian judicial system.

Mr Jasmin, also known as Ali Yasmin, was jailed for 689 days --
386 of them in adult detention -- on the basis of a wrist X-ray
that put his age at about 19.

This was despite the fact that the Office of the Commonwealth
Director of Public Prosecutions had a legalised copy of his birth
certificate that stated he was still a child.  The Immigration
Department had also interviewed Mr Jasmin and formed the view he
was about 14.

The policy at the time was to not to charge anyone with people
smuggling who wasn't established to be 19 and to instead return
them home.

A 2012 Australian Human Rights Commission Inquiry found the
Australian Federal Police were aware of material that called into
question reliance on wrist X-ray analysis but continued to use the
procedure as a means of age assessment.

It is a method that has now been discontinued.

"From the outside appearance I was a kid," Mr Jasmin told Fairfax
Media.  "They said I was an adult based on an X-ray test.  Just
from that. I rejected the result many times.  I said, those
machines of yours, they are not my mother.  She gave birth to me,
so it's her who knows my real age, not the machine.

"My family submitted a birth certificate via the consulate and an
affidavit from my school principal, from the village head. None
was accepted."

Mr Jasmin said he was sexually assaulted while in a maximum
security WA jail.  He said the man invited him to his room and
then asked Mr Jasmin to massage him.  "He pushed me to the bed.
His hands were all over me, after I reached my limit, I got angry,
stood up, broke down the door and ran outside. I was scared, I was
traumatised after that."

Mr Jasmin, who was released in 2012, said he had never received an
apology from the Australian government.  "Nothing. Not an apology
for jailing me for two years, not directly, not via anyone else.
I was upset, angry, not with anyone in particular but with the
system.  I am glad the X-rays are no longer used. No one else has
to suffer the way I did."

Mr Jasmin is not one of the plaintiffs in the class action before
the Central Jakarta District Court.

In 2011 at least 70 Indonesian juveniles were estimated to be in
Australian adult jails.

Colin Singer, the chairman of NGO Indonesia International
Initiatives (TIGA-I), campaigned tirelessly to secure the
convicted juveniles' release from Australian jails.

He said he still cannot understand why one 13-year-old ended up in
an adult prison, let alone more than 70.

"I used to believe we had a justice system that was transparent
and fair and you could sleep at night because there were people
looking after people's interests.  Not anymore," he said.

"There was no fair go. It was an embarrassment to Australia.
Indonesia has never put an Australian kid in an adult prison but
we think the Indonesian judicial [system] is garbage."

Mr Singer said he wanted four things: "I want the kids to have a
future.  I want them to be assisted to get over the psychological
and physical trauma they suffered.  I want them to get an
education they were deprived of and I want them to get
compensation to allow them to get a start in life." [GN]


BARACK OBAMA: Texas Court Dismisses "Pennie" Suit
-------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DEMETRICK PENNIE and LARRY KLAYMAN,
Plaintiffs, v. BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, ERIC HOLDER, LOUIS FARRAKHAN,
NATION OF ISLAM, REVEREND AL SHARPTON, NATIONAL ACTION NETWORK,
BLACK LIVES MATTER, RASHAD TURNER, OPAL TOMETI, PATRISSE CULLORS,
ALICIA GARZA, DERAY MCKESSON, JOHNETTA ELZIE, NEW BLACK PANTHER
PARTY, MALIK ZULU SHABAZZ, GEORGE SOROS, and HILLARY CLINTON,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-2010-L (N.D. Tex.), the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas,
Dallas Division, granted the Individual Federal Defendants' motion
to dismiss; denied the motion for sanctions against the Plaintiffs
and the Plaintiffs' counsel by Defendant Deray McKesson; denied
the Plaintiffs' cross-motion for sanctions; and denied as moot all
remaining motions to dismiss.

Klayman, a former federal prosecutor and the "high profile"
founder of Freedom Watch and Judicial Watch, brought this
purported class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and "law
enforcement persons of all races and ethnicities, as well as
relevant Jews, and Caucasians."

The gravamen of the Plaintiffs' claims is that the Defendants have
made public statements that have incited criminal activity by
others across the country, including riots, murders, and threats
of death and bodily injury, as well as the Dallas Police Shooting
in July 2016.  They allege that the Defendants participated in a
conspiracy to incite their supporters and others to engage in
threats of and attacks to cause serious bodily injury or death
upon police officers and other law enforcement persons of all
races and ethnicities including but not limited to Jews,
Christians and Caucasians.  The Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendants undertook these actions with the aim of inciting a
racial war in America.

With respect to the Defendants President Obama and General Holder,
the Court grants their Motion to Dismiss, holding that the
Plaintiffs lack Article III standing.  Counts One and Two are
dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), noting that the Plaintiffs have
voluntarily dismissed these claims against President Obama and
General Holder, and no answer or motion for summary judgment has
been filed by either the Defendant.

With respect to the Defendants Nation of Islam, Black Lives
Matter, and New Black Panther Party, all claims are dismissed
without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure for improper service, which deprives the Court of
personal jurisdiction over these Defendants.

With respect to Defendants Minister Farrakhan, Reverend Sharpton,
NAN, Tometi, Cullors, Mckesson, Shabazz, Soros, and Secretary
Clinton, Counts One, Two, and Three are dismissed without
prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(a)(1)(A)(i), as the Plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed these
claims, and no answer or motion for summary judgment has been
filed by any of these Defendants.  With respect to Defendant
Turner, who filed an answer prior to seeking dismissal, see Answer
(Doc. 67), Counts One, Two, and Three are dismissed without
prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), as
the Plaintiffs voluntary dismissed these claims, and no Defendant
objected to dismissal of the claims.

The Court dismisses all federal claims.  The Court also declines
to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims.
Accordingly, the Court dismisses Counts Four through Six (the
state law claims) without prejudice.  Further, the Court denies as
moot all remaining Motions to Dismiss.

Finally, Defendant Deray Mckesson's motion for Sanctions Against
Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel is denied.  The court rejects
McKesson's argument that the prior adverse rulings should have put
Klayman on notice that this action was frivolous.  These other
cases are too factually and legally dissimilar from this case for
the Court to reach such a conclusion.  And the Plaintiffs' Cross-
Motion for Sanctions is denied as they have failed to establish
that imposition of sanctions under 28 U.S.C. Section 1927 is
warranted.

The Plaintiffs filed this case as a class action lawsuit but have
yet to move for certification of the putative class pursuant to
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Civil
Rule 23.2.  The Court has dismissed all federal claims in this
lawsuit, declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the
state law claims, and, therefore, denied as moot the Defendants'
respective motions to dismiss the state law claims.  As there are
no claims pending as to any Defendant in this action, any request
for class certification is denied as moot.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 2, 2017 memorandum opinion
and order is available at https://is.gd/W1owJP from Leagle.com

Larry Klayman, Plaintiff, represented by Larry E. Klayman, Freedom
Watch.

Demetrick Pennie, Plaintiff, represented by Larry E. Klayman,
Freedom Watch.

President Barack Hussein Obama, Defendant, represented by Kenneth
G. Coffin, United States Attorney's Office.

Eric H. Holder, Jr., Defendant, represented by Kenneth G. Coffin,
United States Attorney's Office.

Louis Farrakhan, Defendant, represented by Abdul Arif Muhammad,
pro hac vice & Michael K. Muhammad, Muhammad Law Firm.

Rev. Al Sharpton, Defendant, represented by Kevin B. Wiggins --
kbwiggins@whitewiggins.com -- White & Wiggins LLP & H. Ron White -
- hrwhite@whitewiggins.com -- White & Wiggins LLP.

Rashad Turner, Defendant, represented by Edgar Saldivar, American
Civil Liberties Union of Texas, Kali Alanna Cohn, ACLU of Texas,
Lisa Colburn -- lcolburn@briggs.com -- Briggs and Morgan PA, pro
hac vice & Scott Michael Flaherty -- sflaherty@briggs.com --
Briggs and Morgan PA, pro hac vice.

Patrisse Cullors, Defendant, represented by Hal K. Gillespie,
Gillespie Sanford LLP, James Dennis Sanford, Gillespie Sanford LLP
& Joseph H. Gillespie, Gillespie Sanford LLP.

Deray McKesson, Defendant, represented by Jacob K. Weixler --
jake@semmlaw.com -- Schonekas Evans McGoey & McEachin LLC, pro hac
vice, Lauren Elisabeth York -- lyork@akingump.com -- Akin Gump
Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Teva Sempel -- teva@semmlaw.com --
Schonekas Evans McGoey & McEachin LLC, pro hac vice & William P.
Gibbens -- billy@semmlaw.com -- Schonekas Evans McGoey & McEachin
LLC, pro hac vice.

Opal Tometi, Defendant, represented by Hal K. Gillespie, Gillespie
Sanford LLP, James Dennis Sanford, Gillespie Sanford LLP & Joseph
H. Gillespie, Gillespie Sanford LLP.

National Action Network, Defendant, represented by Kevin B.
Wiggins, White & Wiggins LLP.

Malik Zulu Shabazz, Defendant, Pro Se.


BARD: Barrie Woman Joins PerFix Plug Hernia Mesh Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Walker, writing for CTV News Barrie, reports that a Barrie
woman living with debilitating pain is leading a class-action
lawsuit against the producers of a hernia mesh.

For two years now, Naomi Leichner has been suffering debilitating
pain in her back and groin.

The pain started after surgeons used a mesh plug to repair the
hernia in her groin.  It's that mesh which several doctors have
told Ms. Leichner is the source of her pain and multiple
infections.

"Since January it's gotten worse to the point where I'm literally
incapacitated some days.  I can't get out of bed, I can't walk,"
she says.

Removing the mesh isn't an option because of its proximity to her
femoral artery.  Ms. Leichner says doctors have told her that
could be fatal.

"Every day you feel like crying.  There's no way to even
understand when someone says 'I can't help you.'"

Ms. Leichner, who is now unable to work and help support her
family, is part of a class-action lawsuit against Bard -- the
manufacture of the medium PerFix plug.

"We allege that Bard in respect to certain models of their mesh
have not done the proper testing, have not been given very good
designs and they are not passing on the warnings of the risks in
using these mesh to doctors and ultimately patients," says lawyer
Matthew Baer.

Ms. Leichner says she was never made aware of any potential risks
associated with the mesh and is demanding more awareness and
accountability.

"I hope going forward the doctors can tell their patients all of
the side effects that can occur with using mesh."

In the meantime, she continues to be assessed by doctors who are
looking for options to ease her pain.

CTV Barrie did reach out to Bard for comment, but so far our
request has gone unanswered. [GN]


BJ'S WHOLESALE: Class Action Over Excessive Sales Tax Can Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Hurtibise, writing for Sun Sentinel, reports that a
lawsuit alleging that B.J.'s Wholesale Club is charging excessive
sales tax can proceed as a class action, meaning it could benefit
all members paying the tax, a judge has ruled.

The suit was filed in 2015 by a Miami-Dade County woman, Laura
Bugliaro, who said she noticed she was being charged state sales
tax on the full retail price of discounted items at the club's
Cutler Bay store after buying two Samsung televisions in November
2014.

The suit says Ms. Bugliaro paid $769.99 and $329.99 but was
charged sales tax on the full retail prices of $1,399.99 and
$529.99.

The suit is seeking a two-pronged remedy: a permanent injunction
to stop the practice and a separate ruling ordering the wholesale
club to return sales taxes it contends were improperly collected
since 2011.

The May 25 ruling by Judge John W. Thornton of the 11th Judicial
Circuit in Miami establishes a class of future victims who would
be protected by a permanent injunction stopping the practice, two
of the plaintiffs attorneys, Steve Silverman of Miami-based law
firm Kluger, Kaplan, Silverman, Katzen & Levine and Victor Diaz of
V.M. Diaz & Partners, based in Miami Beach, said in an interview
on May 30.

The class is defined as members of BJ's 31 Florida stores who will
be charged sales tax on the full price of products discounted in
part by BJ's, according to Judge Thornton's written order.

To this day, BJ's charges its members sales tax on the full retail
prices of its items regardless of how the discount is funded, the
complaint states.

BJ's customers have no way of knowing whether they are being
properly charged because the wholesaler does not disclose which
portion of the discount is funded by a manufacturer and which
portion is funded by BJ's, Silverman and Diaz said.

At issue earlier in the case was the question of what portion of
discounts offered on products at BJ's is subject to sales tax.

State law clearly allows sales taxes on the portion of a discount
funded by a product manufacturer, Judge Thornton ruled in February
2016.  Examples of that include when a customer purchases a
product and then hands the clerk a money-off coupon, the sales
taxes is paid on the original purchase price. Similarly, consumers
expect to pay sales tax on the full price of products sold with
manufacturers' rebate coupons, even though they receive money back
after the sale.

In the February 2016 ruling, Judge Thornton said state tax code is
clear that only the net price a customer pays after a dealer's
discount is taken at the point of sale is subject to sales tax.

As a result, BJ's improperly charged sales tax on the portion of
the discount it created, Thornton ruled.

After that ruling, the attorneys were prepared to move forward on
its request to create a class of future BJ's purchasers, they
said.

But then the Florida Department of Revenue joined the case as an
intervenor, arguing that the court had no standing to administer
tax laws.

Judge Thornton rejected that argument by granting the class action
status, Messrs. Silverman and Diaz said.

A spokesman for BJ's declined a request for comment on May 30.  In
court filings, the wholesale club has denied violating state law
in the way it charges sales tax, and in a statement to the South
Florida Business Journal in April 2015, the company said it
"believes it has followed Florida state law when calculating and
collecting state tax on discounted items." The statement stressed
that sales tax collected by BJ's is sent to the state and not kept
by the company.

In addition to seeking the permanent injunction stopping BJ's from
collecting what the suit claims is excessive sales tax, the
plaintiff and her attorneys will next seek to certify a class of
victims to collect restitution of money already collected, Messrs.
Silverman and Diaz said.

The potential class includes up to 750,000 Florida households that
belong to BJ's, according to the attorneys.

"We're talking about millions of dollars," Mr. Diaz said. [GN]


BNC BANCORP: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against BNC Bancorp in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of North Carolina for violations of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act") in connection with the proposed merger
between BNC and Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc. ("Pinnacle")
(the "Proposed Merger").

On January 22, 2017, the Board of Directors ("the Board") of BNC
caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger
("Merger Agreement"), pursuant to which the Company's shareholders
stand to receive 0.5235 shares of Pinnacle common stock for each
share of BNC stock they own (the "Merger Consideration").
According to the Complaint, on May 3, 2017, in order to convince
BNC shareholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Merger,
Defendants authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and
misleading Joint Definitive Proxy Statement (the "Proxy") with the
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), in violation of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The BNC shareholder
meeting on the Proposed Merger is scheduled for June 12, 2017 (the
"Vote").

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]


BRIGANTINE INC: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Pataky" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant The Brigantine, Inc., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit styled Neal Pataky, et al. v. The
Brigantine, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-00352-GPC-AGS, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California, San Diego.

Among other things, the Plaintiffs allege violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 26,
2017, Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel has ruled that a class action waiver
in an arbitration agreement is unenforceable under the National
Labor Relations Act.

Judge Curiel found the class waiver provision of the agreement was
not severable from the arbitration agreement.  He stated, "because
the parties did not agree to class arbitration, the Court cannot
rely on the severability provision in the arbitration agreement to
compel Plaintiffs to class arbitration."

The appellate case is captioned as Neal Pataky, et al. v. The
Brigantine, Inc., Case No. 17-55762, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellant The Brigantine, Inc.'s opening brief is due on
      September 5, 2017;

   -- Appellees Jessica Cleek, Lauren Michelson and Neal Pataky's
      answering brief is due on October 3, 2017; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees NEAL PATAKY, JESSICA CLEEK and LAUREN
MICHELSON, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Timothy Garr Williams, Esq.
          POPE, BERGER, WILLIAMS & REYNOLDS, LLP
          401 B Street, Suite 2000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 595-1366
          Facsimile: (619) 236-9677
          E-mail: Williams@popeberger.com

Defendant-Appellant THE BRIGANTINE, INC., a California
corporation, is represented by:

          James Charles Fessenden, Esq.
          FISHER PHILLIPS LLP
          4747 Executive Drive
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (858) 597-9600
          Facsimile: (858) 597-9601
          E-mail: jfessenden@laborlawyers.com


CARTER HOLT: Faces Class Action Over Faulty Shadowclad
------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Brown, writing for newshub.co.nz, reports that homeowners
grappling with the effects of a faulty cladding product are
preparing to launch a class action lawsuit against Carter Holt
Harvey, the company that makes it.

Shadowclad is already in the courts after issues were discovered
in hundreds of school buildings and now the net is being cast
wider.

He wanted it to be the house he'd spend the rest of his life in,
instead Steve Kirby faces years of costly repairs.

"We thought we had a solid, wooden-built house that would last for
our retirement. Now we need to rebuild the damn thing," he told
Newshub.

Mr. Kirby bought the property in 2010 -- five years after it was
built -- but soon started to notice problems.

It's hard to see with the naked eye but the Shadowclad product
used on the home's exterior has deteriorated and warped, opening
it up to leaks.

"As it's warping, it's pushing the nails out . . . . You keep
doing your repair work -- putting the nails back in, but
essentially it's going to need to have a whole reclad to sort the
problem out," Mr. Kirby said.

He estimates the total cost of repairs could be several hundred
thousand dollars.

Shadowclad is already subject to court action. The Ministry of
Education says it's affected hundreds of school buildings.

Carter Holt Harvey makes the product, which is popular in beaches
and holiday homes.

Now if owners have problems, there may be a course for
compensation.

"If there's enough viable claims and enough value in that, then
it's likely there'll be a funded class action against Carter Holt
Harvey," lawyer Adina Thorn told Newshub.

Carter Holt Harvey told Newshub in a statement it stands behind
its products and will act responsibly to repair or replace them.

It also said they'd rather hear directly from people who have
concerns and urges people who do to get in touch.

"This process at the moment is funded by an international leading
litigation funder. Obviously, they don't get involved unless they
think there's a case to answer," Ms. Thorn said.

And for Mr. Kirby, as time goes on and the damage worsens, the
property's value is going down.

"The bank won't look at it as a valuable property anymore, so
borrowing money becomes a lot more difficult. It's just overall,
hugely stressful," he said.

Homeowners like Mr. Kirby are now hoping to straighten the issue
out once and for all. [GN]


CELADON GROUP: Indiana Court Trims "Blakley" Suit
-------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned WILLIAM BLAKLEY on behalf of himself and
those similarly situated, HELEN BLAKLEY on behalf of herself and
those similarly situated, and KIMBERLY SMITH on behalf of herself
and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CELADON GROUP, INC.,
CELADON TRUCKING SERVICES, INC., QUALITY COMPANIES, LLC, QUALITY
EQUIPMENT LEASING, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, No. 1:16-
cv-00351-LJM-TAB (S.D. Ind.), the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, granted
in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion for partial
summary judgment.

In their First Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs assert that the
advances made by Celadon constituted loans in violation of the
Indiana Small Loans Act, Ind. Code Sections 24-4.5-7-101 et seq.,
and Indiana Consumer Loan Act, Ind. Code Sections 24-4.5-3-101 et
seq.  The Plaintiffs further asserted that Celadon's deductions
for items, such as "lease payments, fuel purchases, insurance
purchases, and payroll advances," constituted wage assignments in
violation the Indiana Wage Assignment Act, Ind. Code Sections 22-
7-7-1 et seq., by including transaction fees in excess of the
permissible 8% rate and by securing agreements for assignments
exceeding 30 days.

On Dec. 2, 2016, the Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims
pursuant to the ISLA, ICLA, and IWAA without prejudice and granted
the Plaintiffs leave to amend their First Amended Complaint.  On
Dec. 15, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended
Complaint, in which they re-plead their claims against Celadon
under the ISLA, ICLA, and IWAA.  Celadon filed the Motion on Jan.
12, 2017, arguing that the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint
still fails to sufficiently plead their claims under the ISLA,
ICLA, and IWAA and that, in light of the undisputed material facts
of this case, these claims should be dismissed as a matter of law.
Celadon seeks to dismiss Counts IV, V, and VI of the Plaintiffs'
Second Amended Complaint with prejudice.

In Counts IV and V of the Second Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs
assert that the advances provided by Celadon constitute "loans"
that violate the ISLA and ICLA, respectively.  However, Celadon
argues in large part that the advances do not meet the definition
of a "loan" under these statutes and, therefore, do not violate
the ISLA or ICLA.  Because the Court concludes that the advances
paid by Celadon to the Plaintiffs constitute early payment of
compensation, rather than loans that create debts that Plaintiffs
must repay, the advances are not subject to either the ISLA or
ICLA.  Therefore, Counts IV and V of the Plaintiffs' Second
Amended Complaint must be dismissed.

Count VI of the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint alleges that
the advances paid by Celadon constituted wage assignments in
violation of Sections 2 and 3 of the IWAA.  Specifically, the
Plaintiffs assert that Celadon violated (1) Section 2 of the IWAA
by assigning Plaintiffs' wages more than 30 days before the
assigned wages were earned and (2) violated Section 3 of the IWAA
because, if Celadon is not the Plaintiffs' employer, it acted as a
wage broker that charged an excessively high interest rate to make
wage assignments.  While the advances paid by Celadon to the
Plaintiffs constitute early payments of the Plaintiffs'
compensation, it is not clear from the evidence presented how much
time passed between the date each advance was paid to each of the
Plaintiffs and the date by which the advanced amounts were earned
by the Plaintiffs.  Without such evidence, a question of fact
exists as to whether the wages assigned through each advance were
earned by the Plaintiffs within 30 days of each payment such that
they constitute valid wage assignments under Section 2.

In light of the Court's careful consideration of the Plaintiffs'
IWAA claims and the Second Amended Complaint, the Court raises,
sua sponte, the following questions: (1) whether any private right
of action exists under the IWAA Section 2; (2) if so, whether
Plaintiffs suffered any harm from Celadon's possible violations of
Section 2; and (3) whether any private right of action exists
under the Indiana Wage Deduction Act, Ind. Code Section 22-2-6-1
et seq. ("IWDA"); and (4) if so, whether the Plaintiffs suffered
any harm from Celadon's possible violations of the IWDA.  The
Court expects the parties to address these questions according to
the following briefing schedule:

     1. The Plaintiffs will file a brief, of no more than 15
pages, in support of a civil right of action for their claims
under IWAA Section 2 and the IWDA, as well as the proper measure
of damages thereunder, on June 23, 2017;

     2. Celadon will filed their response, also of not more than
15 pages, on July 14, 2017; and

     3. The Plaintiffs will file their reply, of no more than 8
pages, on July 21, 2017.

Accordingly, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
Motion.  Furthermore, Helen Blakely's claim under Count III of the
Second Amended Complaint, asserting violations of the Truth in
Leasing Act, is dismissed sua sponte.  The parties will brief the
remaining questions under Section 2 of the IWAA and Indiana Wage
Deduction Act as set forth in the Order.  No partial judgment will
issue at this time.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 2, 2017 order is available at
https://is.gd/aG8niU from Leagle.com

William Blakley, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua Samuel Boyette,
Swartz Swidler, LLC, pro hac vice.

William Blakley, Plaintiff, represented by Justin L. Swidler,
Swartz Swidler, pro hac vice.

William Blakley, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew D. Miller,
Swartz Swidler, pro hac vice & Richard S. Swartz, Swartz Swidler
LLC, pro hac vice.

Helen Blakley, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua Samuel Boyette,
SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC, pro hac vice, Justin L. Swidler, Swartz
Swidler, pro hac vice, Matthew D. Miller, Swartz Swidler, pro hac
vice & Richard S. Swartz, Swartz Swidler LLC, pro hac vice.

Kimberly Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua Samuel Boyette,
SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC, pro hac vice, Justin L. Swidler, Swartz
Swidler, pro hac vice, Matthew D. Miller, Swartz Swidler, pro hac
vice & Richard S. Swartz, Swartz Swidler LLC, pro hac vice.

Celadon Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Adam Eakman,
Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson & Feary PC, Adam C. Smedstad,
Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson & Feary PC, pro hac vice, Braden
Kenneth Core, Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson & Feary PC,
Christopher J. Eckhart, Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson & Feary PC,
Christopher C. Heery, Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson & Feary PC,
pro hac vice & Gregory M. Feary, Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson &
Feary PC.

Celadon Trucking Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Adam
Eakman, Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson & Feary PC, Adam C.
Smedstad, Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson & Feary PC, pro hac vice,
Braden Kenneth Core, Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson & Feary PC,
Christopher J. Eckhart, Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson & Feary PC,
Christopher C. Heery, Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson & Feary PC,
pro hac vice & Gregory M. Feary, Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson &
Feary PC.

Quality Companies, LLC, Defendant, represented by Adam Eakman,
Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson & Feary PC, Adam C. Smedstad,
Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson & Feary PC, pro hac vice, Braden
Kenneth Core, Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson & Feary PC,
Christopher J. Eckhart, Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson & Feary PC,
Christopher C. Heery, Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson & Feary PC,
pro hac vice & Gregory M. Feary, Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson &
Feary PC.

Quality Equipment Leasing, LLC, Defendant, represented by Adam
Eakman, Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson & Feary PC, Adam C.
Smedstad, Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson & Feary PC, pro hac vice,
Braden Kenneth Core, Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson & Feary PC,
Christopher J. Eckhart, Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson & Feary PC,
Christopher C. Heery, Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson & Feary PC,
pro hac vice & Gregory M. Feary, Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson &
Feary PC.

John Does 1-10, Defendant, Pro Se.

Celadon Trucking Services, Inc., Counter Claimant, represented by
Adam Eakman -- AEAKMAN@SCOPELITIS.COM -- Scopelitis Garvin Light
Hanson & Feary PC, Braden Kenneth Core -- BCORE@SCOPELITIS.COM --
Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson & Feary PC, Christopher J. Eckhart
-- CECKHART@SCOPELITIS.COM -- Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson &
Feary PC & Gregory M. Feary -- GFEARY@SCOPELITIS.COM -- Scopelitis
Garvin Light Hanson & Feary PC.

William Blakley, Counter Defendant, represented by Justin L.
Swidler -- jswidler@swartz-legal.com. -- Swartz Swidler, Matthew
D. Miller -- mmiller@swartz-legal.com. -- Swartz Swidler & Richard
S. Swartz -- rswartz@swartz-legal.com -- Swartz Swidler LLC.

Kimberly Smith, Counter Defendant, represented by Justin L.
Swidler, Swartz Swidler, Matthew D. Miller, Swartz Swidler &
Richard S. Swartz, Swartz Swidler LLC.


CHIPOTLE: Confirms Nine Louisiana Stores Affected by Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Danielle Dreilinger, writing for NOLA.com, reports that the
customers of nine Louisiana Chipotle restaurants might have had
their credit card numbers stolen this spring, the company said on
May 26.

Chipotle originally announced the data breach in April. Hackers
installed malware that read a credit card's magnetic stripe as
customers or staff swiped the card to pay for a meal, the company
said.

"During the investigation we removed the malware, and we continue
to work with cybersecurity firms to evaluate ways to enhance our
security measures," the company said in a statement. "In addition,
we continue to support law enforcement's investigation and are
working with the payment card networks so that the banks that
issue payment cards can be made aware and initiate heightened
monitoring."

The company recommends that customers from that period check their
credit card statements for unauthorized charges.

A New Hampshire credit union has filed a class-action suit
alleging that Chipotle's inadequate security measures put
customers at risk, according to a report from ABC.

Louisiana Chipotle restaurants affected by data breach:

   * 101 W. State St., in Baton Rouge
   * 2610 Airline Dr.,400, Bossier City
   * 2410 Tanger Blvd.,161, in Gonzales
   * South Clearview Pkwy., in Harahan
   * 1725 Martin Luther King Blvd., in Houma
   * 4231 Ambassador Caffery Pkwy., Suite 101, in Lafayette
   * 3600 Veterans Blvd., in Metairie
   * 7030 Youree Dr., in Shreveport
   * 400 Town Center Pkwy., in Slidell [GN]


CLEVELAND, OH: Benesch Atty Comments on Speeding Tickets Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Gilman, Esq., at Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff LLP,
in an article for Lexology, wrote Mobile speed units. Those
mindless menaces squinting at everything that rolls down the road.
Most drivers approach them with caution, but others, either
oblivious to their presence or bent on one-upping the machine,
speed by, only to have their stomachs sink when a ticket arrives
in the mail.

It's a bad feeling, getting nailed by a device. Who's the court
likely to believe, should you decide to contest the ticket? You, a
sentient human being with the ability to talk and presumably
think? Or a patchwork of transistors affixed to a lens? And even
if you truly believe you're in the right, how do you cross-examine
a camera? Do leading questions really help?

Most people, in short, dislike them, including in all probability
Allyson Eighmey, who sued the City of Cleveland in an Ohio state
court claiming that the speeding ticket she was issued courtesy of
an automated camera was unlawful because it violated a local
ordinance requiring Cleveland to post signs "at each site of a red
light or fixed speed camera" to "apprise ordinarily observant
motorists that they are approaching an area where an automated
camera is monitoring for red light or speed violators." The
ordinance also required that mobile speed units "be plainly marked
vehicles," meaning that a sign has to be posted so drivers would
know they're in the zone of a traffic camera. According to
Eighmey, the unit that ticketed her failed to comply with these
requirements because it "contained no distinguishable markings
whatsoever."

So what did she do?

Exactly, and her complaint requested class certification, which
the trial court granted over the City of Cleveland's objections.
The certified class essentially consisted of all persons who
received tickets by mobile speed units under the Cleveland
ordinance between September 25, 2013 and December 26, 2016.

The City appealed, raising a single error: Eighmey's claims, it
contended, were not typical of the class she sought to represent.

Not typical? How could that be? Aren't all are motorists the same
under the merciless gaze of a mobile speed unit?

One would think so. And the trial court appears to have thought
so, too, having certified the class. But the court of appeals
found otherwise, and on May 18, 2017, reversed. Its reasoning?

Eighmey, it seems, had voluntarily paid her ticket. And by doing
so, she "waived her right to contest" it and was "barred from any
recovery. She will neither benefit from, nor be harmed by, the
litigation of other potential class members who may pursue viable
claims." Because she cannot "receive redress from this
litigation," she "lacks standing," and is "unable to represent the
class."

On top of that, Eighmey failed to exhaust her administrative
remedies. If she wanted to contest her ticket, she had to file an
appeal within 21 days with the Cleveland Municipal Court's Parking
Violations Bureau. But she didn't. Instead, five months after
receiving her ticket, she filed her class action complaint in
state court. Her "failure to pursue the appeal bars her from
representing the class."

So Eighmey's certified class action -- a class consisting, by the
trial court's tally, of 36,179 motorists ticketed in Cleveland
during the class period by unmarked speed units -- went down in
prosaic defeat. All because she stepped up, paid her ticket, and
didn't appeal.

The moral of the story?

Don't speed.

The case is Eighmey v. Cleveland, Cuyahoga County, Ohio, Court of
Appeals, case no. 104779, 2017-Ohio-2857, and the decision can be
found at https://goo.gl/qG4aBv. [GN]


COMPLETE LANDSCAPE: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, Action Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Francisco Rivera, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Complete Landscape Care, Inc. and Does 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC663463 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 31,
2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide
meal period, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure
to pay prevailing wages, failure to maintain accurate records of
hours worked, failure to timely pay all wages to terminated
employees, and failure to furnish accurate wage statements.

Complete Landscape Care, Inc. owns and operates an industry,
business, and establishment within the State of California, for
the purpose of providing landscape maintenance services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kane Moon, Esq.
      Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
      Allen Feghali, Esq.
      MOON & YANG, APC
      3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1820
      Los Angeles, CA 90010
      Telephone: (213) 232-3128
      Facsimile: (213) 232-3125
      E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
              justin.marquez@moonyanglaw.com
              allen.feghali@moonyanglaw.com


CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: American Osment Loses Summary Judgment Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned AMERICAN CHEMICALS & EQUIPMENT, INC. d/b/a
AMERICAN OSMENT, Plaintiff, v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY and
CNA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, INC., Defendant, No. 6:15-cv-00299-MHH
(N.D. Ala.), the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama, Southern Division, (i) denied American
Osment's motion for summary judgment because its interpretation of
its policy does not withstand scrutiny under Alabama's rules of
contract interpretation; (ii) granted Continental's motion to
strike; (iii) denied Continental's motion for summary judgment as
moot; and (iv) directed the parties to examine a coverage issue
that neither American Osment nor Continental addressed in the
summary judgment briefs.

Plaintiff American Chemicals brings this action against the
Defendants alleging, among other things, that Continental breached
the terms of an employment practices liability policy that the
company issued to American Osment.  American Osment relies on
broad language in a general provision in the policy and argues
that the general provision obligated Continental to provide a
defense to American Osment in a state court action even if the
state court claim is not covered under the policy.  American
Osment attempts to advance its duty to defend theory on behalf of
a class of all other policyholders of Defendant Continental, whose
policy language regarding the duty to defend claims mirrors the
policy language in the Plaintiff's policy, and who have reported
claims, as that term is defined in the policy, to Defendant
Continental for which Defendant Continental has refused to provide
a defense.

American Osment seeks summary judgment on its breach of contract
claim against Continental regarding Continental's failure to
provide a defense in the underlying lawsuit against American
Osment.  Continental seeks summary judgment on American Osment's
class action claim and moves to strike the class allegations in
American Osment's complaint.

As postured, the parties' pending motions rise and fall on
American Osment's ability to prove that under Alabama law,
Continental has a contractual duty based on a general term in the
policy at issue to provide American Osment with a defense for
claims that the policy explicitly excludes from coverage in more
narrow provisions of the policy.  Under settled principles of
Alabama law, Continental has no such duty, the Court ruled.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 2, 2017 memorandum opinion
and order is available at https://is.gd/ZuBv6f from Leagle.com

American Chemicals & Equipment Inc, Plaintiff, represented by
Charles A. Dauphin -- cdauphin@dauphinparis.com -- Dauphin Paris
LLC.

Continental Casualty Company, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth
Ann McMahan -- amcmahan@smgblawyers.com -- Simpson, McMahan, Glick
& Burford PLLC, Marc E. Rindner -- mrindner@wileyrein.com -- Wiley
Rein LLP, pro hac vice & Richard A. Simpson --
rsimpson@wileyrein.com -- Wiley Rein LLP, pro hac vice.

CNA Financial Corporation Inc, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth
Ann McMahan, Simpson, McMahan, Glick & Burford PLLC, Marc E.
Rindner, Wiley Rein LLP, pro hac vice & Richard A. Simpson, Wiley
Rein LLP, pro hac vice.


CORECIVIC: Inmates Forced to Clean Jail, Class Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------
Nick McCann, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
privately run immigration prison in San Diego forces its inmates
to clean their own jail for a dollar a day or less, two prisoners
say in a federal class action in San Diego.

Sylvester Owino and Jonathan Gomez sued CoreCivic, formerly known
as Corrections Corporation of America, a Nashville-based
corporation that is one of the biggest private prison companies in
the country.

In 2016, private prisons such as those run by CoreCivic held
almost three-quarters of federal immigration detainees, according
to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Nine of the country's 10 largest immigration jails are operated by
private companies.

Critics of private prisons cheered an order by President Barack
Obama last year that aimed to phase out the private jails, but the
new Attorney General Jeff Sessions reversed that order in
February.

The stock price of Corrections Corporation of America increased by
43 percent the day after President Donald Trump was elected,
according to The New York Times.

Owino and Gomez say CoreCivic violates labor laws by using them
and other prisoners "to clean, maintain and operate" the Otay Mesa
Detention Center in San Diego.

"In some instances CoreCivic pays detainees $1 per day, and in
other instances detainees are not compensated with wages at all,
for their labor and services," according to the May 31 lawsuit. It
adds: "In 2016, CoreCivic reported $1.79 billion in total
revenues."

Among other things, prisoners are ordered to clean the jail,
prepare and serve meals, do laundry, cut hair, and run a law
library, according to the complaint. And Core Civic threatens
detainees with punishment if they refuse to work, according to the
complaint.

Owino, who was jailed at Otay Mesa for nearly a decade, says he
was made to work at a medical facility without protective
equipment.

Gomez, who was jailed there for more than a year, says he worked
for a dollar a day in "an unsafe work environment."

They seek an injunction, the difference between the fair value of
their labor and what they were paid, and damages on 12 counts,
including forced labor, violations of the Trafficking Victims
Protection Act, Labor Code violations, negligence, unjust
enrichment and unfair competition.

They also seek certification of a nationwide class of immigration
detainees, and two classes of California detainees, who performed
unpaid labor, or work for a dollar a day.

"The total number of civil immigration detainees who were
subjected to defendant's forced labor and human trafficking
practices, and defendant's illegal dollar-a-day work practices is
currently unknown, but these illegal practices appear endemic to
the CoreCivic operations on a California-wide, and indeed a
nationwide, scale," the complaint states.

"However, CoreCivic can provide the information regarding how many
civil immigration detainees were subjected to these illegal
practices through its solitary confinement and detention logs and
also through its business records."

The plaintiffs are represented by Robert L. Teel in Langley,
Washington.

A spokesperson for CoreCivic declined to comment on the lawsuit,
but said that "all work programs at our ICE detention facilities
are completely voluntary and operated in full compliance with ICE
standards."

According to the Detention Watch coalition, U.S. immigration
prisons hold about 400,000 people a year. The group has filed
Freedom of Information Act requests about bed quotas at
immigration jails for more than three years. CoreCivic has
vigorously fought against disclosure, claiming it could expose
trade secrets. Many human rights advocates say the federal
government privatized its immigration prisons to shield its own
abuses from scrutiny. Unlike private, profit-seeking companies
such as CCA/Core Civic, the federal government cannot duck FOIA
requests by claiming trade secret exemptions.

In April this year, the Second Circuit denied CoreCivic's and Geo
Group's attempt to block the disclosure of the bed quota
information requested. They are the nation's two largest private
prison corporations.

In March, the widow of a man who was jailed at Otay Mesa sued
CoreCivic and the U.S. government after he died of complications
from pneumonia. She claims jail workers ignored his requests for
medical care.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Class Counsel Directed to Explain Withdrawal
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned PAULA DITTMAR, et al. Plaintiffs, v. COSTCO
WHOLESALE CORP., Defendant, Case No. 14cv1156-LAB (JLB) (S.D.
Cal.), Judge Larry Alan Burns of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California required the Class counsel
to file a concise memorandum explaining why withdrawal from
representing Paula Dittmar and Pauline Tilton is necessary and
discussing any relevant authority.

The Class Counsel asks to amend the complaint to substitute new
class representatives and to withdraw from representing Dittmar
and Tilton.  The Counsel says after the parties reached a
settlement, Dittmar and Tilton reneged, refused to settle, and
have ceased communicating with Counsel.

Judge Burns held that while the Court is inclined to grant the
request to amend and withdraw, the counsel didn't discuss any of
the cases above or adequately explain why withdrawal is necessary.
Instead, the Counsel says that Dittmar and Tilton engaged counsel
to file a lawsuit on behalf of a class and therefore any
individual claims are not within the purview of the
representation.  The Counsel appears to be saying that they've
always been the counsel for the class -- not for Dittmar and
Tilton individually.  If so, the Court doesn't understand why the
Counsel needs to withdraw.

Accordingly, the Court required the Class Counsel to file a
concise memorandum explaining why withdrawal is necessary and
discussing any relevant authority.  The Counsel should also
discuss California's conflict laws and whether the Class Counsel
must obtain consent from Dittmar and Tilton before entering a
relationship with new class representatives with adverse
interests.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 2, 2017 order is available at
https://is.gd/2zIUTi from Leagle.com

Paula Dittmar, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Joseph Sokolowski
-- Andrew.Sokolowski@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC.

Paula Dittmar, Plaintiff, represented by Bevin Allen --
Bevin.Pike@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone Lawyers APC, Daniel M.
Holzman, Caskey and Holzman, Daniela Saspe, Jennifer R. Bagosy --
Jennifer.Bagosy@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC, Jonathan
Sing Lee -- Jonathan.Lee@capstonelawyers.com  -- Capstone Law APC,
Rebecca G. Gundzik -- rgundzik@gghslaw.com -- Gartenberg Gelfand
Hayton & Selden LLP, Robert Joseph Drexler, Jr. --
Robert.Drexler@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC, THOMAS L.
DOROGI -- tdorogi@lightgablerlaw.com -- Caskey and Holzman & Aaron
C. Gundzik -- agundzik@gghslaw.com -- Gartenberg Gelfand Hayton
LLP.

Pauline Tilton, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Joseph
Sokolowski, Capstone Law APC, Bevin Allen, Capstone Lawyers APC,
Daniela Saspe, Jennifer R. Bagosy, Capstone Law APC, Jonathan Sing
Lee, Capstone Law APC, Robert Joseph Drexler, Jr., Capstone Law
APC, Aaron C. Gundzik, Gartenberg Gelfand Hayton LLP & Rebecca G.
Gundzik, Gartenberg Gelfand Hayton & Selden LLP.

Costco Wholesale Corporation, Defendant, represented by David D.
Kadue, Seyfarth Shaw, Emily Elizabeth Schroeder, Seyfarth Shaw
LLP, Matthew Scott McConnell, Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton,
Timothy M. Rusche, Seyfarth Shaw, LLP & Tara Wilcox, Sheppard
Mullin Richter and Hampton.


DELOITTE: Awaits Ruling on Appeal in Philip Audit Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Underwriter reports that Canada's highest court was
expected to decide on June 1 whether it would hear an appeal from
a major auditing and accounting firm that could face a trial this
fall in a class action lawsuit filed by several banks over the
bankruptcy in 2000 of a Hamilton, Ontario-based scrap metal and
industrial waste recovery firm.

In 2004, an Ontario court certified a class action lawsuit -- one
of whose plaintiffs is the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce --
against Deloitte & Touche LLP and associated firms.  The suit was
in connection to loans to Philip Services Corp., which obtained
bankruptcy protection in 2000.

Deloitte was previously sued for $118 million in Ontario for a
special receiver for Live Entertainment Corporation of Canada Inc.
The Supreme Court of Canada heard Feb. 10 an appeal by Deloitte of
an award against it for $84.75 million in damages plus interest.
Canada's highest court has yet to announce whether it will allow
or dismiss Deloitte's appeal of the Livent suit, which arose from
financial statements that had to be restated.  Livent went into
receivership and founders Garth Drabinsky and Myron Gottlieb were
sentenced to prison.

In the separate class-action lawsuit against Deloitte, a trial
before an Ontario court was scheduled this fall in connection with
audits more than 20 years ago of Philip.  Among other things,
Philip operated a metals services division that collected and
processed scrap metal.  The president of that metals services
division was sent to jail and Philip obtained bankruptcy
protection after restating financial results from the mid-1990s.
During that time Philip was publicly traded and audited by
Deloitte.

In May, 1997 CIBC and other lenders committed to lending up to
US$1.5 billion to Philip, Mr. Justice Paul Perell of the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice wrote in a ruling released in 2015.  A
total of 39 lenders -- including Bank of Nova Scotia, Toronto
Dominion Bank and the Royal Bank of Canada -- were involved in the
deal.

"Philip defaulted on the credit facility of which approximately
$970 million had been advanced to Philip," Justice Perell added.
In that ruling, the court granted Deloitte summary judgment
dismissing a lawsuit of negligent misrepresentation.  In their
class-action lawsuit, CIBC and the other lenders alleged
"negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and reckless
misrepresentation (in essence a claim of fraudulent
misrepresentation) on the part of Deloitte and associated firms in
connection with audits of Philip's financial statements for 1995
and 1996.  Those allegations have not been proven in court.

Justice Perell's summary judgment ruling was overturned on appeal.
In a unanimous decision released Dec. 8, 2016, the Court of Appeal
for Ontario ruled that a trial judge must determine whether
Deloitte owed Philip's lenders a duty of care.  In February, 2017,
Deloitte applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of
Canada, which is scheduled to announce June 1, 2017 whether it
will hear Deloitte's appeal.

CIBC "never advised Deloitte that it would be relying on the audit
opinions for the purpose of deciding whether to make a loan to
Philip," Justice Perell wrote. "CIBC did not ask Deloitte whether
or not the loan should be made or about the risks associated with
lending to Philip, and it did not ask Deloitte how the loan should
be structured in terms of its conditions and provisions about the
use of the borrowed funds."

Citing the 1997 Supreme Court of Canada ruling in Hercules
Management Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, Justice Perell noted that
accountants and auditors "have a duty of care to the corporation
and to its shareholders (as a collective but not as individual
investors)" but as a general rule to not have a duty to other
parties, such as lenders, creditors and suppliers.

There are exceptions to that rule, Justice Perell noted.

In overturning Justice Perell's summary judgment order, the Court
of Appeal for Ontario found that a trial judge "should determine
whether the factual matrix justifies the implication that Deloitte
had accepted that one of the purposes of the 1996 audit was to
provide financial disclosure to CIBC so that CIBC could decide
whether to provide the credit that Philip required," Justice
Alexandra Hoy wrote.

Court records indicate that in 1998, Philip restated its 1995 net
earnings from US$25.7 million to US$3.3 million and its 1996 net
earnings from US $28.4 million to a loss of US$19.9 million.

In a securities filing in 2000, Philips noted that in 1998, it
discovered unrecorded losses of US$92 million "arising from
unauthorized trading of copper outside" of the firm's "normal
business practices."

In 1998, Philip recorded a loss of US$1.6 billion and ceased
making payments on various debt obligations.  The firm had
discovered that audited financial statements did not reflect about
US$114 million in losses and adjustments.

In a ruling released in 2011, Robert Waxman, a senior officer of
Philip's in the mid 1990s, was sentenced to four concurrent jail
terms after being convicted of fraud.

The Hercules ruling is the "leading case" on the liability of
auditors to "non-clients who rely on their audit opinions,"
Justice Hoy wrote last year.

In 1988, Ernst & Young was a defendant sued in Manitoba by
plaintiffs alleging negligent preparation of audit reports of
Northguard Acceptance Ltd. and Northguard Holdings Ltd., a firm
that went into receivership in 1984. The shareholders' lawsuits
were dismissed, a ruling upheld on appeal all the way up to the
Supreme Court of Canada.

In his 2015 ruling, Justice Perell summarized case history
including Hercules.

"Accountants have a prima facie duty of care to shareholders,
lenders, and others that reasonably rely on the information
provided by the accountant, but that duty of care is negated by
policy considerations based on indeterminate liability," he wrote.
"Where the spectre of indeterminate liability is removed,
accountants have a duty of care to shareholders and others that
reasonably rely on the information provided by the accountants."

This spectre of indeterminate liability "can be removed" if the
accountant "knows the identity of the persons or group of persons
who are reasonably relying on the information provided by the
accountant" and if the accountant knows "the information was used
for the purpose for which the accountant prepared it," he added.
[GN]


DIRECTV LLC: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Ruling in "Perez" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant DIRECTV, LLC, filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Doneyda Perez v. DIRECTV, LLC, et al., Case No.
8:16-cv-01440-JLS-DFM, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Santa Ana.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Doneyda Perez v. DIRECTV, LLC,
et al., Case No. 17-55764, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by June 29, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on September 27, 2017;

   -- Appellant DIRECTV, LLC's opening brief is due on
      November 6, 2017;

   -- Appellee Doneyda Perez's answering brief is due on
      December 6, 2017; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee DONEYDA PEREZ, as an individual and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
          Atoy Wilson, Esq.
          MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
          249 East Ocean Boulevard
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 590-5550
          Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
          E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
                  awilson@mahoney-law.net

Defendant-Appellant DIRECTV, LLC, a Delaware Corporation, is
represented by:

          Daniel Jones, Esq.
          Archis Ashok Parasharami, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          1999 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 263-3860
          E-mail: djones@mayerbrown.com
                  aparasharami@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Andrea M. Weiss, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 229-9500
          E-mail: mweiss@mayerbrown.com


DOVEX FRUIT: Defends Piece-Rate Pay
-----------------------------------
Don Jenkins at Capital Press reports that farmers would have to
abandon piece-rate pay if the Washington Supreme Court rules that
workers must be paid separately for non-picking tasks, according
to lawyers for a Wenatchee orchard operator and exporter.

The Dovex Fruit Co. argues that piece rates benefit skilled and
industrious workers, but would be impractical if the court decides
the practice violates the state's minimum wage law.

"It is not possible for employers to separately track and pay for
every second of time that an employee is not actually picking each
piece of fruit, so they will be forced to abandon piece-rate pay
altogether," the company claims in a brief filed with the court.

The court ruled two years ago that piece-rate farmworkers must be
paid separately for 10-minute rest breaks. Although the court said
it was merely interpreting the law, the decision changed
longstanding pay practices. Now, the court has been asked whether
piece-rate workers must be paid separately for tasks such as
moving equipment and attending meetings.

The court has not set a hearing date, but has begun taking written
arguments. In an earlier filing, Seattle lawyer Marc Cote, who
represented workers in the lawsuit that won paid rest breaks,
argued that piece-rate pay robbed employees of the fruits of their
labors.

Dovex, the target of a class-action lawsuit over pay practices,
laid out its defense in a brief filed May 22.

According to the company's brief, the court's ruling on paid rest
breaks was well reasoned, but did not apply to this case.

While paid breaks encourage workers to rest for their health and
safety, at stake in the new case, according to Dovex, is whether
workers will have the chance to earn higher wages through piece
rates.

The company argues its piece rates ensure that workers are paid at
least the state's minimum wage, no matter what how much fruit they
pick.

According to the brief, the company records the time each employee
arrives and leaves work. "Dovex tracks and records every second
that a piece-rate worker spends working," the brief states.

At the end of the week, a worker's hours are added up. If the
piece-rate pay falls short of the company's base hourly wage, the
worker's pay is rounded up.

If the court strikes down the practice, farms will have no way to
be sure they're complying with the state minimum wage law and will
be forced to switch to hourly wages, according to the brief.

"Maybe this is what plaintiffs really want as a result of their
claims, but it is not what the thousands of skilled pickers that
return each year to Washington harvest necessarily want," the
brief states. "These skilled pickers enjoy wages that greatly
exceed minimum wage and the piece rate allows them to control
their earnings and time spent working in a way that straight
hourly work does not afford."

The company states its base hourly pay exceeds the state minimum
wage of $11 an hour. The brief references the minimum $13.38 an
hour that farms must pay if they hire foreign workers on temporary
H-2A visas.

The brief acknowledges piece rates benefit farmers. "Without the
ability to reward efficient and skilled pickers, the time-
sensitive harvest becomes less efficient and the employers' costs
go up," it states.

If the court rules piece-rate workers must be paid separately for
other tasks, justices also must decide how the pay will be
calculated. The agriculture industry favors a flat wage, but the
court in the rest-break case sided with workers who argued for pay
based on their higher piece-rate compensation. [GN]


EQT PRODUCTION: Coalbed Methane Suits Moving Forward
----------------------------------------------------
Robert Sorrell writing for Herald Courier reports years-long
litigation involving coalbed methane production in Southwest
Virginia is moving forward after recent decisions in federal
court.

Landowners who claim they haven't received sufficient royalties
for coalbed methane gas taken from their properties filed federal
suits against EQT Production Co. and CNX Gas Company in 2010.

Since then, lawyers representing the landowners have battled in
federal court for the right to challenge the gas companies in five
class-action lawsuits intended to draw in an untold number of
plaintiffs from across the region.

In 2013, U.S. District Judge James P. Jones certified a series of
five lawsuits being fought in Abingdon as class actions. In doing
so, he accepted a magistrate judge's recommendation to hand the
cases over for juries to decide.

But the companies appealed the certification and the 4th Circuit
Court of Appeals sent the cases back to Abingdon.

Attorney Jack White, Esq. -- jwhite@lawyersnh.com -- of Welts,
White & Fontaine, PC, one of the attorneys representing the
landowners, said documentation was resubmitted for certification
under the rules set by the appeals court. In 2015, Jones heard
arguments and took the case under consideration. It wasn't until
March 29, 2017, that Jones certified the class-action suits again.

The companies once again appealed the judge's decision, but the
4th Circuit denied the appeal. On May 25, Jones lifted a stay in
the case, allowing the parties to continue their work on the
litigation.

"It is hard to describe the importance of what has happened," said
Don Barrett, Esq. -- DBarrett@barrettlawgroup.com -- of Barrett
Law Group, P.A. a Mississippi-based attorney representing the
landowners. "Class certification is crucial."

Barrett said the appeals court laid out a roadmap for
certification.

"CNX and EQT are in trouble," Barrett said. "The people of
Southwest Virginia are finally going to get their day in court."

Barrett says the gas companies have cheated the landowners.

"They're not going to be able to defend themselves," Barrett
added. "We are still strong and we are ready for our day in
court."

White said, "This has been a long time coming and the people whose
gas has been produced and sold by the defendants are due proper
payment. In fact, those payments are long past due."

Requests for comment from the gas companies were referred to
corporate communications.

"As this is pending litigation, we are unable to provide
additional details at this time," EQT said in a statement on May
25.

Gas disputes have been ongoing in Southwest Virginia for decades.
Money has been sitting in escrow since the 1990s and was placed
there when the ownership of the gas pumped out of the ground came
into dispute. Several landowners have long held that they're owed
the money -- since they owned the gas rights to the land -- but
since the coal owners could also claim the gas -- as it comes from
the coal bed -- the money has been legally tied up in the escrow
fund.

The plight of the landowners was detailed in a series of stories
by the Bristol Herald Courier that won a Pulitzer Prize for Public
Service in 2010.

Landowners have said they want an accounting of what their
families are due for the gas produced on their land.

Moving forward, Barrett said the judge has set dates for motions,
responses and any replies. [GN]


FOREX CAPITAL: Aug. 11 Pretrial Conference Set in Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
FinanceFeeds has been keeping its readers up to date with the
latest developments around legal issues engulfing FXCM US
business, following the company settlements with the National
Futures Association (NFA) and the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission (CFTC) early in February this year.

The latest legal action filed against FXCM at the New York
Southern District Court is captioned Murrah v. Forex Capital
Markets LLC et al (1:17-cv-03700).  The amended complaint against
Global Brokerage Inc (NASDAQ:GLBR), FXCM Holdings, Forex Capital
Markets LLC, William Ahdout and Dror Niv was submitted on May 17,
2017, with the case rapidly progressing through the court.

According to the most recent court updates, on May 25, 2017, Judge
William H Pauley, III signed an order setting the date for the
initial pretrial conference for August 11, 2017.

As FinanceFeeds has reported, the affidavits of service of
complaints were submitted with the court on May 23, 2017.  The
affidavits concern FXCM Holdings, LLC, and Forex Capital Markets,
LLC. Both companies have until June 9, 2017, to file their
answers.

The Murrah case could not join "the "mega lawsuit" against FXCM
combining four other lawsuits against the broker and a number of
its principals.  On May 22, 2017, Judge Ronnie Abrams ruled that
the case Murrah v. Forex Capital Markets LLC et al was not related
to 17-cv-916 RA.

On top of the above mentioned lawsuits against FXCM, the broker
faces several others at the New York Southern District Court,
including the one filed by Vantalie Nguyen (1:17-cv-02729) on
April 14, 2017.  This is a class action on behalf of customers who
traded on the broker's "No Dealing Desk" platform during the 2010-
2016 period.  The plaintiffs allege that these customers were
harmed due to FXCM's relationship with Effex Capital, LLC as a
liquidity provider.  The class action claims (inter alia) breach
of contract and breach of fiduciary duty by US and other related
claims against Global Brokerage (FXCM), FXCM Holdings, Dror Niv,
William Ahdout, and Effex and its principal.

Global Brokerage insisted in its report for the first quarter of
2017 that it will defend itself against these accusations too.
[GN]


FOX NEWS: Founder's Death Won't Discrimination Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------
CBS News reports that the sudden death of Fox News founder Roger
Ailes won't slow the march of litigation swirling around the
network, legal observers and lawyers involved in the suits said.

Three new lawsuits by people alleging a hostile work environment
were filed just days after his death at age 77.  And while
Mr. Ailes was a potential witness in some lawsuits, his absence is
unlikely to matter much.

For one, the lawsuits -- like most litigation -- are likely to be
resolved without a trial.  And Mr. Ailes was never named as a
defendant in the majority of suits brought in the last year by
employees, former employees and others affiliated with the
network.

In the few lawsuits in which he was personally named as a
defendant or was considered a potential witness, lawyers said they
planned to move forward without him.  In one of those lawsuits,
former Fox employee Andrea Tantaros, a onetime host of "The Five,"
claims she was taken off the air after complaining that Mr. Ailes
subjected her to unwanted sexual comments -- an allegation Mr.
Ailes denied.

Douglas Wigdor, who represents 23 former or current Fox employees
suing the company, said Mr. Ailes was not a defendant in any of
his lawsuits, which mostly pertain to claims over race, gender,
pregnancy and workplace retaliation.  Only a handful included
allegations of sexual harassment, none of which involved Ailes
personally.

Mr. Wigdor said that he might have called Mr. Ailes as a witness
in race discrimination cases to testify about how he handled
various matters, but that he wasn't essential.

The network had already settled claims brought directly against
Mr. Ailes.  Before his death, Mr. Ailes denied the allegations
against him. His lawyers did not respond to requests for comment.

Mr. Ailes was forced out of Fox News last July after former anchor
Gretchen Carlson claimed he sabotaged her career after she spurned
his sexual advances.

21st Century Fox paid Gretchen Carlson a reported $20 million to
settle a sexual harassment lawsuit by the former TV anchor against
Mr. Ailes.

In announcing the settlement in 2016, the media and entertainment
giant apologized to Carlson, saying that she "was not treated with
the respect and dignity that she and all of our colleagues
deserve."  The company also said that "during her tenure at Fox
News, Gretchen exhibited the highest standards of journalism and
professionalism."

Bill O'Reilly was forced out in April after The New York Times
reported that five women had received payouts of about $13 million
from O'Reilly or Fox News after making claims of sexual harassment
or other inappropriate behavior.

Fox News declined to speak on the record about ongoing litigation,
but the network has taken steps to ensure complaints by employees
are handled swiftly.

In one internal memo obtained by the Associated Press, Fox News
Executive Vice President of Human Resources Kevin Lord wrote that
the network has been giving employees sensitivity training for
several months on subjects including sexual harassment and racial
discrimination.  That training has included information on how to
file workplace complaints confidentially.

Federal prosecutors declined to comment on what effect the death
might have on a separate investigation into how 21st Century Fox
handled settlement payouts reaching into the tens of millions of
dollars.  A spokesman at 21st Century Fox also declined comment.
The company has said in the past that it is cooperating with the
probe.

The most recent court action in the civil cases came on May 24,
when Fox asked a court to throw out Ms. Tantaros' suit, saying its
claims the network had her under surveillance were "at best, a
paranoid fantasy and at worst, a deliberate hoax."

Burstein claims he has evidence supporting the allegations. He
declined to speak about how Mr. Ailes' death might impact his
case.

If any cases went to trial, the plaintiffs possibly might have
benefited from having Mr. Ailes to call as a witness, said
attorney David S. Ratner, who isn't involved in the Fox
litigation.

"Ailes' story has gone to the grave with him," he said.

The fact that 21st Century Fox opted to settle claims that
directly involved Mr. Ailes suggested a lack of faith in his
ability to help disprove them in depositions or on the witness
stand, said Joanna Grossman, a professor of discrimination and
gender law at SMU Dedman School of Law.

"My guess is he wouldn't have been a very good witness for Fox,"
Ms. Grossman said. [GN]


FYRE MEDIA: Lawsuits Advance on Dual Civil, Criminal Tracks
-----------------------------------------------------------
Paula Parisi writing for Variety, reports that a petition to
consolidate civil class action lawsuits against Fyre Media and
company co-founders Billy McFarland and Ja Rule will come before a
panel of federal court judges in Los Angeles on July 27.
Meanwhile, the criminal investigation continues, with grand jury
subpoenas issued and involvement by U.S. attorneys in California.

Plaintiff litigators expect the Fyre defense team will, on or
before that day, move to put the civil cases on hold pending the
outcome of the criminal proceedings, still in the early stages but
now active on both coasts, as assistant U.S. attorneys and FBI
agents in New York, Florida, and California gather evidence.

In addition to the six federal and one state class action lawsuit,
four individual lawsuits are also proceeding. These include
complaints filed by lenders. McFarland's attorneys agreed that by
the close of business May 26 they would deposit $240,000 into an
escrow account on behalf of lender Oleg Itkin, who is owed
$800,000. Itkin's attorney, Caitlin Robin & Associates, has been
very aggressive and is the first among 11 lawsuits filed to get a
formal response from defendants McFarland and Fyre Media and force
them before a judge. The matter is scheduled for hearing in a New
York state court on May 31.

Meanwhile, anticipating bankruptcy or insolvency on the part of
Fyre, the plaintiffs are maneuvering to keep deep-pocketed Fyre
investors on the hook as defendants. Named defendants thus far
include New York socialite Carola Jain and Robert Nemeth of the
Connecticut-based Perkins Fund Marketing.

So far, Jain and Nemeth are named in one investor suit, although
the $100 million class action suit filed April 30 by Geragos &
Geragos was subsequently amended to attach them, while stopping
short of formally naming them. While they are likely to be
subpoenaed in the criminal investigation, it is unknown at this
point whether they will be targets and whether they will be able
to stay civil proceedings as a result.

As far as McFarland and Ja Rule go, the consensus is they will
invoke their Fifth Amendment rights and avoid direct questioning
in the civil matters pending resolution of the criminal
investigation. Experts agree that while they might try, they will
be unlikely to succeed in deferring the civil class action
consolidation.

"When life and liberty is placed at risk, the courts put a high
premium on deference to the integrity of federal criminal
prosecutions," said Ben Meiselas, an attorney with Geragos &
Geragos. Meiselas said his firm's suit, filed in U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, now has about 1,000
active plaintiff participants.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has set a June
10 deadline for written response to the multi-district
consolidation request, which was initiated by Levi & Korsinsky,
which filed suit in New York but is managing the case out of San
Francisco, where lead attorney Rosemary Rivas had no comment.

Adam Zimmerman, a Loyola Law School professor specializing in
complex civil litigation, said the fact that a criminal
investigation is in progress would be enough to allow the defense
to move for a stay, it is not necessary that they be formally
indicted. But Zimmerman said he believes it likely the judicial
council will still allow the civil class actions to move forward
and be consolidated. "A pending indictment wouldn't really impact
the question of whether the civil cases warrant a transfer.  Once
the cases are transferred to a single federal judge -- and I would
think the facts favor transfer -- that judge could decide to stay
the proceedings pending the outcome of the criminal case.  That is
not uncommon."

The MDL consolidation request has prompted jockeying for position
among attorneys, as the panel will have the discretion to transfer
the cases to a single judge who can certify a class action or
assign a lead law firm to coordinate plaintiff activities.
"Attorneys who take on the coordinating roles wind up very
powerful, and those are lucrative positions as well," Zimmerman
said.

The likelihood is the judicial panel will consolidate in New York,
where the defendants are based, and the U.S. Department of Justice
is managing the criminal investigation out of its Manhattan
office. Under MDL a single court would hear all pretrial motions
and manage the class action cases, which would then go back to the
venue where the case was filed for its hearing.

But most civil class actions -- an estimated 90 percent -- settle
before going to trial. In the case of Fyre, settlement may be
hampered if Fyre Media principals do not have the financial
resources to offer compensation. In that case, the plaintiffs will
push for incarceration while still pursuing financial restitution
from others who may have liability and means is the consensus
among those involved with the case.

Representatives from the U.S. attorney's office and lawyers for
McFarland and Fyre Media had no comment. Nemeth and Jain did not
return calls. Stacey Richman, the lawyer representing Ja Rule,
whose name is Jeffrey Atkins, issued a statement that states: "Mr.
Atkins would never participate in anything fraudulent, it is
simply not in his DNA. He is devastated at the aftermath of what
he genuinely had hoped would be an incredible event for all." [GN]


GATHERAPP INC: Faces "Foley" Suit Alleging TCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Foley, Jeremy Pawlak, and Nicholas Visconti,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. GatherApp, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-03132-
DMR (N.D. Cal., May 31, 2017), results from the alleged illegal
actions of GatherApp, Inc., in negligently and/or intentionally
contacting Plaintiffs on Plaintiffs' cellular telephone, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby
invading Plaintiffs' privacy.

Defendant allegedly acquired Plaintiffs' cellular telephone by
taking -- without consent -- the contact data from third-parties'
cellular telephones and sending text messages to the contacts of
those third-parties, including, but not limited to, Plaintiffs.

GatherApp, Inc. -- https://www.gatherwith.us/ -- provides social
networking app.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Veronica E. McKnight, Esq.
     HYDE & SWIGART
     2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
     San Diego, CA 92108
     Phone: (619) 233-7770
     Fax: (619) 297-1022
     Email: bonnie@westcoastlitigation.com

        - and -

     Joshua B. Swigart
     HYDE & SWIGART
     2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
     San Diego, CA 92108
     Phone: (619) 233-7770
     Fax: (619) 297-1022
     Email: josh@westcoastlitigation.com

        - and -

     Anthony P. Chester, Esq.
     HYDE & SWIGART
     120 South 6th Street, Suite 2050
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Phone: (952) 225-5333
     Fax: (800) 635-6425
     Email: tony@westcoastlitigation.com

        - and -

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


GENERAC POWER: Craftwood II, Inc. Alleges Violation of TCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Craftwood II, Inc., a California corporation, dba Bay Hardware;
Craftwood III, Inc., a California corporation, dba Lunada Bay
Hardware, individually and as representatives of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Generac Power Systems, Inc., a
Wisconsin corporation; Comprehensive Marketing, Inc., an Illinois
corporation; Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04105 (N.D. Ill., May
31, 2017), seeks to recover damages for and enjoin alleged
repeated junk faxing by Defendants Generac Power Systems, Inc.,
and Comprehensive Marketing, Inc.

The complaint says this is in direct violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act and the regulations promulgated by the
Federal Communications Commission. Within four years preceding the
filing of this Complaint, Defendants have allegedly sent junk
faxes to Plaintiffs, including, but not limited to, the facsimile
transmission of advertisements to Bay Hardware's telephone
facsimile number on July 28, 2016, and February 13, 2017.

Generac Power Systems, Inc. -- http://www.generac.com/-- designs
and manufactures backup power generators and engine-powered
tools.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     C. Darryl Cordero, Esq.
     Matthew K. Brown, Esq.
     PAYNE & FEARS LLP
     1100 Glendon Avenue, Suite 1250
     Los Angeles, CA 90024
     Phone: (310) 689-1750
     Email: cdc@paynefears.com
            mkb@paynefears.com

        - and -

     Peter Trobe, Esq.
     TROBE, BABOWICE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
     404 West Water Street
     Waukegan, IL 60085
     Phone: (847) 625-8700
     Email: ptrobe@tbalaws.com


GENERAL MOTORS: July 26 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, on May 30 notified investors
that a class action lawsuit has been filed against General Motors
Company ("GM" or the "Company") (NYSE: GM) and certain of its
officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased GM securities
between February 27, 2012 through May 25, 2017, inclusive (the
"Class Period").  Such investors are encouraged to join this case
by visiting the firm's site: http://www.bgandg.com/gm.

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

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) GM installed three distinct defeat devices in over
700,000 trucks with Duramax diesel engines from 2011 to 2016 to
beat emissions tests in the U.S.; (2) as a result, these trucks
emit up to five times the legal limit of nitrogen oxide
pollutants; and (3) consequently, GM's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/gmor you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in
GM you have until July 26, 2017 to request that the Court appoint
you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC -- http://www.bgandg.com--is a
corporate litigation boutique.  Its primary expertise is the
aggressive pursuit of litigation claims on behalf of our clients.
In addition to representing institutions and other investor
plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's
expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as
well as securities arbitration. [GN]


GOOGLE INC: Law Firm Drops Some Charges in Suit Over Nexus 5X
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Robinson, writing for Nashville Chatter, reports that it's
hard to argue against the fact that the Google Nexus 6P and Nexus
5X are -- to date -- two of the best phones to have ever graced
the Nexus lineup.

Where the Nexus 6P gave users the best hardware specs and features
at a midrange budget, the Nexus 5X came in with slightly less
powerful features aimed at those who enjoy the purest form of
Android OS.  However, about a year down the line, the two phones
started showing signs of early retirement with hardware and
software related issues coming in from all angles.

While software issues were less painful since Google always came
in with an update to fix the problem in question, the story was
quite opposite when it came to hardware-related issues. One major
issue that came in and has been frustrating users of the Google
Nexus 6P and Nexus 5X is bootlooping.

At the beginning, it was claimed that this bootloop issue had
everything to do with software, more so the new Android 7.0
Nougat, and that it was only affecting the LG-made Google Nexus
5X.  However, Google quickly rubbished the claims, implying that
the issue was hardware-related.  But when the Nexus 6P joined the
party, Google surprisingly assured affected owners that they'll
receive a software update with a fix, adding another twist to what
had yet to be uncovered.

At some point, many started demanding that Google starts issuing
replacement units to those affected by the bootlooping issue on
Nexus 6P and Nexus 5X, something that LG is reportedly handling
perfectly well. However, up to now, the tech giant, alongside the
makers of the Nexus 6P, Huawei, have never given out a statement
regarding the possibility of a replacement program.

When things started getting worse and some users started reporting
about phones that were simply dead after months or so of usage, a
lawsuit was filed against the responsible parties, that is,
Google, Huawei and LG.  The law firm charged with taking on the
complaints, Chimicles & Tikellis LLP, has, however, dropped
charges against the Nexus 5X owing to the fact that LG is handling
the replacement cases much better than Huawei and Google.

In a newly amended complaint, the law firm is doubling down on the
class action pursuit against the Google Nexus 6P while dropping
some of the charges on the Nexus 5X.  The charges being dropped
are the general warranty support and refunds associated with
bootlooping phones, an indicator that Huawei -- and Google -- are
still not helping on this matter at all.

Where Google claims that the bootloop issue on the Nexus 6P is
hardware-related, Huawei says that it has everything to do with
software.  In short, we are back to where all this begun.  But
who's to blame, really? [GN]


GREAT LAKES: Seeks Dismissal of Repayment Program Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Madison-St. Clair Record,
reports that a student loan servicer seeks to dismiss a proposed
class action claiming financially stressed borrowers were steered
into costly repayment programs, arguing that the suit
"piggybacked" on two similar lawsuits against Navient.

Great Lakes Educational Loan Services filed a motion to dismiss
and strike the complaint through attorneys Abby Risner, Esq. --
alr@greensfelder.com -- and John Drake, Esq. --
jdrake@greensfelder.com -- of Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale PC in
St. Louis.

The defendant argues that the complaint includes claims against a
different company, Navient, and should be stricken "as they do not
reflect a reasonable inquiry by Plaintiff into the factual basis
of her allegations and are, therefore, immaterial and scandalous."

In its memorandum in support of its motion, the defendant argues
that the plaintiff "piggybacked" on two lawsuits against Navient,
copying verbatim large sections of the factual allegations made in
those cases against the student loan servicer rather than
conducting investigation into the facts of her particular case.

"Plaintiff's copy-cat lawsuit must be dismissed both because it
lacks the required specific inquiry and, even if it satisfied the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is preempted by federal law
and fails to state a claim," the memorandum states.

"The Complaint consists of nothing more than allegations cribbed
from another lawsuit in an invalid attempt to impose additional,
inconsistent state-law requirements on a highly-regulated federal
contractor whose activities are dictated by federal law and
oversight," it continues.

Without the allegations, Great Lakes Educational argues that the
complaint cannot stand and should be dismissed.

Judge Nancy Rosenstengel scheduled a motion hearing for the motion
to dismiss and motion to strike for June 14 at 9:30 a.m.

On May 15, plaintiff Nicole Denise Nelson filed an amended
complaint modifying a defendant party as Doe 1-10.

The suit alleges Great Lakes, based in Madison, Wisc., has
encouraged financially strapped borrows into forbearance rather
than more appropriate income-driven repayment loans, "which is
more costly to the student loan borrower but significantly less
costly for the student loan servicer."

"In sum, counseling borrowers about alternative student loan
payment plans and enrolling those student loan borrowers in
income-driven repayment plans is costly for Defendants and its
employees," the suit states.  "In contrast, enrollment of student
loan borrowers in forbearance can often be completed over the
phone, in a matter of minutes, and generally without the
submission of any paperwork."

Ms. Nelson claims she began making payments on her student loans
in December 2009 but entered into forbearance by November 2012.
Over the next few years, Nelson bounced in and out of forbearance,
changed jobs and became unemployed, but when she discussed her
situation over the phone with Great Lakes employees, she claims
she was told her options were forbearance or a deferment.

"Plaintiff was not informed of alternative or income-driven
repayment option," the complaint states.  "These other alternative
or repayment options would have likely allowed Plaintiff a $0.0 or
extremely low monthly payment, and would have counted as
qualifying payments towards loan forgiveness. Instead, Plaintiff
was, pursuant to Defendants' policy and practice, steered into
forbearance."

The suit states that federal student loan borrowers who can't make
monthly payments on their student loan debt may opt for
alternative repayment plans that can include a percentage of their
discretionary income or that can count toward loan forgiveness
programs.

"However, despite the wide-spread availability of income-driven
repayment plans, and their clear benefits to student loan
borrowers, student loan servicers, like Great Lakes,
systematically deterred Plaintiff, and upon information and
belief, potentially thousands of other borrowers from obtaining
access to some or all of the benefits and protections associated
with income driven repayment plans," the suit states.

Ms. Nelson, 33, of Shiloh filed her suit on behalf of others and
seeks in excess of $5 million in compensatory, exemplary and
punitive damages.

Ms. Nelson is an attorney formerly employed at the Belleville
office of the Illinois Attorney General. She is represented by
Brandon Wise and Paul Lesko of Pfeiffer Rosca Wolf Abdullah Carr &
Kane in St. Louis. [GN]

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois case
number 3:17-cv-183


GRIFFIN PARKING: "Milton" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Milton, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. Griffin Parking Area Maintenance, Inc., Case No. 8:17-cv-01286-
MSS-TGW (M.D. Fla., May 30, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and all other
applicable relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Griffin Parking Area Maintenance, Inc. provides cleaning services
to customer properties. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HILLTOP MANAGEMENT: Faces "Ramos" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rosalino Ramos, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Hilltop Management Group LLC; Chalban 613 Realty LLC; Mark
Culton; David Krammer; and/or any other related entities, Case No.
1:17-cv-03240 (E.D.N.Y., May 30, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation for work more
than 40 hours per week.

The Defendants operate an investment management and advisory firm
located at 2273 65th Street, Brooklyn, NY 11204. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

HONDA MOTORS: Accord, Crosstour Owners Sue Over Starter Problems
----------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that Honda
starter problems have caused Accord and Crosstour owners to file a
proposed class-action lawsuit that alleges the starters fail and
cause a small fortune to replace.

The lawsuit includes current and former owners and lessees of
2013-2015 Honda Accord and Crosstour vehicles with allegedly
defective starter systems that typically fail during or shortly
after the limited warranties expire.

Owners complain about being stranded from starter failures and
dead batteries, paying to tow the vehicles to dealerships and then
listening to Honda dealers explain how the automaker won't cover
the cost of repairs.

Plaintiff Joel Merkin says he bought a used 2013 Honda Accord EX-L
in 2015 while the car was still under the factory warranty period,
but in 2016 and with about 40,400 miles on the odometer, the
Accord would not start once or twice a week.  Mr. Merkin says it
would take numerous attempts to get the car to start, and by the
time the Accord had 58,430 miles on the odometer, the car would
not start five or six times a day.

The plaintiff contacted his Honda dealer and was told the Accord
was no longer under warranty and Mr. Merkin would need to pay the
entire cost to replace the starter.  The car was eventually taken
to a different dealership that replaced the starter for about
$200.

Not only did Honda allegedly actively conceal the fact that
particular components within the starters were not assembled and
manufactured correctly, the automaker also forgot to mention the
existence of the alleged defect would diminish the resale value of
the vehicles, according to the plaintiff.

The lawsuit alleges Honda has known about the starter problems for
years but has failed to do anything about it.  Accord and
Crosstour owners claim Honda typically blames the starter problems
on "maintenance," "wear," or "user induced" issues not covered
under warranty.

For owners with vehicles that Honda will repair under warranty,
the plaintiff claims those vehicles aren't fixed permanently as
Honda replaces the defective starters with starters that will fail
again.

According to the Honda lawsuit, Honda knows about the starter
problems because of numerous complaints that have been filed, and
based on technical service bulletins Honda sent to dealers. Those
complaints describe the cost to replace the starters, typically
between $400 and $900.

"I notice a week ago that my car would not start on the first turn
of the key. The cost he gave me for the repair was $903.00. I
called him back the next day to inform him about all of the
complaints about the starter for this make and model [sic] I've
read and plain as day he say Honda has no reports about this being
a on going issues. ARE you kidding me,!!! I also call the Honda
Customer Care line and after being place on hold several times, I
received the same answer. If I could get rid of this car right now
I would.  Matter of fact I will be selling this car and my Acura
and will never buy another Honda product again." - 2013 Honda
Accord owner / Fredericksburg, Virginia

Despite the complaints, Honda hasn't recalled the cars to
permanently fix the starter problems and has done nothing to
reimburse customers who have incurred out-of-pocket expenses to
repair the starters.

The Honda lawsuit claims if customers would have known about the
defective starters, those consumers would have purchased different
cars.  The plaintiff says Honda has handled its business in an
unfair and deceptive way and caused owners to lose a small fortune
while enriching the automaker and dealers.

The Accord and Crosstour lawsuit accuses Honda of violating the
New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, breaching express and implied
warranties, breaching the covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
common law fraud and unjust enrichment.

The Honda starter problems lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey, Trenton Division - Joel
Merkin, et al., v. Honda North America, Inc., American Honda Motor
Company, Inc., and Honda Motor Company, LTD.

The plaintiff is represented by McCune Wright Arevalo LLP. [GN]

CarComplaints.com has complaints about starter problems in the
Honda Accord and Crosstour:

Honda Accord - 2013 / 2014 / 2015
Honda Crosstour - 2013


INNOVATIVE AFTERMARKET: Bare Appeals S.D.W.V. Ruling to 4th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Justin Bare filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Justin Bare v. Innovative Aftermarket Systems, LP,
Case No. 2:16-cv-11049, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of West Virginia at Charleston.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 2,
2017, District Judge Thomas E. Johnston granted the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the case.

Justin Bare purchased a vehicle from a Kentucky automobile dealer
and as part of the sale, Bare also purchased a Protection Plus
policy from Innovative Aftermarket Systems, LP, for $299.  The
policy allegedly guaranteed that the anti-theft system installed
on the vehicle would be an effective deterrent to vehicle theft
and in the event that the product will not deter theft and the
vehicle was not recovered within 30 days or recovered and declared
a total loss as the result of the theft, then Innovative would pay
Mr. Bare a sum of $2,500.

Mr. Bare filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Logan County
and states that his vehicle was stolen on December 7, 2014, and
his automobile insurer allegedly issued him a settlement check on
April 24, 2015, for $15,239.61 after declaring the vehicle a total
loss.  He asserts that he made a claim under the policy on
December 15, 2015, and but Innovative denied the claim as untimely
based on the policy's filing requirements.  Mr. Bare's causes of
action includes an unlawful sale of insurance in violation of West
Virginia insurance law and the West Virginia Consumer Credit and
Protection Act, a common law breach of contract, violations of the
West Virginia Unfair Trade Practices Act, and a common law bad
faith.

Innovative removed the case to the Southern District of West
Virginia, Charleston Division court on November 17, 2016, and on
December 9, 2016, Innovative filed a motion to dismiss and argues
that all of the Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed because
they all hinge upon the product being insurance, which Innovative
contends it is not.

Judge Johnston granted Defendant's motion to dismiss finding that
the policy is not insurance.

The appellate case is captioned as Justin Bare v. Innovative
Aftermarket Systems, LP, Case No. 17-1673, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

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

   -- Initial forms are due within 14 days;
   -- Opening Brief and Appendix are due on July 10, 2017; and
   -- Response Brief is due on August 8, 2017.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant JUSTIN BARE, individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated, is represented by:

          Sandra Henson Kinney, Esq.
          Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
          209 Capitol Street
          Charleston, WV 25301-0000
          Telephone: (304) 345-6555
          Facsimile: (304) 342-1110
          E-mail: skinney@baileyglasser.com
                  jmarshall@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          J. Christopher White, Esq.
          Steven S. Wolfe, Esq.
          WOLFE WHITE & ASSOCIATES
          P. O. Box 536
          Logan, WV 25601
          Telephone: (304) 752-7715
          E-mail: Jcwhite@Wolfelawwv.com
                  Swolfe@Wolfelawwv.com

Defendant-Appellee INNOVATIVE AFTERMARKET SYSTEMS, LP, a Texas
limited liability company, is represented by:

          Charity K. Lawrence, Esq.
          Alexander Macia, Esq.
          SPILMAN, THOMAS & BATTLE, PLLC
          Spilman Center
          300 Kanawha Boulevard, East
          P. O. Box 273
          Charleston, WV 25321-0273
          Telephone: (304) 340-3800
          E-mail: clawrence@spilmanlaw.com
                  amacia@spilmanlaw.com


JELLY BELLY: Faces Class Action Over Sport Beans
------------------------------------------------
Veronica Rocha, writing for The Los Angeles Times, reports that a
San Bernardino County woman has filed suit against the Jelly Belly
Candy Co. claiming that she was duped into buying and eating
sugar-filled jelly beans when she thought she was devouring
performance-enhancing "Sport Beans" instead.

Jessica Gomez filed a federal class-action lawsuit against the
Fairfield, Calif.-based candy company in March, claiming they
mislabeled sugar on the product's list of ingredients. She is
asking for damages, restitution and a court order demanding the
company end "fraudulent practices."

The lawsuit said the candy company advertises its Sport Beans
products to athletes as an "energizing" sports performance aid
that contains vitamins, electrolytes and carbohydrates.

But there's a catch.

According to Gomez's attorneys, the company lists "evaporated cane
juice" as an ingredient instead of sugar "to make the product
appear even more appropriate for athletes and less like a candy."

This is a major no-no, the lawsuit said.

"By doing so, [Jelly Belly] is able to deceive its consumers,
including [Gomez], regarding basic nature of the product and its
contents," her attorneys wrote in court documents.

Gomez's attorney Ryan Ferrell, Esq. -- rfarrell@zrfmlaw.com --
said the lawsuit is not just about sugar.

"The lawsuit is about a company using an attempt at an alternative
healthy term to define sugar," he said.

Had Gomez known the product was mislabeled, the lawsuit said, she
would not have purchased or paid as much for the sweet beans.

What is evaporated cane juice?

Last year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration sought to clarify
the meaning of "evaporated cane juice" since it was appearing more
often on nutrition labels.

The agency issued a set of guidelines for manufacturers and
declared that the ingredient was "essentially sugar."

"FDA's view is that such sweeteners should not be declared on food
labels as "evaporated cane juice" because that term does not
accurately describe the basic nature of the food and its
characterizing properties," the agency said in its guidelines.

According to the FDA, the uncommon ingredient is misleading and
false because the term "juice" carries different meanings. It
could mean the sweetener is "juice." Or the ingredient was made
from juice extracted from fruits or vegetables.

The FDA suggests manufacturers use simple and direct language to
describe their ingredients.

Unfortunately, sugar is not simple.

There are all types of sugars, the agency notes. Sugar comes in
syrups and raw form. Depending on how sweetener is processed, it
can be refined sugar or molasses.

But for the purpose of labeling, the FDA says calling it "sugar"
is the best way to go.

'This is nonsense'

Jelly Belly's response to Gomez's lawsuit was clear: "This is
nonsense."

In court documents requesting the lawsuit be dismissed, company
attorneys said Gomez's claims are not believable. They said Gomez
doesn't indicate in her lawsuit when and where she purchased the
product or if she even ate a Sport Bean. The attorneys also argued
that she did not explain why the ingredient mattered to her, if
she is an athlete, or that she was looking for a sugar-free
product.

"No reasonable consumer could have been deceived by Sport Beans'
labeling -- Gomez could not have seen "evaporated cane juice"
without also seeing the product's sugar content on its Nutrition
Facts label," the attorneys contend. "And she has pled no facts to
suggest that athletes, who consume this product to sustain intense
exercise, would want to avoid sugar rather than affirmatively seek
it."

Attorneys argued the company wasn't trying to deceive consumers or
hide the sugar content in its product labeling, which they said is
clearly stamped on the package: Sugars 17 grams.

The lawsuit, they said, "has the look and feel of a form document
to which [Gomez] has merely loaned her name."

"If a real person named Jessica Gomez bought Sport Beans because
she was truly duped, this complaint does not tell her story," the
attorneys said.

The product, which costs about $7.99 for a six-pack and comes in
berry, fruit punch and lemon lime flavors, is "scientifically
formulated to boost your sports performance," according to the
company's website.

If that wasn't enough of a sales pitch, the company says, "Jelly
Belly Sport Beans and Extreme Sport Beans make fitting gifts for
your running partner, gym buddy or any athlete in your life."

What's an added sugar?

In an effort to help consumers identify sweeteners, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture says to look for these names when
reading ingredient labels on packaged foods:

Names of added sugars

   - Anhydrous dextrose
   - Corn syrup
   - Fructose
   - Invert sugar
   - Maltose
   - Nectars (like peach or pear nectar)
   - Sucrose
   - Honey
   - Raw sugar
   - Sugar, brown syrup, raw sugar
   - High-fructose corn syrup
   - Corn syrup solids
   - Lactose
   - Maple syrup, pancake syrup
   - Dextrose
   - Molasses
   - Malt Syrup
   - White granulated syrup [GN]


KENTUCKY: Unions Seek Injunction on "Right-To-Work" Law
-------------------------------------------------------
Jurist reports that two unions, Kentucky State AFL-CIO and
Teamsters Local 89 filed a class action lawsuit against the state
of Kentucky and the governor, claiming that Kentucky's "right-to-
work" bill violates the state constitution. The plaintiffs claim
that the bill, which allows workers to receive union benefits
without paying dues, amounts to "a clear and unfair taking of
union resources and dues money without any sort of compensation,
which we [Teamsters Local 89] strongly believe is a violation of
Kentucky's Constitution." Teamsters Local 89 referred to the bill
as "an all-out assault on the hard-working men and women of
Kentucky." Kentucky State AFL-CIO's lawyer, Irwin Cutler, Esq. --
irwincotler@rwchr.org -- of Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human
Rights said  "Courts in other states have struck down virtually
identical so-called right to work statutes because they force
unions to provide many costly services to workers for free. No
other state law requires any organization to give away its
services, but under this law, Kentucky's labor unions must do so."
Kentucky officials said [Reuters report] the lawsuit was
"frivolous."

The Kentucky House of Representatives passed the right-to-work
bill in January. Currently, 28 states have right-to-work laws. The
US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in January 2016 on the First
Amendment rights of public teachers who do not wish to pay union
fees, leading to a plurality decision. [GN]


KING DIGITAL: Judge Allows Candy Crush Class Action to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amina Elahi, writing for the Chicago Tribune, reports that a
federal judge in Chicago said that a proposed class-action lawsuit
may proceed against King, maker of the addictive Candy Crush Saga
game you and your friends couldn't stop playing in 2013.

Plaintiff Zachery Liston alleges that King offered players free
lives if they connected their accounts to Facebook and marketed
Candy Crush to their friends. Then -- without warning, Liston's
suit says -- King deleted the lives.

The Tetris-like puzzle game is notorious for being irresistible to
players; King reported revenue of $1.9 billion in 2013 on the
popularity of Candy Crush. At the peak of the game's popularity,
invitations were so common -- and widely considered irritating --
that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg addressed them during a town
hall.

Liston's attorneys argued that Candy Crush lives have monetary
value of about 20 cents, which is what they cost if not donated by
friends. They estimated a class of some 25 million people
received, and later lost, lives through this method of marketing
the game to their Facebook friends. Players can also purchase five
lives for 99 cents, or wait 30 minutes after losing all their
lives to receive new ones for free.

U.S. District Judge John J. Tharp Jr., of the Northern District of
Illinois Eastern Division, allowed some claims in the case to move
forward: claims of breach of implied contract and unjust
enrichment. Another claim -- that King violated consumer
protection statutes across the country -- will depend on Liston
finding people in states other than Illinois who say King unjustly
deleted their lives, Tharp said.

"Liston has plausibly alleged that lives in Candy Crush -- whether
donated or otherwise acquired -- have some monetary value," Tharp
wrote in an order. "Liston's complaint is sufficient to put King
on notice of the essential nature of his claim: King injured
Liston by preventing him from using an asset in which he had a
property interest."

Tharp dismissed two other claims, under the Computer Fraud and
Abuse Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act.

Joseph Siprut, Esq. -- jsiprut@siprut.com -- of Siprut PC, is
representing Liston in the case, which was first filed in 2015.
Siprut said he wants King to compensate Candy Crush players for
the lives taken away from them.

"We think we are in the right for all the reasons stated in our
complaint: The lives have value, they were taken away from people,
lots of people are upset and have been harmed by this, and Candy
Crush (King) has refused to do right by their customers," Siprut
wrote in an email to Blue Sky. "So, we intend to force them to do
something about it. Now that the court has ruled and we have
defeated (King's) motion to dismiss, buckle up."

King's attorney declined to comment because the case "remains
current."

Liston lived in Illinois at when the lawsuit was filed in 2015;
King is a subsidiary of Activision Blizzard, which is
headquartered in Santa Monica, Calif. [GN]


KMART: Judge Approves $5.2MM Data Breach Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Churney, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
Chicago federal judge has signed off on a $5.2 million settlement
in a class action lawsuit by financial companies against Kmart
over a data breach, including $1.7 million for the plaintiffs'
attorneys.

U.S. District Judge John Lee, of the Northern District of
Illinois, approved the deal May 19.

Greater Chautauqua Federal Credit Union, First Choice Federal
Credit Union, Gulf Coast Bank & Trust Company, Governmental
Employees Credit Union and Oteen V.A. Federal Credit Union filed
for a class action suit in 2015 against Kmart and its parent
company, Sears Holding Company.  The suit stemmed from a data
breach at Kmart the year before.

Plaintiffs said hackers compromised and stole confidential
information of Kmart customers, primarily credit and debit card
data, because Kmart allegedly failed to adequately protect the
information. The hackers then used the cards for fraudulent
purchases, causing plaintiffs and other financial institutions to
spend money to replace the customers' cards and cover fraudulent
purchases.

About 8.1 million credit and debit cards were affected, according
to plaintiffs.

Kmart and plaintiffs reached a $5.2 million settlement, with help
from mediator Wayne R. Andersen, a retired federal judge.  The
agreement was presented to Judge Lee in the fall of 2016 for his
nod.  Judge Lee then set deadlines for the claims process,
including for anyone to object to the settlement. None did.

Judge Lee also scheduled a hearing for May 19, at which he would
decide whether to ratify the agreement. In preparation for that
hearing, Katrina Carroll, one of the lawyers representing
plaintiffs, praised the settlement.

"The reaction to the settlement has been incredibly favorable" and
"represents a tremendous result for the Class," said Ms. Carroll.

Judge Lee ended up authorizing the arrangement, which sets up $3.5
million to be divided among plaintiffs and those who put in claims
as part of the class action. About 330 financial institutions have
submitted claims, while 15 institutions opted out of the
settlement.

The five financial institutions that brought the suit, will also
receive an extra $10,000 each for their efforts in launching the
litigation.

Plaintiffs' attorneys take home the remaining one third of the
settlement, equaling $1.7 million.  The lawyers racked up about
3,500 hours in the case, amounting to an average hourly billing
rate of $597, according to court documents.

In addition, Kmart agreed to reimburse $95,575 to plaintiffs for
costs and expenses plaintiffs absorbed in pursuing the suit.  That
amount is not being taken from the $5.2 settlement fund.

Besides forking over money, Kmart agreed to also change several of
its data security practices.

A status hearing was set for June 16.  The judge must approve the
final allocation plan.

Greater Chautauqua is based in Falconer, N.Y., First Choice is in
New Castle, Pennsylvania and Gulf Coast is in New Orleans.
Governmental Employees is headquartered in La Crosse, Wis., and
Oteen is in Asheville, N.C.

Plaintiffs are represented by the three Chicago firms of Lite
DePalma Greenberg, Wexler Wallace and Miller Law; by the two
Minneapolis firms Gustafson Gluek, and Lockridge Grindal Naeun;
and the Washington, D.C. firm of Hausfeld LLP.

Other firms representing plaintiffs are: Scott and Scott Attorneys
at Law, of New York City; Murray Law, of New Orleans; and Carlson
Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, of Pittsburgh.

Sears Holding Company and Kmart are headquartered in suburban
Hoffman Estates.  They are defended by the two Chicago firms of
King & Spalding and Polsinelli PC. [GN]


KMART CORP: Allocation Plan for Data Breach Settlement Filed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned GREATER CHAUTAUQUA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION,
FIRST CHOICE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, GULF COAST BANK & TRUST
COMPANY, GOVERNMENTAL EMPLOYEES CREDIT UNION, and OTEEN V.A.
FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated financial institutions, Plaintiffs, v. KMART
CORPORATION and SEARS HOLDINGS CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No.
1:15-cv-02228 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs asked Judge John Z. Lee
of the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois to approve the Allocation Plan, and enter the Order and
Final Judgment previously submitted with their Motion for Final
Approval.  Furthermore, the Plaintiffs asked that the unopposed
motion be given expedited consideration for the reasons stated at
the Final Approval Hearing on May 19, 2017.

At the May 19, 2017 Final Approval Hearing, the Court granted the
Class Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement and Plan of Allocation of Settlement Proceeds, subject
to the Court's review and approval of the final allocation plan.
Pursuant to the Court's request, the Plaintiffs submit the
Allocation Plan for the Court's review and approval.

The purpose of an allocation plan is to provide a fair and
equitable distribution of the settlement funds among eligible
Settlement Class Members, and the Allocation Plan does just that.
If approved, the Allocation Plan would grant a settlement award to
3,281 Settlement Class Members.  This means that over 97% of the
Settlement Class Members who filed a claim would receive a
settlement award.

For Tier 1 Claims, the Allocation Plan would provide a settlement
award to 251 Settlement Class Members.  Each of these Settlement
Class Members would receive the maximum payout of $2.38 per card
claimed.  Collectively, these Settlement Class Members would
receive a minimum total payout of $740,516 for Tier 1.

For Tier 2 Claims, the Allocation Plan would provide a settlement
award to 166 Settlement Class Members.  Each of these Settlement
Class Members would receive a pro rata amount of the total funds
in Tier 2.  The minimum total payout under Tier 2 would be
$4,294,608.

A full-text copy of the Plaintiffs' June 2, 2017 Motion is
available at https://is.gd/0WEikR from Leagle.com

Greater Chautauqua Federal Credit Union, Plaintiff, represented by
Arthur M. Murray -- amurray@murray-lawfirm.com -- Murray Law Firm,
pro hac vice.

Greater Chautauqua Federal Credit Union, Plaintiff, represented by
Caroline Whitney Thomas -- CThomas@murray-lawfirm.com -- Murray
Law Firm, pro hac vice, Erin Green Comite -- ecomite@scott-
scott.com -- Scottscott, Attorneys At Law, Llp, pro hac vice, Gary
F. Lynch -- glynch@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch Sweet &
Kilpela, LLP, Heidi M. Silton -- hmsilton@locklaw.com -- Lockridge
Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., pro hac vice, James J. Pizzirusso --
jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com -- Hausfield LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph P.
Guglielmo -- jguglielmo@scott-scott.com -- ScottScott, Attorneys
at Law, LLP, Karen H. Riebel -- khriebel@locklaw.com -- Lockridge
Grindal Naeun P.l.l.p., pro hac vice, Kate M. Baxter-kauf --
kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal Naeun P.l.l.p., pro
hac vice, Katrina Carroll -- kcarroll@litedepalma.com -- Lite
DePalma Greenberg LLC, Kyle Alan Shamberg --
kshamberg@litedepalma.com -- Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC, Stephen
B. Murray, Sr., Murray Law Firm, pro hac vice, Stephen J. Teti --
steti@scott-scott.com -- Scottscott, Attorneys At Law, Llp, pro
hac vice, Ismael Tariq Salam -- isalam@litedepalma.com -- Lite
DePalma Greenberg LLC, Lori Ann Fanning --
lfanning@millerlawllc.com  -- Miller Law LLC & Swathi Bojedla --
sbojedla@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld, pro hac vice.

Oteen V.A. Federal Credit Union, Plaintiff, represented by Gary F.
Lynch, Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP, Katrina Carroll, Lite
DePalma Greenberg LLC, Stephen J. Teti, Scottscott, Attorneys At
Law, Llp, pro hac vice & Ismael Tariq Salam, Lite DePalma
Greenberg LLC.

First Choice Federal Credit Union, Plaintiff, represented by Gary
F. Lynch, Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP, Katrina Carroll,
Lite DePalma Greenberg LLC, Stephen J. Teti, Scottscott, Attorneys
At Law, Llp, pro hac vice & Ismael Tariq Salam, Lite DePalma
Greenberg LLC.

Governmental Employees Credit Union, Plaintiff, represented by
Gary F. Lynch, Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP, Katrina
Carroll, Lite DePalma Greenberg LLC, Stephen J. Teti, Scottscott,
Attorneys At Law, Llp, pro hac vice, Cathy K. Smith, Gustafson
Gluek PLLC, Daniel E. Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, pro hac
vice, Eric S. Taubel, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, pro hac vice, Ismael
Tariq Salam, Lite DePalma Greenberg LLC, Jason S. Kilene,
Gustafson Gluek PLLC, pro hac vice, Joseph C. Bourne, Gustafson
Gluek PLLC, pro hac vice & Mark Richard Miller, Wexler Wallace
LLP.

Gulf Coast Bank & Trust Company, Plaintiff, represented by Gary F.
Lynch, Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP, Katrina Carroll, Lite
DePalma Greenberg LLC, Stephen J. Teti, Scottscott, Attorneys At
Law, Llp, pro hac vice & Ismael Tariq Salam, Lite DePalma
Greenberg LLC.

KMart Corporation, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth D. Adler --
eadler@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding Llp, pro hac vice, Nicholas A.
Oldham -- noldham@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding Llp, pro hac vice,
Phyllis B. Sumner -- psumner@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding LLP, S.
Stewart Haskins, II, King & Spalding, pro hac vice, Colleen S.
Walter -- cwalter@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli PC, Rodney L. Lewis
-- rodneylewis@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli PC & Sangmee Konicek,
Polsinelli PC.

Sears Holdings Corporation, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth D.
Adler, King & Spalding Llp, pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Oldham, King
& Spalding Llp, pro hac vice, Phyllis B. Sumner, King & Spalding
LLP, S. Stewart Haskins, II, King & Spalding, pro hac vice,
Colleen S. Walter, Polsinelli PC, Rodney L. Lewis, Polsinelli PC &
Sangmee Konicek, Polsinelli PC.


LENDINGCLUB CORP: Must Defend Against Shareholders' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal judge in San
Francisco on May 25, advanced parts of a sprawling shareholder
action against peer-to-peer lender LendingClub, finding claims
that the lender misrepresented the strength of its internal
controls and its role in another company are so far adequate to
survive dismissal efforts.

The case is captioned In re Lendingclub Securities Litigation Case
3:16-cv-03072-WHA (N.D. Cal.).


LINCOLN, CA: Faces "Jackson" Class Suit over Water Charges
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that the California city of
Lincoln charges residents more for water than what it costs to
deliver -- a violation of the state constitution, a class of
residents in Auburn, Calif. claim in Placer County Superior Court.

The case is captioned, JERRY W. JACKSON, an individual, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated; and CHARLES M.
SCHMIDT, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated; Petitioners and Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF
LINCOLN, a general law city; and DOES 1-10, Respondents and
Defendants, Case No. SCv0039384, Superior Court of California,
County of Placer, April 25, 2017).

Attorneys for Petitioners and Plaintiffs:

      Eric J. Benink, Esq.
      Benjamin T. Benumof, Esq.
      KRAUSE, KALFAYAN, BENINK & SLAVENS, LLP
      550 West C Street, Suite 530
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 232-0331
      Fax: (619) 232-4019
      E-mail: eric@kkbs-law.com
              ben@kkbs-law.com


LION BIOTECHNOLOGIES: June 13 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Lion Biotechnologies, Inc. ("Lion Biotechnologies")
(NASDAQ:LBIO) between November 14, 2013 and April 10, 2017. You
are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California. To get more information go to:

http://www.zlk.com/pslra-sa/lion-biotechnologies-inc?wire=2

or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-
free: (877) 363-5972. There is no cost or obligation to you.

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period Defendants
issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) through its former CEO Manish Singh, Lion
was engaged in a scheme to mislead investors by commissioning over
10 internet publications and 20 widely distributed emails
promoting the Company to potential investors that purported to be
independent from the company when, in truth, they were paid
promotions; (2) Singh engaged a notorious stock promotion firm to
pay writers to publish articles about Lion on investment websites,
as well as to coordinate the distribution of articles to thousands
of electronic mailboxes; (3) Singh actively participated in the
promotional work for the Company and understood that the promotion
firm was using writers who would not disclose that Lion was
indirectly compensating them for their publications; and (4)
consequently, defendants' public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

If you suffered a loss in Lion Biotechnologies you have until June
13, 2017 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.
Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York,
California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys
have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in
securities litigation, and have recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.


MAPMAN LLC: Denial of Class Certification Bid Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit, affirmed the
trial court's July 21, 2016 judgment denying the Plaintiffs'
motion to certify class in the case captioned ROBERT "BERT" L.
FONTCUBERTA AND MAPMAN, LLC INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL
OTHERS SIMILARY SITUATED, v. CLECO CORPORATION AND PIKE ELECTRIC,
LLC, No. 2016 CA 1477 (La. App.).

On Dec. 11, 2013, a vehicle accident occurred that involved an
automobile striking a utility pole owed by Cleco adjacent to
Ochsner Boulevard in St. Tammany Parish.  As a result of the
accident, the Plaintiffs and a number of other
residents/businesses, approximately 2,000 Cleco customers, lost
electrical power.

The Plaintiffs filed a motion on Jan. 21, 2015, asking a trial
court to certify a class

The trial court issued written reasons on June 28, 2016, and
signed a judgment on July 21, 2016, denying the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.  On June 29, 2016, the trial court held a
hearing on the motion for leave to amend the class certification.

Because the trial court had already denied the class certification
and because the Plaintiffs sought to add a new theory of liability
after the deadlines set by the trial court, the trial court denied
the motion to amend the petition for class certification and
signed a judgment in accordance therewith on Aug. 30, 2016.

This appeal was originally brought referencing the date of June
28, 2016, the date of the trial court's written reasons.  This
Court issued a rule to show cause, and the trial court issued a
new appeal from the correct date of the July 21, 2016 judgment
denying class certification.  The only judgment being appealed is
the July 21, 2016 judgment denying the class certification.  No
appeal has been taken from the August 30, 2016 judgment denying
the motion to amend the class certification.

The Plaintiffs claim the trial court erred in finding that they
did not meet their burden of satisfying the requirements to
certify a class of commonality, numerosity, typicality, adequacy
of representation, and predominance.

The Court of Appeal held that it cannot say the trial court was
manifestly erroneous in determining that the Plaintiffs failed to
carry their burden of demonstrating the requirement of
commonality.  Their expert testified that he would have to take
apart each piece of equipment damaged to determine the cause of
the alleged failure and that there would be many variables.  When
each member of the proposed class will necessarily have to offer
different facts to establish liability and damages, the class will
degenerate into a series of individual trials.

The Court of Appeal disagrees with the trial court's reasoning
that the Plaintiffs did not meet the numerosity requirement
because only three lawsuits were filed against Cleco as this
requirement is not dependent upon the number of lawsuits filed.
However, the Plaintiffs seeking certification must meet a
threshold burden of 'plausibility' as a component element of a
prima facie showing of numerosity.  Moreover, the burden of
plausibility requires some evidence of a causal link between the
incident and the injuries or damages claimed by sufficiently
numerous class members.  Therefore, due to the difficulties the
Plaintiffs in this case have in showing causation, she agrees that
the numerosity requirement has not been met.

Furthermore, the Plaintiffs have offered no evidence that the
claims of the proposed class representatives would be typical of
the claims of the putative class against Pike, the Court of Appeal
said.  When Pike arrived at the scene of the vehicle accident, the
line had already been de-energized.  Pike changed two lightning
arresters.  Pike left the scene after changing those arresters.
Therefore, the trial court did not commit manifest error in
determining that the Plaintiffs failed to satisfy the typicality
and representativeness requirements of Article 591(A).

The present case presents issues as to individualized defenses,
and issues as to the type of damages allegedly sustained by
individual class members that make the class action procedure
inferior, rather than superior, to other forms of adjudication in
this case, the Court of Appeal pointed out.  The claims of the
non-customers of Cleco, MapMan, Mr. and Mrs. Cortez, and Speer,
LTD, would require separate adjudication, and thereby undermine
judicial efficiency.  Therefore, the class action is not superior
to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication
of this matter.

Accordingly, the trial court's July 21, 2016 judgment denying the
Plaintiffs' motion to certify class is affirmed.  Costs of this
appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs, Robert "Bert" L.
Fontcuberta and MapMan, LLC, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 2, 2017 order is available at
https://is.gd/42TRJV from Leagle.com

Gary J. Gambel, Michael D. Letourneau, New Orleans, Louisiana, and
Jennifer N. Willis, William P. Buckley, New Orleans, Louisiana,
Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Appellants, Robert "Bert" L. Fontcuberta
and MapMan, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated.

W. Raley Alford, III, Esq. -- wra@stanleyreuter.com -- William M.
Ross, Esq. -- wmr@stanleyreuter.com -- Eva J. Dossier, Esq. --
ejd@stanleyreuter.com -- New Orleans, Louisiana, Attorneys for
Defendants/Appellees, Cleco Corporation and Cleco Power, LLC.

Charles J. Duhe, Jr., Jason D. Bone, New Orleans, Louisiana,
Attorneys for Defendant/Appellee, Pike Electric, LLC.


MARK LINE: Employees File Class Action Following Closure
--------------------------------------------------------
Allissa Corak, writing for ABC57 News, reports that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against Mark Line Industries after the
Bristol manufacturer closed its doors for good on May 22

Our reporting partners at the Elkhart obtained the documents of
the lawsuit on May 28.

It states several employees are suing the company because they
were not given enough notice before being put out of their jobs.

In a release from Mark Line, it states:

Due to significant and recent unforeseeable business circumstances
and Mark Line's unsuccessful efforts to negotiate a lease
extension or obtain additional capital investments necessary to
sustain a workforce while it relocates facilities, Mark Line made
the decision to permanently cease business operations effective
May 22, 2017.

The company also claims it could not provide advanced notice due
to the quick loss of a lease.

The employees suing are seeking payment. [GN]


MEGA AWNING: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Martinez" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Olga Yamileth Inestroza Martinez a/k/a Olga Canas, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Mega Awning, Inc.,
Ernesto Morales, and Francisco Torres a/k/a Frank Torres, Case No.
1:17-cv-22017-UU (S.D. Fla., May 30, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in
excess of 40 hours weekly.

Mega Awning, Inc. is a residential and commercial awning
manufacturer in South Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Telephone: (305) 865-6766
      Facsimile: (305) 865-7167


MISSOURI: Inmates File Class Action Over Parole Denials
-------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a class-action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of about 80 inmates serving life sentences in
Missouri for crimes they committed as minors.

The MacArthur Justice Center at St. Louis alleges in the suit
filed the case in the U.S. District Court's western district of
Missouri that the state's parole process fails to give them a fair
chance to be released.

MacArthur Justice Center staff attorney Amy Breihan said in a
written statement that the Constitution "requires that youthful
offenders be provided a meaningful opportunity to obtain release."
A Missouri Department of Corrections spokesman declined to discuss
the complaint with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

The suit stems from a 2012 high court decision banning mandatory
life without parole prison terms for minors. [GN]


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Judge Dismisses Suit Over Cheerleaders' Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News, reports that a
federal judge dismissed a proposed antitrust class action accusing
the National Football League and 27 of its teams of conspiring to
suppress cheerleader wages.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup ruled in a 13-page order that
lead plaintiff Kelsey K., who cheered for the San Francisco 49ers
for seven months beginning in 2013, had failed to state a claim
for conspiracy under state and federal antitrust laws.

Alsup gave the cheerleader until June 15 to file an amended
complaint, and denied her motion for discovery "until a plausible
claim for relief is pled."

He added, "The complaint must answer the basic questions of 'who,
did what, to whom (or with whom), where, and when?' Plaintiff has
not met these requirements."

K., who originally sued in January as "Jane Doe," claims the NFL
and 27 of its 32 teams struck anticompetitive deals designed to
drive down cheerleader wages by agreeing not to poach cheerleaders
from one another, eliminating competition for them.

According to K., the teams' senior executives also agreed to pay
cheerleaders a low flat rate for each game, and not pay them
anything for time spent rehearsing or doing mandatory community
outreach.

Before the glut of labor lawsuits raised most cheerleaders' pay to
at least minimum wage, K. said cheerleaders were paid as little as
$90 to $125 per game, and nothing at all for other required
activities.

NFL players, on the other hand, earned an average of approximately
$1.3 million each in 2016, and mascots make between $25,000 and
$65,000 per year.

In his May 26 ruling, Alsup said K. had failed to submit evidence
to support her claims under the federal Sherman Act and
California's Cartwright Act that the teams had agreed to eliminate
competition, or that K. had suffered harm due to their
anticompetitive conduct.

Alsup said K.'s evidence could have consisted of something like a
former NFL employee coming forward to provide details of a
conspiratorial meeting between the teams' executives, but "the
complaint fails to allege anything of the sort and instead rests
on assertions of parallel conduct anchored in rhetoric and
conclusory statements."

"For a conspiracy of the scale alleged by this complaint, one
would expect at least some evidentiary facts to have been located
and pled," he wrote.

Addressing K.'s wage claims, Alsup said K. hadn't alleged facts
showing the teams acted together to suppress wages.

K. had submitted per-game wage rates for the Oakland Raiders, the
Tampa Bay Buccaneers and the Cincinnati Bengals -- which ranged
between $90 and $125 per game -- as evidence of a conspiracy.
However, Alsup noted that the rates actually differ by 20 to 25
percent.

Even more damning to K.'s claim is the fact that the Buffalo Bills
didn't pay their cheerleaders for games at all.

"These differences make plaintiff's theory implausible," he said.

Alsup added May 26 that K. had failed to show how she herself had
been injured by the NFL's conduct, with the complaint omitting
details about K.'s experience with the 49ers.

"Generalized accusations of wrongdoing against cheerleaders as a
whole do not suffice," he said.

In addition to the National Football League and NFL enterprises,
the defendants are the San Francisco 49ers, Oakland Raiders, San
Diego Chargers, Los Angeles Rams, Arizona Cardinals, Atlanta
Falcons, Baltimore Ravens, Buffalo Bills, Carolina Panthers,
Cincinnati Bengals, Dallas Cowboys, Denver Broncos, Detroit Lions,
Houston Texans, Indianapolis Colts, Jacksonville Jaguars, Kansas
City Chiefs, Miami Dolphins, Minnesota Vikings, New England
Patriots, New Orleans Saints, New York Jets, Philadelphia Eagles,
Seattle Seahawks, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Tennessee Titans and
Washington Redskins.

K. is represented by Drexel Bradshaw, Esq. --
drexel@bradshawassociates.com -- of Bradshaw & Associates, and the
NFL and its defendant teams by Sonya Winner, Esq. --
swinner@cov.com -- of Covington & Burling, both in San Francisco.
Neither attorney returned emailed requests for comment by press
time. [GN]


NEW PRIME: 1st Cir. Refuses to Compel Arbitration of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Liz Kramer, Esq. -- liz.kramer@stinson.com -- of Stinson Leonard
Street LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that the Federal
Arbitration Act has been in effect for nearly 100 years (92, to be
precise).  Nevertheless, the First Circuit found two issues of
first impression to address in May.

In Oliveira v. New Prime, Inc., 2017 WL 1963461 (1st Cir. May 12,
2017), the court refused to compel arbitration of a class action
complaint, because it interpreted Section One of the FAA to exempt
contracts for independent transportation contractors.

Mr. Oliveira brought a putative class action suit against the
interstate trucking company for which he worked-Prime-for
violating the Fair Labor Standards Act, Missouri minimum wage
statute, and other labor laws.  Prime moved to compel arbitration
under the FAA.  In response, Plaintiffs argued that the FAA had no
application to their contracts because they are transportation
workers.  Prime argued that that issue-the applicability of the
FAA-should be decided by an arbitrator.  Furthermore, it argued
that the FAA does not exempt independent contractors and these
workers had been classified as independent contractors.  The
district court agreed it must decide the threshold question, but
then ordered discovery on the question of whether the named
plaintiff was an independent contractor.

On appeal, the First Circuit decided to tackle both the tough
legal issues head on, and not wait to see if discovery mooted
either of them.

First, it analyzed whether an arbitrator or a court should decide
whether the FAA applies to a plaintiff's contract.  It noted that
the 8th Circuit had concluded an arbitrator should decide, while
the 9th Circuit had concluded a court should decide.  Finding the
9th Circuit's analysis more persuasive, it held that "the question
of whether the [Section] 1 exemption applies is an antecedent
determination that must be made by the district court before
arbitration can be compelled under the FAA."

Second, it interpreted the language in Section 1 in order to
answer the question of whether the exemption "extends to
transportation-worker agreements that establish or purport to
establish independent-contractor relationships." (Recall that the
truckers were arguing they were exempt from the FAA, whether they
were independent contractors or not.) The FAA says it does not
apply to "contracts of . . . any other class of workers engaged in
foreign or interstate commerce," and the Supreme Court interpreted
that language in 2001 to mean that "contracts of employment of
transportation workers" are exempted from the FAA. After noting
that multiple courts have found the exemption does not extend to
independent contractor relationships, the First Circuit brushed
that aside with this gem: "Interpreting a federal statute is not
simply a numbers game."

Instead of playing a numbers game, the First Circuit played a
"pull out the antique dictionary" game.  It looked at definitions
of contracts of employment from 1925, when the FAA was enacted,
and concluded the phrase means any agreement to perform work, and
is broad enough to include independent contracting. Therefore,
because Prime had conceded Mr. Oliveira was a transportation
worker, "the contract in this case is excluded from the FAA's
reach."

However, the court inserted a footnote allowing that a state
arbitration act may provide a basis to compel arbitration in a
future scenario like this one. . . which raises interesting
preemption issues. [GN]


NFL ENTERPRISES: Cheerleaders' Antitrust Class Action Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge in San Francisco, on May 26, dismissed a
proposed antitrust class action accusing the National Football
League and 27 of its teams of conspiring to suppress cheerleader
wages.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup ruled in a 13-page order that
lead plaintiff Kelsey K., who cheered for the San Francisco 49ers
for seven months beginning in 2013, had failed to state a claim
for conspiracy under state and federal antitrust laws.

Alsup gave the cheerleader until June 15 to file an amended
complaint, and denied her motion for discovery "until a plausible
claim for relief is pled."

He added, "The complaint must answer the basic questions of 'who,
did what, to whom (or with whom), where, and when?' Plaintiff has
not met these requirements."

K., who originally sued in January as "Jane Doe," claims the NFL
and 27 of its 32 teams struck anticompetitive deals designed to
drive down cheerleader wages by agreeing not to poach cheerleaders
from one another, eliminating competition for them.

According to K., the teams' senior executives also agreed to pay
cheerleaders a low flat rate for each game, and not pay them
anything for time spent rehearsing or doing mandatory community
outreach.

Before the glut of labor lawsuits raised most cheerleaders' pay to
at least minimum wage, K. said cheerleaders were paid as little as
$90 to $125 per game, and nothing at all for other required
activities.

NFL players, on the other hand, earned an average of approximately
$1.3 million each in 2016, and mascots make between $25,000 and
$65,000 per year.

In his May 26 ruling, Alsup said K. had failed to submit evidence
to support her claims under the federal Sherman Act and
California's Cartwright Act that the teams had agreed to eliminate
competition, or that K. had suffered harm due to their
anticompetitive conduct.

Alsup said K.'s evidence could have consisted of something like a
former NFL employee coming forward to provide details of a
conspiratorial meeting between the teams' executives, but "the
complaint fails to allege anything of the sort and instead rests
on assertions of parallel conduct anchored in rhetoric and
conclusory statements."

"For a conspiracy of the scale alleged by this complaint, one
would expect at least some evidentiary facts to have been located
and pled," he wrote.

Addressing K.'s wage claims, Alsup said K. hadn't alleged facts
showing the teams acted together to suppress wages.

K. had submitted per-game wage rates for the Oakland Raiders, the
Tampa Bay Buccaneers and the Cincinnati Bengals -- which ranged
between $90 and $125 per game -- as evidence of a conspiracy.
However, Alsup noted that the rates actually differ by 20 to 25
percent.

Even more damning to K.'s claim is the fact that the Buffalo Bills
didn't pay their cheerleaders for games at all.

"These differences make plaintiff's theory implausible," he said.

Alsup added on May 26, that K. had failed to show how she herself
had been injured by the NFL's conduct, with the complaint omitting
details about K.'s experience with the 49ers.

"Generalized accusations of wrongdoing against cheerleaders as a
whole do not suffice," he said.

In addition to the National Football League and NFL enterprises,
the defendants are the San Francisco 49ers, Oakland Raiders, San
Diego Chargers, Los Angeles Rams, Arizona Cardinals, Atlanta
Falcons, Baltimore Ravens, Buffalo Bills, Carolina Panthers,
Cincinnati Bengals, Dallas Cowboys, Denver Broncos, Detroit Lions,
Houston Texans, Indianapolis Colts, Jacksonville Jaguars, Kansas
City Chiefs, Miami Dolphins, Minnesota Vikings, New England
Patriots, New Orleans Saints, New York Jets, Philadelphia Eagles,
Seattle Seahawks, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Tennessee Titans and
Washington Redskins.

K. is represented by Drexel Bradshaw of Bradshaw & Associates, and
the NFL and its defendant teams by Sonya Winner of Covington &
Burling, both in San Francisco. Neither attorney returned emailed
requests for comment by press time.

The case is captioned, KELSEY K., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NFL ENTERPRISES, LLC,
et al., Defendants, Case 3:17-cv-00496-WHA (N.D. Cal).


NIGERIA: Lagos High Court Forbids LGs from Issuing Marriage Cert.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bolaji Adebiyi, writing for THISDAY, reports that a Lagos High
Court has barred local government areas from issuing forthwith,
marriage certificate, saying it is unlawful and unconstitutional.

Justice I.O. Harrison said in her judgement delivered on May 15,
2017, a certified true copy of which THISDAY obtained, that the
issuance of modified or customised marriage certificate by local
government areas contravened Section 24 of the Marriage Act and
Item 6, Part 1, 2nd Schedule of the 1999 Constitution as amended,
which lists marriage on the Exclusive Legislative List.

She further ruled that marriage being an Exclusive List item, was
under the purview of the federal government, which is regulated by
the Federal Ministry of Internal Affairs.

The judge, however, declined to nullify all marriages conducted so
far by local government areas, directing that such certificates be
surrendered and be replaced by fresh ones that would be issued in
compliance with the law.

A Lagos lawyer, Olumide Babalola, had on September 29, 2016 filed
a class action against Ikeja Local Government Area and Registered
Trustees of Association of Local Government of Nigeria (ALGON),
challenging the power of the local government areas to issue
modified and/ or customised marriage certificates different from
the one provided in Form E under Section 24 of the Marriage Act
LFN 1990.

He sought four reliefs: "A declaration that the 1st and 2nd
defendants do not have power to issue modified and/ or customised
marriage certificates different from the one provided in Form E
under Section 24 of the Marriage Act LFN 1990;

"A declaration that the 2nd defendant's Local Government Unified
Marriage Certificate is unknown to our law, unconstitutional, null
and void;

"A perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their agents,
officers, employees and representatives from further issuing
modified and/ or altered marriage certificates apart from the form
as provided under Form E (1st Schedule) and Section 24 of the
Marriage Act, LFN 1990; and

"A perpetual injunction restraining the 2nd defendant, their
agents, officers, employees and representatives from further
issuing 'Local Government Unified Marriage Certificates."

Mr. Babalola supported his application with a 29 paragraph
affidavit, three exhibits and a written address.

In spite of service of summons, the defendants neither filed any
process nor appeared in court to defend the suit.  The court was,
therefore, moved on March 24, 2017 with the claimant appearing in
person and arguing his case.

He argued that marriage was on the Exclusive Legislative List and
that the Marriage Act enjoined that all marriage certificates were
to be in Form E of the 1st Schedule of the Marriage Act LFN, 1990.

He claimed that the 2nd defendant and its branches now issue their
own form known as the Local Government Unified Marriage
Certificate, which was also issued to him.

Mr. Babalola prayed the court to declare the local government
areas' action illegal, unconstitutional, null and void and grant
all the reliefs he sought.

Harrison agreed with Mr. Babalola and granted the four reliefs,
effectively shutting out local government areas from further
issuance of the unified marriage certificates and restricted them
to only registration of marriages.

"It should be noted that while registration of marriages is
regulated by local government being under the Concurrent List,
formation of marriage is under the Exclusive Legislative List
within the domain of the federal government regulated by the
Federal Ministry of Internal Affairs - item 6 of 2nd Schedule of
1999 Constitution," she said, explaining that: "A marriage had
been declared invalid by the Supreme Court on the ground that the
marriage certificate was not in line with Form E as provided by
the Marriage Act."

Harrison said following the Supreme Court decision in Anyaegbunam
Vs Anyaegbunam, 1973 3 ECSLR 243, it was trite that the local and
state governments could not make separate arrangements outside
that provided for in the Marriage Act Form E.

Reacting to the judgement, the Director of Press, Ministry of
Interior, Mr. Willie Bassey, said it was a welcome development,
urging local government areas to comply forthwith.

"The judgement is in conformity with the law and the Constitution
and we expect the local government areas to comply with it
immediately," he said, adding that the ministry would soon role
out an enforcement strategy. [GN]


N.L.R. COUNTER: Faces "Guiracocha" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned MIGUEL GUIRACOCHA, individually and in behalf
of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, against N.L.R.
COUNTER TOPS, LLC, and AVI HAREL, jointly and severally,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-03260 (E.D.N.Y., May 31, 2017),
alleges that Defendants willfully failed to pay the plaintiff his
full salary during many workweeks: willfully failed to pay the
plaintiff and party plaintiffs overtime compensation of one and
one-half times their regular rate of pay: failed to provide the
plaintiff with a notice and acknowledgment at the time of hiring;
failed to provide the plaintiff with a statement with each payment
of wages; employed the plaintiff and party plaintiffs; failed to
post or keep posted notices explaining the minimum wage rights of
employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law, and the plaintiff and party plaintiffs were uninformed
of their rights during such times; and failed to maintain accurate
and sufficient records.

The case was filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Minimum
Wage Act, the New York Labor Law and the Wage Theft Prevention
Act.

The defendants' business is countertop converting, fabricating,
retail, and wholesale.  The defendants employed the plaintiff as
an installer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John M. Gurrieri, Esq.
     Brandon D. Sherr, Esq.
     Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
     Broadway, Suite 408
     New York, NY 10007 2036
     Phone: 212 229 2249
     Fax: 212 229 2246
     E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com
             bsherr@zellerlegal.Com
             jazeller@zellerlegal.com


NORTHLAND GROUP: Illegally Collects Debt, "Young" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carolyn Young, a/k/a Carrie Young, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Northland Group LLC, Cavalry
Investments, LLC, and Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, Case No.
9:17-cv-80690-KAM (S.D. Fla., May 31, 2017), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt,
specifically by use of any false, deceptive, or misleading
representation or means in connection with the collection of any
debt.

Operating from offices located at 7831 Glenroy Road, Suite 250,
Edina, Minnesota 55439, the Defendants are engaged in the business
of collecting consumer debts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Leo W. Desmond, Esq.
      DESMOND LAW FIRM, P.C.
      5070 Highway A1A, Suite D
      Vero Beach, FL 32963
      Telephone: (772) 231-9600
      Facsimile: (772) 231-0300
      E-mail: lwd@desmondlawfirm.com


NOVASTAR: Sept. 13 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
ATTENTION PURCHASERS OF NOVASTAR MORTGAGE FUNDING TRUSTS, NOVASTAR
HOME EQUITY LOAN SERIES ("NMFT") 2006-3, 2006-4, 2006-5, 2006-6,
2007-1, OR 2007-2

SUMMARY NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

TO:     ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES THAT, BEFORE MAY 21, 2008,
PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED AN INTEREST IN ANY CERTIFICATES
ISSUED IN NOVASTAR MORTGAGE FUNDING TRUSTS, NOVASTAR HOME EQUITY
LOAN SERIES ("NMFT") 2006-3, 2006-4, 2006-5, 2006-6, 2007-1, OR
2007-2.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED (i) of the pendency of this action
asserting claims against NovaStar Mortgage, Inc., NovaStar
Mortgage Funding Corporation, Scott F. Hartman, Gregory S. Metz,
W. Lance Anderson, Mark Herpich, RBS Securities Inc. f/k/a
Greenwich Capital Markets, Inc., d/b/a RBS Greenwich Capital,
Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., and Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC f/k/a
Wachovia Securities LLC (collectively, the "Defendants"), relating
to certain mortgage-backed securities (the "Litigation") as a
class action on behalf of the persons and entities described above
(the "Settlement Class") except for certain persons or entities
who are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition; and (ii)
that a proposed settlement has been reached in this Litigation.  A
hearing will be held with respect to the settlement on September
13, 2017, at 2:30 P.M. before the Honorable Deborah A. Batts, in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 24B, New York, New York.

The purpose of the hearing is to determine, among other things,
(i) whether the proposed settlement of the claims asserted in this
Litigation, pursuant to which Defendants will cause to be
deposited the sum of $165 million U.S. dollars into a settlement
fund in exchange (among other things) for the dismissal of the
Litigation and a release of claims against the Defendants and
other related persons and entities, should be approved by the
Court as fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of
the Settlement Class; (ii) whether the Litigation should be
dismissed with prejudice as against the Settlement Class; (iii)
whether the Court should enter a bar order prohibiting members of
the Settlement Class from pursuing or commencing any action
against the Defendants or other related persons or entities with
respect to the Released Claims; (iv) whether the proposed plan of
allocation of the settlement fund is fair and reasonable and
should be approved; and (v) whether the application of Lead
Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and litigation expenses
incurred in connection with the Litigation is reasonable and
should be approved. Litigation Expenses may also include
reimbursement of the expenses of Plaintiffs New Jersey Carpenters
Health Fund and Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System in
accordance with 15 U.S.C. Section 77z-1(a)(4).

If you purchased or otherwise acquired certificates in the trusts
listed above, you may be entitled to share in the distribution of
the settlement fund if you submit a claim form postmarked no later
than September 6, 2017, establishing that you are entitled to a
recovery.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, you have the right to
object to the settlement, the plan of allocation and/or the
request by Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses, or otherwise request to be heard, by submitting no later
than August 30, 2017, a written objection in accordance with the
procedures described in a more detailed notice that has been
mailed to persons or entities known to be potential members of the
Settlement Class, and that is available at
www.NovaStarMBSSettlement.com.  You also have the right to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class by submitting no later than
August 16, 2017, a written request for exclusion from the
Settlement Class in accordance with the procedures described in
the more detailed notice.  If the settlement is approved by the
Court, you will be bound by the settlement and the Court's final
order and judgment, including the releases provided for in the
final order and judgment, unless you submit a request to be
excluded.

This notice provides only a summary of matters regarding the
Litigation and the settlement.  A detailed notice describing the
Litigation, the proposed settlement, and the rights of members of
the Settlement Class to appear in Court at the Final Approval
Hearing, to request to be excluded from the Settlement Class
and/or to object to the settlement, the plan of allocation and/or
the request by Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses has been mailed to persons or entities known to be
potential Settlement Class Members.  You may obtain a copy of this
notice, a proof of claim form, or other information by writing to
the following address or calling the following telephone number.

NovaStar MBS Settlement Administrator
P.O. Box 4098
Portland, OR 97208-4098
Toll Free: (844) 304-3488
info@NovaStarMBSSettlement.com

You may also download the forms from
www.NovaStarMBSSettlement.com.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE. Inquiries, other than requests for the detailed
notice referenced above and a proof of claim form, may be made to
plaintiffs' Lead Counsel:

COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC

Joel P. Laitman
Christopher Lometti
Michael Eisenkraft
88 Pine Street, 14 Fourteenth Floor
New York, N.Y. 10005
Telephone: (212) 838-7797
Email: jlaitman@cohenmilstein.com
          clometti@cohenmilstein.com
          meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com

Steven J. Toll
1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
Suite 500, West Tower
Washington, D.C. 20005
Tel.: (202) 408-4600
Email: stoll@cohenmilstein.com
Dated: May 9, 2017

By Order of the Clerk of the
Court United States District
Court for the Southern
District of New York
[GN]


OCEAN CITY, MD: Lifeguard Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------
Camille Sailer, writing for Capemay County Herald, reports Douglas
Schmitt is a lifeguard with the Ocean City Beach Patrol since June
1993. He filed a complaint May 15 in Superior Court, Civil
Division alleging that Ocean City has engaged in systematic wage
violations against its hourly-paid lifeguard employees for the
vast majority of overtime hours worked.

The pretrial judge assigned to the complaint is Christopher
Gibson. Schmitt is described as a current lifeguard who resides in
Havertown, Pa. who has regularly worked overtime hours for which
he was not paid by his employer, Ocean City, in violation of
applicable state law.

Schmitt is represented by David Cedar, Esq. --
dcedar@cedarlawfirm.com -- of Cedar Law Firm in Cherry Hill and
Andrew Frisch of Morgan and Morgan in Plantation, Fla.

The complaint notes that counsel is competent and experienced in
complex, class-action litigation and specifically class and
collective wage and hour litigation.

The complaint has been filed as a class action desiring to
represent more than 100 current and former lifeguards who, per the
complaint, are similarly situated to prosecute their common class
in a single forum simultaneously and thereby avoid duplication of
expense and effort.

The action requests a jury trial to determine the veracity of
Schmitt's allegations and damages going back to April 2015 as
mandated by the applicable statute of limitations of two years.

Per the complaint, the amount in controversy or damages is less
than $75,000 per each individual in the class action.

Schmitt, in his complaint, alleges that Ocean City has violated
state statues specifically that it has misclassified its lifeguard
employees as exempt from state law regulating wages and hourly
payment.

He further alleges that defendant Ocean City failed to keep true
and accurate time records and that he worked in excess of 40 hours
per week for which Ocean City failed to pay premium time and a
half compensation under state law.

"The lifeguards work long hours doing important work to ensure the
safety of thousands of beachgoers each season. Unfortunately, like
many other employees in countless industries, they are not paid
proper overtime wages when they work overtime hours. With this
case we hope to get them the overtime pay they have earned," said
Frisch.

Ocean City Solicitor Dorothy McCrosson did not respond to the
Herald's request for comment. [GN]


OKLAHOMA HEART: Sued Over Failure to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brenda Simmons, Tuesdae Bowling, Kimberly McKinzie, and Rebecca
Parker, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. Oklahoma Heart Hospital LLC d/b/a Oklahoma Heart Hospital
Physicians and OHH Physicians LLC, Case No. 5:17-cv-00607-M (W.D.
Ok., May 31, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants operate a physician-owned hospital system designed
by cardiologists to empower cardiovascular specialists to bring
world-class medical expertise and compassion to the care of every
patient. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      D. Colby Addison, Esq.
      Chris Hammons, Esq.
      LAIRD HAMMONS LAIRD, PLLC
      1332 SW 89th Street
      Oklahoma City, OK 73159
      Telephone: (405) 703-4567
      Facsimile: (405) 703-4067
      E-mail: colby@lhllaw.com
              chris@lhllaw.com

         - and -

      Kevin J. Dolley, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN J. DOLLEY, LLC
      2726 S. Brentwood Blvd.
      St. Louis, MO 63144
      Telephone: (314) 645-4100
      Facsimile: (314) 736-6216
      E-mail: kevin@dolleylaw.com


PANERA BREAD: Being Sold Too Cheaply, "Remorenko" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service reported that
directors are selling Panera Bread Co. too cheaply through an
unfair process to Luxembourg-based (nonparty) JAB Holdings, for
$315 a share or $7.5 billion, shareholders say in a federal class
action in St. Louis.

The case is captioned, JOHN REMORENKO, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. PANERA BREAD CO.,
RONALD M. SHAICH, WILLIAM W. MORETON, DOMENIC COLASACCO, DIANE
HESSAN, FRED FOULKES, LARRY FRANKLIN, THOMAS E. LYNCH, and MARK
STOEVER, JAMES WHITE Defendants., Case: 4:17-cv-01610-DDN (E.D
Mo., June 2, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     James J. Rosemergy, Esq.
     CAREY DANIS & LOWE
     8235 Forsyth, Suite 1100
     St. Louis, MO 63105
     Telephone: (314) 725-7700
     Facsimile: (314)721-0905
     Email: jrosemergy@careydanis.com

          - and -

     Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
     Brian D. Long, Esq.
     Gina M. Serra, Esq.
     RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
     2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
     Wilmington, DE 19803
     Telephone: (302) 295-5310
     Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
     Email: sdr@rl-legal.com
     Email: bdl@rl-legal.com
     Email: gms@rl-legal.com

          - and -

     Donald J. Enright, Esq.
     Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
     1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
     Washington, D.C. 20007
     Telephone: (202) 524-4290
     Facsimile: (202) 333-2121
     Email: denright@zlk.com
     Email: etripodi@zlk.com


PETCO ANIMAL: "Michel" Class Suit Transferred to S.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Deserie Michel, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. PETCO Animal Supplies
Stores, Inc. and PETCO Holdings, Inc., filed on April 14, 2016,
with Case No. 1:16-cv-01838 was transferred on May 30, 2017, from
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
(San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-
01092-MMA-AGS to the proceeding.

The case was filed over Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants sell retail pet foods and supplies through stores
in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marc S. Hepworth, Esq.
      Charles Gershbaum, Esq.
      David A. Roth, Esq.
      Rebecca S. Predovan, Esq.
      HEPWORTH, GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PLLC
      192 Lexington Avenue, Suite 802
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 545-1199
      E-mail: mhepworth@hgrlawyers.com
              cgershbaum@hgrlawyers.com
              droth@hgrlawyers.com
              rpredovan@hgrlawyers.com

         - and -

      Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
      Fran L. Rudich, Esq.
      Christopher Timmel, Esq.
      Jason Conway, Esq.
      KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP
      Two International Drive, Suite 350
      Rye Brook, NY 10573
      Telephone: (914) 934-9200
      E-mail: slesser@klafterolsen.com
              frudick@klafterolseon.com
              christopher.timmel@klafterolsen.com
              jason.conway@klafterolsen.com


PFIZER: Wants District Court to Exclude Expert Testimony
--------------------------------------------------------
Life Sciences Intellectual Property Review reports that Pfizer has
filed a motion to exclude a declaration and testimony supporting a
class of direct purchasers that have accused it of anti-
competitive conduct.

The motion was filed on May 24 at the US District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia Norfolk Division.

In 2014 Pfizer was sued in a class action by American Sales
Company on behalf of generic companies which claimed to be
affected by Pfizer's alleged anti-competitive conduct.

Pfizer's patent for its painkiller Celebrex (celecoxib) was
invalidated by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in
2008.

The class action suit claimed that in order for Pfizer to "avoid
the consequences" of the patent invalidation, Pfizer implemented a
scheme to prolong patent protection for celecoxib.

It alleged that "Pfizer sought from the US Patent and Trade Office
(USPTO) reissuance of the defunct method-of-use patent by claiming
that its earlier applications for the patent contained
unintentional 'errors' needing 'correction' in light of the
Federal Circuit ruling".

The complaint added that Pfizer "bombarded" the USPTO with false
information, as well as a great amount of "irrelevant material".

But according to Pfizer, the plaintiff's expert witness Jeffrey
Leitzinger had opinions which were "fatally flawed".

"He ignores critical facts showing that generic-only purchasers,
brand-only purchasers, and even some purchasers of both generic
and brand Celebrex were not impacted by the alleged delay in
generic entry."

Pfizer added that his opinion which states that a class-wide
impact can be shown with common evidence is "unreliable" and
"irrelevant". [GN]


PNI DIGITAL: "T.A.N." Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned T.A.N., an individual, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PNI DIGITAL MEDIA, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-132-LGW-RSB (S.D. Ga.), Judge Lisa G.
Wood of the United States District Court for the Southern District
of Georgia, Brunswick Division, preliminarily approved class
settlement and certified settlement class.

Under the Settlement, the Settlement Class Members are eligible to
receive reimbursement of up to $250 (in total) for the following
categories of out-pocket expenses resulting from the Security
Incident: (i) unreimbursed bank fees; (ii) unreimbursed card
reissuance fees; (ii) unreimbursed overdraft fees; (iv)
unreimbursed charges related to unavailability of funds; (v)
unreimbursed late fees; (vi) unreimbursed over-limit fees; (vii)
long distance telephone charges; (viii) cell minutes (if charged
by minute); (ix) internet usage charges and text messages; (x)
unreimbursed charges from banks or credit card companies; (xi)
postage; (xii) interest on payday loans due to card cancelation or
due to over-limit situation; (xiii) up to three hours of
documented lost time (at $15 per hour) spent dealing with
replacement card issues or in reversing fraudulent charges; (xiv)
an additional $20 payment for each credit or debit card on which
document fraudulent charges were incurred that were later
reimbursed; (xv) costs of credit report(s); and (xvi) costs of
credit monitoring and identity theft protection (up to $120).

The Class Members who had other extraordinary unreimbursed
monetary losses because of information compromised as a result of
the Security Incident are eligible to make a claim for
reimbursement of up to $10,000.

In exchange for these considerations, the Plaintiff and the
Settlement Class would fully, finally, and forever resolve,
discharge, and release their claims against PNI related to the
Security Incident, which resulted in unauthorized access to
customer payment card data and other personally identifying
information, without admission of liability by PNI.  In addition,
PNI has agreed to pay all fees and costs associated with providing
notice to the Settlement Class and for administration of the
Settlement.  PNI has also agreed to pay the Class Counsel's
attorneys' fees of $650,000, plus reasonable costs and expenses
and an incentive award of $3,750 for the representative Plaintiff.
Such amounts will be paid separately by PNI and will not reduce
the amount of payments to Class Members who submit valid claims.

The Court found, for settlement purposes only, that the Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23 factors are present and that
certification of the Settlement Class is appropriate under Rule
23.  The Court, therefore, provisionally certified the following
Settlement Class: All persons residing in the United States who
made a payment to one or more Retailers using a credit, debit, or
other payment card between June 2014 through and including July
2015, and whose payment card information was provided to PNI.

The Court appointed Tamara A. Nedlouf as Class Representative.

The Court appointed the following persons and entities as Class
Counsel who will be responsible for handling all Settlement-
related matters on behalf of Plaintiff and the Settlement Class:

     James B. Durham, Esq.
     Hall Booth Smith
     P.O. 3528 Darien Highway, Suite 300
     Brunswick, GA
     Tel: 912-554-0093
     Email: jdurham@hallboothsmith.com

        -- and --

     E. Adam Webb, Esq.
     Webb, Klase & Lemond, LLC
     1900 The Exchange SE, Suite 480
     Atlanta, OA
     Telephone: 770-444-9325
     Email: Contact@WebbLLC.com

The Court approved the form and content of the Notice to be
provided to the Settlement Class.  The Court further found that
the Notice Program is the best practicable under the
circumstances.

The Court directed that Epic Systems, Inc., act as the Settlement
Administrator to administer the Notice Program.  All fees and
costs associated with the Notice Program will be paid by PNI, as
set forth in the Settlement.  Epiq Systems is directed to perform
all other responsibilities under the Notice Program assigned to
the Settlement Administrator in the Settlement.

Hilsoft Notifications is directed to perform all other
responsibilities under the Notice Program assigned to the Notice
Administrator in the Settlement.

All proceedings in the Action are stayed until further order of
the Court, except as may be necessary to implement the terms of
the Settlement.  Pending final determination of whether the
Settlement should be approved.  The Plaintiff, all persons in the
Settlement Class, and persons purporting to act on their behalf
are enjoined from commencing or prosecuting (either directly,
representatively, or in any other capacity) against any of the
Released Parties any action or proceeding in any court asserting
any of the Released Claims.

The Court set the following schedule for the Final Approval
Hearing and the actions which must precede it:

     a. The Settlement Administrator will establish the Settlement
Website and toll-free telephone line as soon as practicable
following Preliminary Approval, but no later than 30 days after
the date of the Order;

     b. The Settlement Administrator will complete the Mailed
Notice Program no later than no later than 45 days after the date
of the Order;

     c. The Settlement Class Members must file any objections to
the Settlement no later than 120 days from the date on which the
Notice Program commences;

     d. The Settlement Class Members must file requests for
exclusion from the Settlement by no later than 120 days from the
date on which the Notice Program commences;

     e. The Plaintiff and the Class Counsel will file their
responses to timely filed objections to Settlement no later than
14 days before the Final Approval Hearing;

     f. If PNI chooses to file a response to timely filed
objections to Settlement, it will do so no later than 14 days
before the Final Approval Hearing;

     g. The Plaintiff and the Class Counsel will file their Motion
for Final Approval of the Settlement, Request for Service Award
for Plaintiff and Fee Application no later than 28 days before the
Final Approval Hearing; and

     h. The Final Approval Hearing will be held on Nov. 17, 2017,
at 10:00 a.m.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 2, 2017 order is available at
https://is.gd/iOOkle from Leagle.com

T.A.N., Plaintiff, represented by Edward Adam Webb, Webb, Klase &
Lemond, LLC, pro hac vice.

T.A.N., Plaintiff, represented by James B. Durham, Hall, Booth &
Smith, PC & William S. Mann, Hall Booth Smith, PC.

PNI Digital Media, Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel R.
Warren, Baker & Hostetler, LLP, pro hac vice, James A. Slater,
Baker & Hostetler, LLP, pro hac vice, Kevin Daniel Bradberry,
Baker & Hostetler LLP & Sam A. Camardo, Baker & Hostetler, LLP,
pro hac vice.


PRINCETON UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Action Over Retirement Plan
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Sullivan, writing for 401K Specialist, reports that
Princeton University is the latest prestigious institution of
higher learning to be targeted over its retirement plan.

The proposed class action challenges the fees and investment menu
options contained therein.

The suit, Nicolas v. Trs. of Princeton Univ., comes on the heels
of a similar suit filed against the University of Chicago, as well
as lawsuits filed last year against Duke University, John Hopkins,
The University of Pennsylvania, Vanderbilt, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, New York University, Yale and Columbia,
all alleging ERISA violations.

"Like many other schools, Princeton is accused of failing to
effectively negotiate for lower plan fees; choosing high-fee
investment options that consistently underperformed their
benchmarks; overpaying for record-keeping services by using
multiple plan record keepers; and offering a TIAA-affiliated
fixed-income fund that unreasonably restricted investors'
options," Bloomberg BNA reports.

The legal action is part of a larger movement towards lower fees
industry-wide, attracting the attention of tort lawyers to many
private sector retirement plans.

"The newest case against Princeton also challenges the school's
use of multiple record keepers. According to the lawsuit, this
arrangement led to record-keeping fees of more than $300 per
participant in a single year, when a reasonable fee would have
been closer to $35."

The most recent lawsuit, as well as the University of Chicago,
were filed by Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP and
Berger & Montague PC, the same law firm that Bloomberg notes is
currently litigating Employee Retirement Income Security Act
lawsuits against TIAA, Aon Hewitt Financial Advisors LLC, and
Charles Schwab Corp. [GN]


QUEBEC: Court Okays Class Action vs. Montreal Transit Authorities
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Cohen, writing for Global News, reports that
Regroupement des activistes pour l'inclusion au Quebec (RAPLIQ), a
disability rights advocacy group, is lobbying to increase
wheelchair access in metros and trains in Montreal.

On May 26, a Superior Court decision authorized the group to
represent all handicapped people in Quebec in a class-action
lawsuit against the City of Montreal, the Societe de transport de
Montreal (STM) and the Agence metropolitaine de transport (AMT).

The group is claiming up to $1.5 billion in damages for as many as
20,000 handicapped people.

RAPLIQ argues that the lack of wheelchair access in metros and
trains is discriminatory.

At a press conference on May 29, Gilles Gareau, one of RAPLIQ's
lawyers, noted that "there are only 11 metro stations that have
elevators out of 68 stations."

The city has 30 days to appeal the decision.

If the city doesn't appeal or loses on appeal, there could be a
trial on the merits sometime in the next year or two.

At that trial, the judge would have to decide whether disabled
people have been discriminated against as a result of limited
wheelchair access in metros and trains. [GN]


QUEBEC: Settlement in Westmount Hockey Coach Sex Abuse Case OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that Quebec Superior Court Justice Marc de Wever
has approved the class action settlement with the City of
Westmount involving sexual assault victims of hockey coach
John Garland.

Since the lawsuit was filed in 2015 by former Westmount resident
Matthew Bissonnette, four other victims have come forward.

Mr. Garland, who died in 2012, worked in the City of Westmount's
parks and recreation department between 1953 and 1987, and was
also a peewee hockey coach.

The settlement is for $100,000 per person, for a maximum total of
$2.5 million.

In his judgment, De Wever writes that the agreement is
"reasonable, fair, appropriate."

Other victims of Mr. Garland's abuse have until August 10 to come
forward to seek compensation. [GN]


RADFORD STUDIO: "Dye" Class Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Dye, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Radford Studio Center, Inc. and Does 1 to 100,
inclusive, Case No. BC663326 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 31, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid wages, premium wages, continuing wages,
damages, penalties and attorney's fees and costs.

Radford Studio Center, Inc. owns and operates a television and
film studio located at 4024 Radford Ave., Studio City, California
91604. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ala Harris, Esq.
      David Garrett, Esq.
      HARRIS & RUBLE
      655 North Central Avenue, 17th Floor
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Telephone: (323) 962-3777
      Facsimile: (323) 962-3004
      E-mail: HarrisA@harrisandruble.com
              dgarrett@harrisandruble.com

         - and -

      Daniel Forouzan, Esq.
      FOROUZAN LAW
      9454 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 550
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (888) 551-0163
      Facsimile: (888) 710-0039
      E-mail: Info@FznLaw.com


RED EYED JACK'S: "Davis" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------------------
CIERRA DAVIS, on behalf of herself and on behalf of other current
and former employees similarly situated; Plaintiffs, vs. RED EYED
JACK'S SPORTS BAR, INC. dba CHEETAHS GENTLEMEN'S CLUB or CHEETAHS
NIGHTCLUB, a Nevada Corporation; SUZANNE COE, an individual;
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-01111-BEN-JMA (S.D. Cal., May 31,
2017), alleges that Defendant fail to pay minimum wages and
overtime and also unlawfully docks wages from dancers, unlawfully
demands and accepts gratuities and/or tips, retains a part of
gratuities and/or tips rightfully belonging to its dancers, and
refuses to provide other benefits required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

RED EYED JACK'S SPORTS BAR, INC. is a gentlemen's club in San
Diego, California.  Cheetahs hired Ms. Davis as an adult
entertainer or dancer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
     Alex Tomasevic, Esq.
     Shaun Markley, Esq.
     NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
     225 Broadway, 19th Floor
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: 619-325-0492
     Fax: 619-325-0496
     Email: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
     Email: atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org
     Email: smarkley@nicholaslaw.org

        - and -

     Noam Glick, Esq.
     Kelsey McCarthy, Esq.
     GLICK LAW GROUP, P.C.
     225 Broadway, Suite 2100
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: (619) 382-3400
     Fax: (619} 615-2193
     E-Mail: nghck@yahoo.com
             kelsey@glicklawgroup.com


ROYAL BANK: Seeks to Avoid High Court Action by Shareholders
------------------------------------------------------------
Jean Shaoul, writing for World Socialist Web Site, reports that
the GBP700 million court case brought by the Royal Bank of
Scotland Shareholders Action Group has been adjourned for a third
time.

This is supposedly to give RBS two more weeks to persuade
shareholders to accept an improved offer. The most important
effect of the suspension is that it prevents the disgraced Fred
Goodwin, the former RBS chief executive, having to appear in court
on June 8, the day of the general election.

Preceded by other executives taking the stand, this would have
opened a can of worms -- not just for RBS and other financial
institutions rocked by the 2008 global financial crisis, but also
the Labour and then Conservative governments in allowing,
encouraging and then concealing the criminal practices of
Britain's banks.

This would take place under conditions where anger among workers
and youth over the austerity measures -- imposed to pay for the
bailout of the banks and further enrich the financial elite -- is
gathering pace and taking on political dimensions, that even
threaten a shock defeat for Theresa May's Tory government.
Former senior RBS executives have never had to make a public
account of the events leading up to the bank's collapse in 2008,
when it was rescued by then Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
Shareholders are suing RBS for GBP520 million over its GBP12
billion cash call in April 2008, just months before its collapse,
claiming they were misled about the lender's financial health.
RBS, 71 percent of whose shares are owned by the government
following its GBP45 billion bailout -- the largest in British
history -- is desperate to secure a settlement with its
shareholders to prevent "Fred the Shred" Goodman and company
having to appear in court.

RBS chairperson Sir Howard Davies said, "The settlement does not
constitute any admission of liability by the bank, but allows us
to minimise material litigation expense and management
distraction." Chief executive Ross McEwan said, "It will take the
organisation back to 2008. ... One of the reasons I was keen to
get it resolved ... was so the bank could move forward again."
The bank has spent more than GBP100 million in legal costs over
the case, including the cost of defending Goodwin and other
defendants. This will climb a further GBP25 million if the case
goes ahead, making it one of the most expensive legal cases in the
history of the High Court.

Last December, RBS reached settlements, without admitting
liability, with four other claimant groups including large fund
managers, representing 87 percent of the original GBP4 billion
damages claim, in a deal valued at around GBP800 million.

This suit was launched by the RBoS Shareholder Action Group, many
of whose 27,000 members were former and current RBS employees,
plus a handful of major City institutions and local authority
pension funds, who lost money after subscribing to the new RBS
shares. Under the deal, they would receive double the amount
offered, and much more than the settlement struck with four other
claimant groups, in a GBP200 million deal.

While many members of the group are willing to settle at around
92p-per-share, about half of what they paid for the rights issue,
others are determined that Goodwin and other senior executives
should have to publicly account for the bank's collapse after
nearly a decade of state ownership.

If these shareholders accept the offer, that will leave two other
groups still pursuing their claim against RBS.

When RBS, Lloyds Bank and HBoS faced bankruptcy in October 2008,
the Labour government took them into public ownership following
secret talks, with no strings attached and no discussion in
parliament, much less any public consultation. It later transpired
that the Bank of England had secretly loaned RBS a further GBP36.6
billion and that the government had agreed to underwrite RBS's
debts should it default on its loans. Since then the banks have
been provided with other forms of public support, including
"quantitative easing," worth in total more than GBP1 trillion --
demonstrating that as far as the financial elite is concerned,
governments of whatever political complexion function as their
personal piggy bank.

In 2010, the Financial Standards Authority (FSA) claimed that its
investigation into RBS had found no evidence of wrongdoing. It was
therefore party to the massive theft of working people's earnings.
Far from cleaning out the Augean stables, the FSA sought to ensure
that it was business as usual for the banks, political leaders and
the regulators.

After initially refusing to publish its evidence and findings, it
was forced into a humiliating climb-down after the WikiLeaks
release of US embassy cables, revealing that RBS's new chairman,
Sir Philip Hampton, flatly contradicted the FSA's line.

The report, published at the end of 2011, said that it was not
dishonesty, fraud, a breach of regulations or governance that was
the cause of the problems at RBS, but "a series of bad decisions."
RBS's collapse was due solely to its decision to pay, along with
its European partners Fortis and Santander, the astronomic sum of
GBP71 billion to buy the Dutch bank, ABN Amro, at the onset of the
subprime mortgage collapse and the credit squeeze.

The FSA blamed international banking regulation for RBS' low
capital ratios, and insisted that the ABN Amro takeover that left
the bank with too low capital levels would not have taken place
under new rules put in place since the banking crisis. The FSA was
silent on its own role in sanctioning the takeover, despite the
fact that it left RBS woefully undercapitalised.

The WikiLeaks cables and the FSA's report opened the door for
British and US shareholders, who for years had profited from
generous dividends that far exceeded those of manufacturing
corporations, to bring class action suits against RBS for the
losses stemming from the GBP71 billion takeover and the GBP12
billion rights issue. In doing so, they sought to take advantage
of the fact that RBS is essentially government-owned.

According to the cables, incoming RBS chairman Hampton told
visiting US Congressmen that the former directors were in breach
of their fiduciary responsibilities. He said RBS had made "several
enormous" mistakes. First among them was its heavy exposure in the
US subprime market and the bank's purchase of ABN Amro, which
occurred at the height of the market and without RBS doing proper
due diligence prior to the purchase. The board never questioned
this purchase, which Hampton labelled a failure of their fiduciary
responsibilities.

In the intervening nine years, not one banker, regulator or
politician has been held to account, let alone prosecuted, for
their role in facilitating an economic catastrophe that is
devastating workers' living standards the world over, and reducing
entire countries to penury. Likewise, there has been no
substantive reform of the banking system.

Instead, numerous other examples have come to light of criminal
activity on the part of RBS-and other British banks-including the
mis-selling of financial products in the US and Britain, tax
evasion, rigging key interest rates Libor and Forex, breaching US
sanctions and regulations. In almost every case, it was US, not
British, authorities that imposed any penalties.

The fines were in any case so much loose change for the banks,
part of the cost of business passed on to customers in innumerable
charges, while top executives walk away with massive bonuses. [GN]


ROYAL BANK: Shareholder Group Agrees to Settle Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
David Campbell, writing for Citywire, reports that Senior Royal
Bank of Scotland (RBS) executives at the helm of the business as
it crashed in 2008 look set to avoid a court appearance, after the
majority of shareholders reached a deal averting a class action
suit.

The RBS Shareholder Action Group, which is overseeing a legal
challenge on behalf of around 9,000 private investors and around
20 financial institutions, said it had agreed a GBP200 million
settlement with the bank.

All of the institutional investors and around 70% of the smaller
investors have reportedly agreed to accept the deal, which will
offer those who bought into a 2008 cash call under allegedly
misleading terms compensation of 82p for every share purchased.

The group said "it was in the interests of all claimants" to
accept the offer.  "The viability of the case continuing to trial
is now significantly in doubt," it added, according to a report
Telegraph.

Between 40% and 45% of the proceeds are expected to be claimed by
lawyers and financial backers of the group.  Four other
shareholder groups had earlier accepted an earlier offer of 41.2p
per share.

The deal is believed to have been brokered following the personal
intervention of boss Ross McEwan, as the bank scrambled to avoid
the expense and reputational damage of a court case.

The decision means that then-boss Fred Goodwin, who was stripped
of his knighthood in 2012 following a public outcry, will be able
to avoid a public accounting for his decision making. [GN]


SAMSUNG: Faces Multiple Lawsuits on Battery Issues
--------------------------------------------------
Economic Times reports that as the Note 7 fiasco had begun dying
down, Samsung is again facing multiple lawsuits following reports
that its other models too are plagued with battery issues, media
reports said.

The other smartphone models that reportedly face similar issues
include the Galaxy S6, S7 Edge and Note 5.

Dale Holzworth from Massachusetts filed a class action lawsuit
that claimed the Galaxy S7 Edge he purchased last year burst into
flames while it sat charging in his son's bedroom, a report in
DailyMail reported on May 25.

According to the report, cases in three US states have claimed
that Samsung was aware of the battery issues and fire hazards for
years, but opted not to inform its customers.

Another lawsuit filed by Claire Gilligan in New York noted that
the other smartphones use similar or identical batteries to those
used in the Note 7.

Almost 112 Galaxy Note 7 devices caught fire worldwide within a
month of the smartphone's launch in August last year, prompting
Samsung to recall all the 2.5 million products after five months
of its launch.

"Samsung manufactures and sells smartphones which pose a threat to
the safety of consumers," reads the Samsung class action
complaint.

Plaintiffs have demanded that "users with the older models should
be provided with the same refund and exchange programme set for
the Note 7".

They alleged that Samsung recalled the Note 7 while leaving other
dangerous products in the marketplace as the problem was not
limited to a single product only.

"Samsung's team responsible for designing the system further
stated that due to the spatial limits of smartphones, the cooling
system's cooling capacity alone is not enough to cool the device,"
the report quoted a plaintiff as saying. [GN]


SANTA MONICA, CA: Court Dismisses Suit Over AirBnb Ordinance
------------------------------------------------------------
Kate Cagle, writing for Santa Monica Daily Press, reports that a
Federal District Court judge dismissed an elderly woman's lawsuit
against Santa Monica's restrictive AirBnb ordinance on May 24,
further delaying the case that objects to the law under the
California Coastal Act.

Santa Monica's ordinance prohibits listing a home as a vacation
rental unless the homeowner is present during the guests' stay.
Arlene Rosenblatt and her husband contend they should be able to
list their home on a website like Airbnb while they are traveling
out of town to supplement their social security checks.

"It's just a matter of what court it is going to go through at
this point," Ms. Rosenblatt's attorney, Jordan Esensten, told the
Daily Press.  "The whole time what Santa Monica has been doing is
a delay tactic because they've been able to reap a lot of money
from these ordinances because they require people to go to hotels
instead of Airbnb and they collect the taxes."

Airbnb is required by the City to collect a 14 percent Transient
Occupancy Tax on all reservations 30 nights or shorter in Santa
Monica.

Ms. Rosenblatt brought the class action lawsuit on behalf of all
residential property owners in the city.  In March, the District
Court dismissed claims that the ordinance violates the Commerce
Clause of the United States Constitution.  However, Mr. Esensten
still has a case regarding the state law, alleging the ordinance
violates the primary goal of the Coastal Act -- maximizing access
to the coast.

"On the statute itself, it's hard to come to any other
conclusion," Mr. Esensten said.  "We're currently exploring all
our options."

Other homeowners up and down California have filed similar
lawsuits, alleging the Coastal Commission has say over Airbnb
rental laws.  In December, a letter from the Commission's then-
chairman appeared to back up their claims.

"We believe that vacation rentals provide an important source of
visitor accommodations in the coastal zone, especially for larger
families and groups and for people of a wide range of economic
backgrounds," Steve Kinsey wrote in part.

Santa Monica code enforcement officers have been aggressively
pursuing companies and homeowners in breach of the new rules.
Earlier this year a judge affirmed 35 out of 36 charges against
the rental broker Globe Homes, LLC for posting listings from Santa
Monica.  The City hailed the ruling as a sign its ordinance could
withstand pushback from large companies.

Earlier in May AirBnb settled their lawsuit with the city of San
Francisco.  The law sets up a registration process for all hosts
in city, where it is estimated more than 50 percent of hosts may
be out of compliance. [GN]


SCOUT PETROLEUM: Pa. Court Issues Ruling on Class Arbitrability
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Galligan, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
on April 28, U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann of the Middle
District of Pennsylvania issued the latest opinion in a series of
high-profile decisions regarding class arbitrability of oil and
gas leases. In Chesapeake Appalachia v. Scout Petroleum, 4:14-CV-
0620, (M.D. Pa. April 28), Brann granted Chesapeake's motion for
partial summary judgment, and entered a declaratory judgment that
the leases at issue do not permit class arbitration, and instead
require individual (or bilateral) arbitration. Brann's opinion
rejected Scout's novel argument that as a matter of Pennsylvania
contract law, class arbitration was impliedly authorized under the
leases.

Background

In 2008, Chesapeake entered into oil and gas leases with
landowners in several northeastern Pennsylvania counties to
explore for, and produce natural gas. The leases at issue are
standard natural gas leases, consisting of a basic form contract,
often including an individually negotiated addendum. In 2013,
Scout purchased the right to certain leases from landowners and
has received royalties from Chesapeake on the gas produced from
their properties. On March 17, 2014, Scout sought to bring class
arbitration against Chesapeake. Scout attempted to initiate class
arbitration on behalf of itself, together with a putative class of
thousands of landowners, claiming that Chesapeake had improperly
calculated royalties.

Scout was one of a number of class action arbitrations involving
oil and gas leases that were instituted in Pennsylvania beginning
in 2014. In the midst of those cases working through the
arbitration process (or through challenges to the arbitration
process raised in federal district courts), the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an opinion in Opalinski v.
Robert Half International, 761 F.3d 326 (3d Cir. 2014), cert
denied 135 S. Ct. 1530 (2015). The Opalinski court held that the
issue of whether class action arbitration was available was a
threshold substantive question of "arbitrability" that had to be
decided by a court, unless the parties' arbitration clause
"clearly and unmistakably" provided otherwise.

In the first series of substantive rulings in Scout, Brann
applying Opalinski, held that the arbitrability of the leases at
issue was not "clearly and unmistakenably" to be decided by an
arbitrator, and should instead be determined by the court, see
Chesapeake Appalachia v. Scout Petroleum, 73 F. Supp. 3d 488 (M.D.
Pa. 2014). Scout appealed this initial determination to the Third
Circuit. On appeal, Scout argued that express language within the
leases' arbitration provision referring to "the rules of the
American Arbitration Association" met the "clearly and
unmistakenably" standard based on the doctrine of incorporation.
Scout argued that this reference constituted an incorporation of
the specific "Commercial Rules of Arbitration," which in turn
incorporates the "supplementary rules," which is the section of
the arbitration rules that expressly addresses class action
arbitration proceedings, and more specifically authorizes an
arbitrator to determine class action arbitrability.

The Third Circuit disagreed, noting that the American Arbitration
Association website contained over 50 sets of rules, and the
arbitration provision in the leases did not refer to any one
specific set of rules. The Third Circuit noted that nothing in the
commercial rules that typically apply to the lease disputes
mentioned class action arbitration, and in fact, the rules were
instead couched in terms of bilateral arbitration only. As there
was more than one reasonable reading of the arbitration provision,
the Third Circuit, applying its precedent in Opalinski, concluded
that the reference to the American Arbitration Association rules
did not "unambiguously" delegate the class arbitrability issue to
the arbitrator, and therefore that issue had to be decided by the
court.

The Third Circuit's opinion in Scout did not reach the ultimate
question on the merits: whether the parties intended class action
arbitration -- the decision is limited to addressing the "who
decides" issue.

On remand, Brann turned to addressing the ultimate question of
class arbitrability. He first noted that his colleague in the
Middle District, Judge John Jones, held in Chesapeake Appalachia
v. Ostroski, 199 F. Supp. 3d 912 (M.D. Pa. 2016), that identical
lease language did not permit class arbitration, and stated that
"it would be extraordinary indeed for me to hold differently than
did Jones when presented with the same lease language, from the
same plaintiff, in the same court." Brann also cited the U.S.
Supreme Court case of Stolt-Nielsen v. AnimalFeeds International,
559 U.S. 662 (2010), which held that "a party may not be compelled
under the FAA to submit to class arbitration unless there is a
contractual basis for concluding that the party agreed to do so. .
. .  In bilateral arbitration, parties forgo the procedural rigor
and appellate review of the courts in order to realize the
benefits of private dispute resolution: lower costs, greater
efficiency and speed, and the ability to choose expert
adjudicators to resolve specialized disputes. But the relative
benefits of class-action arbitration are much less assured, giving
reason to doubt the parties' mutual consent to resolve disputes
through classwide arbitration."

Brann noted that several other circuits, including the Fifth,
Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth, have likewise stated that
"silence" in an agreement regarding class arbitration generally
indicates that it is not authorized by the agreement. Finally,
Brann distinguished a Pennsylvania Superior Court case, Dickler v.
Shearson Lehman Hutton, 596 A.2d 860 (Pa. 1991), relied upon by
Scout. The court noted that Dickler was decided in 1991, well
before a spate of recent cases more fully developed the class
action arbitrability landscape, and also distinguished the
language of the arbitration provision in that case. The court
found that the arbitration provision in the Chesapeake leases at
issue was "written in the singular, which indicates individual or
bilateral arbitration, i.e., 'in the event of a disagreement
between lessor and lessee concerning this lease.'" On the
contrary, the clause at issue in Dickler was drafted plurally,
stating that "any controversy arising out of or relating to my
accounts, to transactions with you, your officers, directors
agents and/or employees for me ... shall be settled by
arbitration."

Brann's opinion demonstrates -- at least for the time being -- the
ability and willingness of district courts in Pennsylvania to
foreclose class arbitrability where the language of an oil and gas
lease does not expressly provide for class arbitration. On May 9,
Scout appealed Brann's latest ruling, so the Third Circuit will
once again weigh in on this highly contested issue. [GN]


SCRUB INC: Judge Breaks Up Airport Janitors' Wage Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
federal judge has broken up a class action involving hundreds of
airport janitors who had accused a cleaning contractor of shorting
them pay, as the judge said the only thing the janitors truly had
in common is that they all worked at Chicago's O'Hare
International Airport.

In an opinion entered May 23 in Chicago, Judge Robert W. Gettleman
granted the motion of Scrub, Inc., to decertify a class of
employees who alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Other named defendants included Teresa Kaminska, Scrub's vice
president of operations, and Mark Rathke, its general manager.

On April 27, 2015, plaintiffs Doris M. Solsol and Yoli Sandra
Rodriguez Diaz earned conditional certification for their class of
Scrub employees who worked at O'Hare as far back as Oct. 24, 2010,
to press their wage claims against Scrub.

According to court documents, Scrub's O'Hare workers fell into
three categories: contracted with the city to clean domestic
terminals; contracted with individual airlines to clean gates and
other areas; and contracted with airlines to clean airplane
cabins. Other Scrub employees load trucks with airplane supplies.

Since the conditional certification, more than 750 employees had
opted into the class.  There are at least 13 Scrub time clocks
throughout the airport, court documents said, but some Scrub
employees who work outside terminals don't have access and instead
call a supervisor to report arriving for and departing from work.
Supervisors then complete payroll input sheets.

Ms. Solsol and Ms. Diaz said Ms. Kaminska taught supervisors to
record on the payroll sheets only scheduled hours, and only to
note if the employee arrives late or leaves early -- not if they
log more hours than scheduled. Further, they said supervisors
underpay employees by rounding to the nearest quarter hour
whenever a worker arrives late or leaves early.  Finally, they
alleged the company deducted 30 minutes from each employee's time
card to account for a meal break, even when they're ordered to
return to duty during the break.

In granting the company's motion to decertify, Judge Gettleman
noted the only common thread among opt-in plaintiffs was working
at O'Hare.

". . . Whether they are similarly situated is, at the very least,
called into question by the enormity of the airport combined with
the disparate locations where they worked," the judge said.

Further, the employees had a wide variety of schedules, including
all three shifts, and reported to different offices depending on
assigned duties.

"Within those varying offices, opt-in plaintiffs reported to more
than 40 different supervisors," Judge Gettleman continued.  "Each
supervisor oversaw several different crews that ranged in size
from a few employees to 20 or more, each of which was directed by
a 'lead.'"

He further explained a lack of uniformity among what employees
said about their start-of-shift procedures -- some said
supervisors required them to work 15 minutes before their
scheduled start time, some said it took five or 10 minutes to
gather supplies and others said they only needed a minute to get
ready for work.

Variance of claims regarding the unpaid meal break was "equally
drastic and somewhat dependent on which position each opt-in
plaintiff held," Judge Gettleman noted, adding, "some janitors
claim to have lost five minutes of their break approximately three
days a week, some claim to have lost 20 minutes of their break one
day a week, some claim to have lost three to five minutes before
and after every meal break, some claim to have lost a total of 10
to 15 minutes of each break, and many others simply claim to have
lost 'part' of their break.  Other janitors do not claim to have
lost any time walking to and from the break room because they were
allowed to take their meal break in their work area. Still others
claim to have never taken a meal break because they had too much
work to do."

Scrub also argued decertification would be appropriate because its
defenses would "require individual application to each opt-in
plaintiff," saying some employees in the opt-in group actually
were overpaid.  Judge Gettleman agreed, noting the plaintiffs
failed to offer evidence showing all class members were subject to
a common employer policy.

The class action plaintiffs were represented in the action by
attorneys with the firms of Glen Dunn & Associates Ltd., of
Chicago, and Jeffrey Grant Brown P.C., of Chicago.

Scrub Inc. was defended by attorneys with the firm of Chuhak &
Tecson P.C., of Chicago. [GN]


SEPHORA: Settles Asian Customers' Discrimination Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Georgina Caldwell, writing for Global Cosmetics News, reports that
Sephora has been given the go-ahead by a Californian federal judge
to settle a class action brought by customers of Asian origin
against the retailer, according to a report published by Law 360.

The LVMH-owned perfumery chain is set to pay out US$950,000 to
those who had their accounts deactivated in the run-up to a
promotional Beauty Insider event in 2014 -- which the plaintiffs
claimed was discriminatory as Sephora made the call based on their
Asian-origin email addresses.

Sephora vehemently denied the claims that it deactivated accounts
with Chinese domain-name email addresses at the time, claiming
that consumers all over the world were affected by the "temporary
outage" of its website. [GN]


SIRTEX: Shareholder Class Action May Cost as Much as $280MM
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Australian reports that Sirtex intends to push ahead with a
$30 million buyback on June 7th after a court dismissed an
injunction that sought to block the move, the company noted in an
announcement to the ASX earlier on May 29.

A shareholder class action against troubled medical devices maker
Sirtex could cost it as much as $280 million, the company has
estimated.

The former market darling (SRX) estimates this would require a
capital raising of up to about $180m but its own expert admitted
in court on May 26 that he knew of no precedent where a company
had successfully tapped investors to pay for a similar scale class
action judgment.

Sirtex's estimate of the potential size of the class action,
launched in February following a shock profit downgrade in
December, emerged on May 26 as lawyers for lead plaintiff Todd
Hayward asked the Federal Court in Melbourne to bar the company
from distributing $30m to existing shareholders in a buyback.

The company has lost about half its former market value of more
than $1.2 billion following the profit downgrade and recent
disappointing test results for its products, which are designed to
improve the quality of life of people dying of cancer.

Norman O'Bryan, SC, representing the class action litigants, said
Sirtex had about $100m in cash and the buyback "would deplete
those resources significantly".  However Alan Myers QC, for the
company, said that if the court barred the buyback "the inference
will be that while the main action is pending the directors of the
company can't make sensible decisions about the capital management
of the company without being called into court".

Under cross-examination by Mr O'Bryan, Sirtex chief financial
officer Darren Smith said that in January he told the company's
board it would be possible to raise the money needed to cover the
worst-case estimate of a $280m class action payout.  Asked how
much would need to be raised, he said: "Something shy of $177m."

He said he based his position on "discussions with (stockbroker)
Taylor Collison, which I would have had offline".  "They would
have provided assurances we could do that," he said.

However, Taylor Collison managing director Robert Fraser said he
was "not aware of any precedent" in raising similar sums.

"So it's never been done before, in your experience?" Mr O'Brien
asked.  "No,'' Mr Fraser said.

Justice Bernard Murphy knocked back the application.

Sirtex announced a replacement for former chief executive Gilman
Wong, who it sacked in January following an investigation into his
share trading before the December downgrade.

Andrew McLean, who is currently a vice-president at NYSE-listed
surgical instrument company STERIS, will take up the position on
June 5. [GN]


SOUTH DAKOTA: Winner School District Marks End of 10-Year Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Caitlynn Peetz, writing for Bismarck Tribune, reports that the
Winner School District reached a "groundbreaking" milestone in
South Dakota civil rights history.

On May 22, the district completed a court-ordered process
instituted more than a decade ago to overhaul and revamp its
treatment of Native American students.

National officials hope the district's success will serve as a
model for other schools struggling with bias and inequality.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a class-action federal
lawsuit in March 2006 alleging that the school district
disciplined Native American students more harshly than white
students, and that the district was hostile toward Native
families, taking statements from the students involved in a
disciplinary matter.

In 2008, the district and plaintiffs in the case created a consent
decree, which required the district to form a new discipline
matrix and hire a full-time ombudsman to serve as a liaison
between Native American families and school officials.

Dennis Parker, the director of Racial Justice Programs at the
national ACLU, said he's not familiar with similar programs in the
country, but wouldn't be surprised if more schools began following
in Winner's footsteps.

"I've been in conversations with people in other states because
the problems of inequality in educational opportunities for Indian
students is not specific to Winner or to South Dakota or even to
the West, so we're hoping that this can be a model for other
districts to see how you can improve performance," Parker said.

The settlement included more than 20 areas in which the district
agreed to improve, including reducing the number of suspensions
and referrals to the police department and increasing the number
of students involved in extracurricular activities. But maybe most
notable, Parker said, was the initiative to increase the Native
American graduation rate.

Fourteen tribal students graduated this year, whereas 10 years
ago, it was uncommon for more than two Native American students to
graduate each year, Parker said.

The agreement was amended in 2012, stating if the district
complied with these benchmarks for four years, the case would be
dismissed.

"The case was dismissed because they did comply, and we were there
to celebrate that achievement," Parker said. "It's been very
heartening -- it's a pretty big accomplishment for the district
and for the tribes."

Much of the district's success can be attributed to Superintendent
Bruce Carrier, said School Board President Mike Calhoon.

Carrier was hired at the beginning of the consent decree's
implementation, and will retire in June with the knowledge that
his efforts have changed the lives of dozens of students in south-
central South Dakota.

"Hiring him really turned things around in the Winner School
District -- he was able to build trust with the other side in the
lawsuit and that really helped get it all behind us," Calhoon
said. "He said he'd stay for three to five years, and wound up
staying six, but I wish we could have him for another 20 years.
He's a great superintendent, a great man."

The positive practices Carrier has helped implement won't be
discontinued with the consent decree, said Calhoon, an eight-year
board member.

Carrier has worked on writing a list of activities the district
has implemented for incoming Superintendent Keven Morehart to
follow in the hopes of maintaining the positive relationships that
have been built.

"As soon as you think there's nothing else to be done, you start
sliding back, so there's always positive work to be done," Calhoon
said. "But it's kind of built into the system now, so I don't
think there will be many changes, if any, because the lawsuit is
over. We're committed to staying the course and making sure what
we've started continues to get done." [GN]


SPOTIFY: Settles Class Action Suits With $43.4-Mil. Fund
--------------------------------------------------------
Robert Levine, writing for Billboard, reports that Spotify has
reached a settlement with a group of songwriters who had sued for
copyright infringement, eliminating a potential complication to
the public offering that the streaming service is planning later
this year.

Under the agreement which will need to be approved by the court,
the streaming company will set up a fund worth $43.4 million to
compensate songwriters and publishers whose compositions the
service used without paying mechanical royalties. The settlement
addresses putative class actions separately filed in federal court
by Cracker and Camper van Beethoven frontman David Lowery and
singer-songwriter Melissa Ferrick, which had sought $150 million
and $200 million, respectively, and were combined last year.

Spotify has to pay record labels to use their recordings and
publishers to use the underlying compositions; it pays mechanical
royalties directly to publishers and public performance royalties
to performing-rights groups like ASCAP, which distribute the money
to their member publishers and songwriters. Streaming services
don't need to negotiate with publishers, since they can take
advantage of a "statutory license" offered by the federal
government.

But they need to find the right publishers to pay -- a challenge
in cases where recordings have entered Spotify's system without
proper metadata. Spotify has always made a point of holding money
aside for publishers it couldn't identify, but doing so doesn't
make it compliant with copyright law.

Beyond past and future compensation, the settlement agreement
outlines a process by which Spotify and the class counsel "will
work collaboratively to improve the gathering and collecting of
information about composition owners to help ensure those owners
are paid their royalties in the future," according to the
plaintiffs' motion.

In March 2016, the National Music Publishers' Association
announced its own settlement with Spotify over the service's use
of songs owned by its members, which involved an estimated $30
million.  In exchange for participating in that settlement,
publishers had to release Spotify from liability related to the
group of pending and unmatched works identified by the NMPA.

Presumably, many of the remaining songs that could not be
identified were relatively unpopular. Under copyright law, though,
that doesn't matter, since statutory damages are assessed per
infringed work, not per act of infringement. [GN]


ST. STEPHENS: Cemetery Mismanagement Class Action Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Robert Bradfield, writing for WHAS11, reports that at a time when
we remember the sacrifices of our veterans, John Morrison reflects
on the sacrifices his parents made for him.

"For anything I did back then, I make amends by the way I live
today," Mr. Morrison told WHAS11.

His parents are two of hundreds laid to rest at St. Stephens
Cemetery.  Earlier this year, several of the plots were
unrecognizable -- a result of allegations of mismanagement,
neglect and carelessness.  "First time I was fired up and I saw it
on TV," Mr. Morrison explained.

In the two months since, others have noticed a colorful change.

"Compared to a few months ago, I am happy," Tammi Johnson said.
She has relatives at St. Stephens dating back to the Civil War.

"To me, this is hallowed ground and it should be kept up," she
said.  Ms. Johnson sees the grass is no longer overgrown and the
headstones are no longer in pieces.  American flags are now
proudly on display giving Ms. Morrison and others peace of mind
that those who are resting there are doing so comfortably.

A class-action lawsuit was filed against St. Stephens Cemetery in
April.  The lawsuit is still active, but it has not been seen by a
judge.  [GN]


STAR NISSAN: Must Face Former Salesmen's Wage Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Eric Freedman, writing for Auto News, reports that a Bayside,
N.Y., Nissan dealership has lost its bid to keep a lawsuit by two
former salesmen upset over their take-home pay from becoming a
class action.

A U.S. magistrate judge in New York ruled that current and former
sales representatives of Star Nissan Inc. can pursue class-action
claims alleging the dealership violated federal and state minimum
wage laws.

Star Nissan, which denies any violations, unsuccessfully argued
that any claims should be decided on a salesperson-by-salesperson
basis with individual trials.

The plaintiffs are ex-salesmen Razvan Hotaranu and Luis Felix.  In
their suit, they allege Star Nissan paid them commissions plus a
flat $100 per week regardless of how many hours they worked and
that in many pay periods, they didn't earn enough commissions "to
satisfy the applicable minimum wage."  They sued the dealership
and four of its executives, including the president and the dealer
principal.

The decision, by way of example, cited evidence that one salesman
received only $277.64 in commissions plus a flat weekly rate
during a pay period when he worked 45 to 50 hours, and "this
equates to less than the applicable minimum wage."

Dealership lawyer Jamie Felsen of Lake Success, N.Y., said the
salespeople understood the compensation structure.  He also said
the plaintiffs' lawyers are "going after" other dealers in the New
York City area but "are not going to be successful" against Star
Nissan.

The federal Fair Labor Standards Act allows employees to pursue
collective actions to obtain unpaid overtime compensation and
minimum wage.

Star Nissan opposed certification of a collective action, arguing
that the plaintiffs failed to show a "common unlawful policy" and
asserting that the salespeople didn't account for commissions that
Nissan Motor Corp. paid them directly through sales incentive
programs.

The ruling by U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert Levy, who sits in
Brooklyn, allows all salespeople who have worked at the store
since July 12, 2013, to join the suit.

During that period, the federal minimum wage was $7.25 an hour,
and the New York state hourly minimum wage ranged from $7.15 to
$9.

Ms. Felsen said the dealership had about 20 salespeople during
that period and that they are being notified of their right to opt
into the case.  So far, six have asked to join Hotaranu and Felix
in the suit, according to the decision.

The judge said the class-action status may be reversed if the
evidence shows there's not enough similarity in the plaintiffs'
claims.

The plaintiffs' lawyers did not respond to a request for comment.
[GN]


STATE STREET: Missouri Fund Settles Securities Suit for $123MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Arleen Jacobius, writing for Pensions & Investments, reports that
after a six-year legal battle, the $40.4 billion Public School and
Education Employee Retirement Systems of Missouri quietly settled
its securities-lending lawsuit against State Street Bank & Trust
Co. for $123 million, one of the larger known settlements since
the financial crisis.

Following the global financial crisis, a number of institutional
investors sued custodians that provided securities, attempting to
stop the custodians from drastically cutting the value of the
investments in their securities-lending programs.  Until now, most
of the settlements have been much smaller.  For example, Northern
Trust Corp. stated in a recent Securities and Exchange Commission
filing that it paid a total of $70 million to settle all of the
securities-lending lawsuits brought against it; mostly in the
second quarter of 2016.

The $21.7 billion San Francisco City & County Employees'
Retirement System settled with Northern Trust in December 2016 for
$11.7 million.  A class-action lawsuit filed by 1,500 retirement
plans settled with Northern Trust for $36 million in 2015.
Another class action led by three pension plans -- the $2.3
billion Investment Committee of the Manhattan and Bronx Surface
Transit Operating System, the $1.9 billion AFTRA Retirement Fund
and the $714 million Imperial County Employees' Retirement System
-- settled with J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. for $150 million in 2012.

The financial crisis was a game-changer for the securities-lending
business, which had been considered a safe way for institutional
investors to grab a little extra return by lending securities
already in their portfolios.

"Generally, investments (in the cash collateral pools) that had
been very safe turned out to be not so safe," said Michael Rosen,
principal and chief investment officer of Santa Monica, Calif.-
based Angeles Investment Advisors LLC.

"Securities lending is about picking up nickels in front of a
steamroller," Mr. Rosen said.  "For years and years, there was no
problem . . . but then in the crisis there was no liquidity and
the steamroller got out of control. . . .Now you're taking losses
in this portfolio and the collateral that you have . . . can't be
sold; there's simply no bidder for this stuff."

In that environment, some custodians offered their pension fund
clients securities in lieu of cash, he said.

While Mr. Rosen was unfamiliar with the particulars of the
Missouri-State Street case, he said generally factors that lead to
larger settlements include the amount of securities on loan, asset
size of the investor and some sort of breach of duty.

'Many significant settlements'

Alan Emkin, managing director of Pension Consulting Alliance LLC.
Portland, Ore., said in an email that while he also was not
familiar with the case, the settlement amount seemed high, but
"there were many significant settlements."

Mr. Emkin noted that in some cases, the size of settlement would
be boosted if there were a demonstrable showing of bad faith or a
breach of duty.

State Street Bank officials declined to comment on the Missouri
settlement beyond a statement issued in response to Pensions &
Investments' questions.

M. Steve Yoakum, Missouri's executive directory, and Alan C.
Thompson, the systems' general counsel, both declined to comment
beyond court documents and a short description of the settlement
in the systems' 2016 comprehensive annual financial report.  The
CAFR was the first indication the case had been settled.

The lawsuit was originally filed in 2009.  According to legal
filings, after the financial crisis, State Street revalued the
pool of the cash collateral posted by the securities borrowers
downward by about $96 million.  The Missouri pension systems
received a portion of the returns earned by this pool.  State
Street then offered pension officials distributions in the form of
securities instead of in cash, the 2016 annual report stated.

The lawsuit alleged State Street had invested a substantial
portion of the systems' cash collateral pool in risky asset-backed
securities including residential mortgage-backed securities,
commercial mortgage-backed securities, pools of credit card debt,
collateralized debt obligations and collateralized loan
obligations. These securities lost substantial value and were
illiquid.

State Street's securities-lending agreement with Missouri
permitted securities withdrawals under normal circumstances.  But
in September 2009, State Street executives demanded the pension
fund move back $4.2 billion in securities it had earlier
withdrawn, the suit maintained. Missouri executives alleged in
their complaint that State Street's demand to return the
securities violated its fiduciary duty.

State Street denied wrongdoing. "The financial crisis that began
in 2007 created significant levels of volatility and market
illiquidity in certain instruments, including those that were held
in securities-lending cash collateral reinvestment vehicles,"
State Street noted in its statement to P&I.  "State Street's
collateral pools did not have any material credit losses in the
financial crisis."

Concerns remain

While other banks have settled most of their securities-lending
lawsuits, the issues that gave rise to the litigation have not
been completely resolved.

Northern Trust stated in its SEC filing that "the global financial
crisis of 2007-'08 and resultant period of economic turmoil and
financial market disruption produced losses in some securities-
lending programs, reduced borrower demand and led some clients to
withdraw from these programs.  A return of these conditions in the
future could result in additional withdrawals and decreased
activity, which could impact our earnings negatively."

Missouri still has a securities-lending program but not with State
Street, which was terminated as custodian on Oct. 1, 2010. The
current custodian is J.P. Morgan Chase.

In light of the issues, some pension funds have discontinued their
securities-lending programs. In April, the San Francisco
retirement system discontinued its securities-lending program,
saying the income earned did not justify the risk.

Securities-lending programs have "mostly been scrapped," said
Angeles Investment Advisors' Mr. Rosen.  "It's not worth the
headache.  Picking up nickels was fine until it became pennies and
half pennies. . . .There's not enough spread to make it
worthwhile, and the losses in 2008 and 2009 were enough to last a
lifetime."

State Street, still offers securities lending, holding an
aggregate amount of indemnified securities on loan totaling $373.5
billion as of March 31, according to its latest SEC filing.

Bank officials say it has made changes to improve its securities-
lending program.  "Since (the financial crisis) we have made a
number of adjustments to our securities-lending program that
reflect the experiences that we and others in the industry faced
during the financial crisis," according to State Street's written
statement.

This article originally appeared in the May 29, 2017 print issue
as, "Missouri fund scores big securities lending payout". [GN]


SUNRIDER CORPORATION: Sued in Cal. Over Unlawful Pyramid Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kathy Wu, an individual and all those similarly situated v.
Sunrider Corporation d/b/a Sunrider International, Tei-Fu Chen,
Oi-Lin Chen, and Does 1-100, Case No. BC663303 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
May 31, 2017), is brought on behalf of all the persons who were
Sunrider participants from 2010 until the present under
California's Endless Chain Scheme Law, Unfair Competition Law,
False Advertising Law, and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act against all the Defendants for the operation and
promotion of an inherently fraudulent endless pyramid scheme.

Sunrider Corporation is a Utah Corporation with its principal
place of business in Torrance, CA that operates and manages a
manufacturing facility. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Blake J. Lindemann, Esq.
      LINDEMANN LAW FIRM, APC
      433 N. Camden Drive, 4th Floor
      Beverly Hills, CA 90210
      Telephone: (310) 279-5269
      Facsimile: (310) 300-0267
      E-mail: blake@lawbl.com

         - and -

      Daren M. Schlecter, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF DAREN M. SCHLECTER, APC
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 830
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 553-5747
      E-mail: daren@schlecterlaw.com


SURFSTITCH: Founder to Watch Asset Sell-Off After Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carrie LaFrenz and James Thomson, writing for The Australian
Financial Review, report that the co-founder and former chief
executive of SurfStitch, Justin Cameron, says he will keep a
"watching brief" on SurfStitch's asset sell-off, which will be
sped up now the company has been hit with a class action lawsuit.

On May 26, SurfStitch requested a voluntary suspension of its
shares that could last until August, following a class action
claim that is likely to dwarf its $19 million market
capitalisation.  This came just days after it warned losses would
double in the year to June due to tough market conditions across
its Australian, British and American operations.

The company now plans to speed up efforts to cut costs and sell
parts or all of the business.

Mr Cameron resigned unexpectedly in March 2016 to pursue a private
equity takeover of SurfStitch which never eventuated.  But he
remains a substantial shareholder, with a 3 per cent stake in the
business.

"The company has publicly stated that all its assets are for sale.
As a significant shareholder I'm maintaining a watching brief on
what it has for sale," Mr Cameron told The Australian Financial
Review.

"I'm an outsider.  I'm not party to legal proceedings but I'm
extremely saddened by the proceedings given the business and that
Lex [Pedersen, co-founder] and I built up over 24 hours a day,
seven days a week over 10 years."

SurfStitch shares got as high as $2.09 in November 2015, but a
profit warning delivered by Mr Cameron in February 2016 saw the
shares start their long dive. The stock last traded at 6õ.

Changes in strategy

Mr Cameron said he was disappointed with the performance of the
company and pointed to a significant changes in strategy after his
departure.

"When I left the business there was significant opportunities to
execute on our strategy.  The new management team changed the
strategy," he said.

"We were confident at the time we would execute on the strategy,
but I left to pursue a private equity opportunity with the
business.  I had an opportunity to grow the business and due to
this conflict of interest I had to step down."

SurfStitch has requested its shares remain suspended until late
August, when it will deliver its full-year results.  The company
said it would explore a way to settle the legal claim "at a level
that would permit the company's continued financial viability".

Mr Cameron said the future for the company was "very
unpredictable, who knows if it will trade again".

But he said "significant time and money appears to be focused on
litigation as opposed to managing the business".

The class action, being run by litigation funder Vannin Capital
and law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, will have its
first appearance before Queensland Supreme Court Justice Peter
Applegarth.

Quinn Emanuel partner Damian Scattini --
damianscattini@quinnemanuel.com -- said the claim would proceed,
despite SurfStitch's suspension.

He said he had an open mind about finding an early resolution to
the matter "without spending a lot of money on lawyers", but said
he would continue to push for his clients to be made whole. [GN]


TANGOE INC: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against Tangoe, Inc., in the United States District
Court for the District of Connecticut for violations of Sections
14(d), 14(e) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
("Exchange Act") in connection with the Proposed Transaction
between Tangoe and Marlin Management Company, LLC ("Marlin").

On April 28, 2017, Tangoe and Marlin entered into a definitive
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement").  Pursuant
to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Marlin commenced the Tender
Offer on May 12, 2017 (the "Tender Offer") to acquire all of the
outstanding shares of Tangoe's common stock at a purchase price of
$6.50 per share in cash.  The Tender Offer is scheduled to expire
at 10:00 a.m. (EDT) on June 13, 2017.  According to the Complaint,
the proposed transaction is the product of a flawed process and
deprives Tangoe's public stockholders of the ability to
participate in the Company's long-term prospects.

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.

Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm. [GN]


TIME WARNER: Chicago Firm Seeks to Lead as Plaintiff in TCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Severance, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Time
Warner Inc. was given an extension until May 16 to answer to
allegations of a class action lawsuit brought forward by a law
firm that is also seeking to represent a proposed class.

Shimson Wexler alleges the cable giant made harassing phone calls
to customers trying to sell its products.  Shimshon Wexler, based
in Chicago, filed its lawsuit in late March against Aicom
Solutions LLC, Time Warner Cable, Time Warner Cable Media LLC,
Charter Communications Inc. and Charter Communications Operating
LLC.

In its case, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, the firm defined its class this way: "Each
person that was sent one or more telephone facsimile messages from
Time Warner Cable after Feb. 24, 2013, promoting the commercial
availability of digital telephone or internet services but not
stating on its first page that the recipient may make a request to
the sender not to send any future ads and that failure to comply
with such a request within 30 days is unlawful."

Its motion to certify the class was filed March 27.

The lawsuit states that the defendants sent advertising facsimile
to the plaintiffs and their class in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

The law firm stipulated in the complaint that it received at least
one ad by fax on Dec. 14, 2016. In that fax, the plaintiff claims
the defendants illegally sent offers of telephone and internet
services.

The complaint said, "the court should exercise its discretion to
increase the amount of the statutory damages award to an amount
equal to not more than three times the amount."  The law firm also
wants the court to prohibit the defendants from faxing ads in the
future.

The suit also wants the law firm to appoint the plaintiff as the
representative of the class.  The firm will be represented in the
case by Julia L. Titolo and Phillip A. Bock. [GN]


TIMMINCO LTD: Ontario Court Declines to Grant Retroactive Relief
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin O'Brien, Esq., and Lauren Harper, Esq., at Osler Hoskin &
Harcourt LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that in its recent
decision in Pennyfeather v. Timminco Limited, the Court of Appeal
for Ontario declined to retroactively relieve the plaintiff from
the strict application of the statutory limitation period for
secondary market securities class actions. The Court upheld the
motion judge's dismissal of the action on the basis that the three
year limitation period set out in s. 138.14 of the Ontario
Securities Act had expired before the plaintiff had sought leave
to proceed with his action, and that the plaintiff had failed to
meet the test for nunc pro tunc relief. This decision was the
Court of Appeal's first opportunity to apply the test established
by the Supreme Court of Canada in Green v. CIBC for the granting
of nunc pro tunc relief in a secondary market securities class
action.

Limitations period in securities class actions

Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act requires a plaintiff to obtain
leave of the court to bring a statutory claim for
misrepresentation. The Securities Act also imposes a three year
limitation period for bringing a claim, which commences running
from the date of the alleged misrepresentation (regardless of
issues of discoverability). However, s. 28 of the Ontario Class
Proceedings Act, 1992 ("CPA") suspends any limitation period
applicable to a cause of action asserted in a class action on the
commencement of a class proceeding. The question of whether s. 28
of the CPA operates to suspend the limitation period as soon a
claim is commenced or only after leave to bring the claim is
granted under the Securities Act spawned considerable litigation
until it was ultimately resolved by the Supreme Court in its 2015
in Green v. CIBC. This ambiguity has since been resolved by the
introduction of s. 138.14(2) of the Securities Act which
explicitly suspends the limitation period for bringing a secondary
market securities claim on the date a notice of motion for leave
under s. 138.8 is filed with the court.

Three years prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Green v.
CIBC, in an earlier decision in the Timminco proceeding, the Court
of Appeal held that the three year limitation period is not
suspended until leave is actually granted ("Timminco #1").
Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim was presumptively time-barred
in Timminco #1 because the plaintiff did not obtain leave within
the three year limitation period. Leave to appeal to the Supreme
Court of Canada was denied.

In its 2015 consideration of this same issue, the Supreme Court of
Canada confirmed in Green v. CIBC that s. 28 of the Class
Proceedings Act does not suspend the operation of the limitation
period for a statutory claim for misrepresentation until leave has
been granted. However, it also held that the court has inherent
jurisdiction to grant leave on a retroactive, nunc pro tunc basis,
to alleviate the plaintiff from the strict application of the
statutory limitation period. Justice Cote, in the lead judgment,
summarized a non-exhaustive list of factors the court should
consider in determining whether to exercise this discretion, but
pointed out that there is an important limit on that discretion.
This limit, which the parties in Timminco referred to as the "red-
line" rule, requires that the plaintiff at least seek leave within
the limitation period.

The motion judge denied retroactive relief

Relying on Green v. CIBC, the plaintiff (whose action had been
dismissed in Timminco #1), brought a motion seeking to reinstate
his action on the basis that he should be granted nunc pro tunc
relief. The motion judge refused to grant retroactive relief
because the plaintiff had not sought leave until after the expiry
of the three-year limitation period. The plaintiff appealed
relying primarily on the finding that he was not barred by the
red-line rule because he brought a motion for "conditional leave"
three days before the expiry of the limitation period.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision and denied
relief

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision and
dismissed the appeal. The Court relied on Justice Cote's comments
in Green v. CIBC that "if the judge has given sufficient weight to
all the relevant considerations, an appellate court must defer to
his or her exercise of discretion". The Court found the motion
judge in this case was particularly well-suited to assess the
circumstances of the case having managed the class action since
its commencement. As the motion judge adequately considered the
factors listed in Green, including the plaintiff's diligence (or
lack thereof) in asserting the claim, the merits of the claim,
acts of the court that may have delayed the proceeding, prejudice
to the defendants, and the purpose of the statutory limitation
period, the Court held that he made no errors in principle in the
exercise of his discretion.

The Court also held that it was unnecessary in this case to
determine whether nunc pro tunc relief could be granted where the
plaintiff fails to seek leave before the expiry of the three-year
limitation period. It nevertheless stated in obiter that, because
the plaintiff brought a motion for conditional leave prior to the
expiry of the three-year limitation period, this may have served
as the anchor for nunc pro tunc relief. The Court found that the
red-line rule might not apply in this case because the granting of
nunc pro tunc relief would not necessarily undermine the purpose
of the limitation period. However, the Court upheld the motion
judge's discretionary refusal not to grant the relief and did not
decide this issue.

Implications

While s. 138.14(2) of the Securities Act clarified that the
limitation period is suspended when the plaintiff files a motion
for leave, this decision provides important insight into the
discretionary nature of nunc pro tunc relief. The Court
demonstrated that where the motion judge gave sufficient weight to
all of the relevant factors, appellate courts should defer, even
where the denial of such relief is dispositive of the entire
proceeding. Deference appears to be particularly important where
the motion judge was involved in the full history of the action
and is therefore especially well positioned to determine whether
the equities favour granting discretionary relief nunc pro tunc.
[GN]


TITEFLEX CORP: Settles Class Action Over Defective Gas Tubing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Angeion Group and Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP on May 30 announced
a class action settlement with Titeflex Corp. and Ward
Manufacturing, LLC concerning allegedly defective Gastite(R) and
Wardflex(R) corrugated stainless steel gas tubing ("CSST") used to
supply natural gas and propane to gas appliances provides
important benefits designed to reduce the risk of gas leaks and
fires in buildings and homes in Maryland that have CSST installed.

Among other things, the settlement provides (1) a free safety
inspection by a licensed and qualified electrician; (2) a
subsidized repair, if needed; and (3) a discount on a Lightning
Protection System, if qualified.

Homeowners that have natural gas or propane in their home,
building or other structure may also have CSST.  CSST is usually
routed beneath, through or alongside floor joists in your
basement, inside interior wall cavities or on top of ceiling
joists in attic spaces.  CSST is often used to connect fixed
appliances such as water heaters, stoves, and gas fireplaces.

Homeowners may qualify for a free inspection if they: (1) own a
house or other structure in the State of Maryland with CSST
installed; (2) the CSST is either Titeflex's Gastite(R) or Ward's
Wardflex(R) CSST; (3) the property was owned as of March 15, 2017
and installed the CSST after September 5, 2006 or they purchased
the property before September 5, 2006 with the CSST already
installed; (4) and the homeowner submits a Claim Form.

Homeowners can submit a Claim Form online by visiting the
settlement website -- www.CSSTsettlement.com.  Homeowners can also
get a copy of the Claim Form by downloading it from the website,
emailing CSSTSettlement@AdministratorClassAction.com or by calling
1-844-357-8798 toll-free.

More information is available at the website:
www.CSSTsettlement.com or by contacting Gary E. Mason, Whitfield
Bryson & Mason LLP at gmason@wbmllp.com or (202) 640-1160. [GN]


TITLEMAX INC: Objections to Order Denying Rule 56(d) Overruled
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DEXTER SISTRUNK, individually and on behalf
of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v.
TITLEMAX, INC., et al., Defendants, No. 5:14-CV-628-RP (W.D.
Tex.), The United States District Court for the Western District
of Texas, San Antonio Division, overruled the Defendants'
objections to order denying Rule 56(d) motion.

This case is a class action concerning the Defendants' alleged
violations of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act ("DPPA"), 18
U.S.C. Sections 2721, et seq.  Though initially filed in July
2014, a class was only certified in this matter on Nov. 21, 2016.
Days later, on Nov. 30, 2016, the parties filed a joint notice
informing the Court that the Plaintiff intended to file a motion
for summary judgment and that the Defendants would oppose the
motion as premature pursuant to Rule 56(d), complaining that no
discovery had taken place on the merits.

The Plaintiff filed his motion for summary judgment a month later,
on Dec. 28, 2016.  Two weeks later -- on the last day to respond
to the Plaintiff's motion -- the Defendants filed an unopposed
motion for an extension of time to respond.  The reason for
seeking the extension was not to conduct additional discovery
pursuant to Rule 56(d), but rather to engage in a second mediation
after a first attempt failed.  U.S. Magistrate Judge Henry
Bemporad granted the Defendants' request to extend the deadline to
14 days after the mediation.  The Plaintiff informed the
Magistrate Court that the second mediation failed on Feb. 22,
2017, making the deadline for the Defendants to respond to the
Plaintiff's summary judgment motion March 8, 2017.

The Defendants filed their response to the Plaintiff's motion on
March, 8, 2017, and also filed a motion to continue consideration
of the summary judgment motion for an unspecified period of time
so that the Defendants could conduct discovery on several topics.
These topics included: (1) whether the employees identified in the
Plaintiff's summary judgment motion acted within the scope of
their employment; (2) whether the employees misused access to
driver records or acted willfully; (3) whether the employees
engaged in criminal conduct; (4) the identity of the individuals
who created a list of vehicle owners; and (5) the extent of any
class member's actual damages.

The Magistrate Judge denied the Defendants' Rule 56(d) motion on
March 10, 2017.  He found as to the first four topics that the
Defendants had not diligently sought discovery despite knowing of
the relevant evidence for more than a year.  He also pointed out
that the Defendants had not explained why they had sought a
continuance after previously seeking an extension of time to
respond.  Additionally, the Magistrate Judge found discovery into
the issue of actual damages to be futile as the class was not
seeking actual damages.

The Defendants thereafter filed a motion to reconsider the denial
before the Magistrate Judge and simultaneously filed objections to
the Magistrate Judge's order before this Court along with a
request to stay consideration of those objections until the
Magistrate Judge ruled on their motion for reconsideration.  The
Magistrate Judge issued an order denying the Defendants' motion
for reconsideration as moot following his issuance of a Report and
Recommendation on the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.
This Court therefore finds it appropriate to consider the
Defendants' objections at this time.  The Court will proceed to
consider any objections to the Magistrate Court's Report and
Recommendation concerning the Plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 2, 2017 order is available at
https://is.gd/hkxkCZ from Leagle.com

Dexter Sistrunk, Plaintiff, represented by Leslie J. Strieber, III
-- lstrieber@lawdcm.com -- Davis, Cedillo & Mendoza, Inc..

Dexter Sistrunk, Plaintiff, represented by Michael E. Pierce,
Pierce Skrabanek Bruera, PLLC, Ricardo G. Cedillo --
rcedillo@lawdcm.com -- Davis, Cedillo & Mendoza & Cory S. Fein --
cory@coryfeinlaw.com -- Cory S. Fein, PC.

TitleMax, Inc., Defendant, represented by L. Bradley Hancock --
Brad.Hancock@hklaw.com -- Holland & Knight LLP.

TitleMax Holdings, LLC, Defendant, represented by Christopher
David Johnsen, Holland & Knight, LLP, Gerald Thomas Drought --
gdrought@mdtlaw.com -- Martin & Drought, P.C., L. Bradley Hancock,
Holland & Knight LLP & Mathis B. Bishop, Martin & Drought, P.C..

TMX Finance, LLC, Defendant, represented by Gerald Thomas Drought,
Martin & Drought, P.C., L. Bradley Hancock, Holland & Knight LLP &
Mathis B. Bishop, Martin & Drought, P.C..

TMX Finance Holdings, Inc., Defendant, represented by L. Bradley
Hancock, Holland & Knight LLP.

TitleMax of Texas, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher
David Johnsen, Holland & Knight, LLP, Gerald Thomas Drought,
Martin & Drought, P.C., L. Bradley Hancock, Holland & Knight LLP,
Martin G. Durkin, Holland & Knight & Mathis B. Bishop, Martin &
Drought, P.C.


TRADER JOE'S: Suit over Underfilled Canned Tuna Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Court house News Service reported that
the Hon. Judge Otis D. Wright, II dismissed a class action in Los
Angeles claiming Trader Joe's canned tuna is underfilled, as the
state law claims depend on an FDA regulation, and consumers cannot
file as private litigants to enforce federal Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act provisions.

The case is captioned, In re Trader Joe's Tuna Litigation, Case
No. 2:16-cv-01371-ODW(AJWx)(C.D. Cal.).


TRANS UNION: Loses Bid to Seek Review of Summary Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned SERGIO L. RAMIREZ, Plaintiff, v. TRANS
UNION, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 12-cv-00632-JSC (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Jacqueline Scott Corley of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California denied the Defendant's motion
for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court's
summary judgment ruling and the denial of its motion for
decertification with respect to the FCRA Section 1681g claim.

This class action revolves around a service the Defendant provides
to its customers which identifies persons whose names match
individuals (known as Specially Designated Nationals or SDNs) on
the United States government's list of terrorists, drug
traffickers, and others with whom Americans are prohibited from
doing business.  At particular issue in this case are Trans
Union's business practices with respect to this product during a
six-month period from January to July 2011.

The Plaintiff contends that during this period Trans Union
violated three Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1681
et seq., requirements: (i) that credit reporting agencies
establish "reasonable procedures" to ensure the "maximum possible
accuracy" of information provided about consumers under 15 U.S.C.
Section 1681e(b); (ii) that credit reporting agencies "clearly and
accurately" disclose "all information in the consumers file at the
time of a request" under Section 1681g(a), and (iii) that credit
reporting agencies provide a statement of consumer rights with
each such disclosure under Section 1681g(c).  The Plaintiff
alleges that Trans Union's name-only matching protocol was not a
reasonable procedure designed to ensure the maximum possible
accuracy of consumer information, and that Trans Union's
disclosure of OFAC information to consumers violated Section 1681g
by failing to disclose OFAC information to consumers
simultaneously with their consumer reports and by failing to
provide a statement of consumer rights with the separately
furnished OFAC disclosure.

The Court previously denied Trans Union's motion for summary
judgment on each of the Plaintiff's claims and has repeatedly
rejected Trans Union's argument that the Plaintiff lacks Article
III standing and that this case is not maintainable as a class
action.  Trans Union now moves for leave to file a motion for
reconsideration of the Court's summary judgment ruling and the
denial of Trans Union's motion for decertification with respect to
the FCRA Section 1681g claim.

Trans Union contends that a recent decision of the Fourth Circuit
Court of Appeals in Dreher v. Experian Info. Sols. constitutes a
material change in the law which warrants reconsideration of the
Court's rulings (i) certifying a class for purposes of the
Plaintiff's Section 1681g claims, and (ii) denying summary
judgment on the 1681g claims.  The Court disagrees.

The Court held, "Dreher is non-binding authority.  It is both out-
of-circuit and addresses a different subsection of 1681g.  Dreher
was under 1681g(a)(2) which requires consumer reporting agencies
to clearly and accurately disclose to the consumer the sources of
the information; except that the sources of information acquired
solely for use in preparing an investigative consumer report and
actually used for no other purpose need not be disclosed."

The Court added, "Plaintiff's Section 1681g claims here are
brought under 1681g(a), which provides in part that every consumer
reporting agency will, upon request, clearly and accurately
disclose to the consumer: (1) All information in the consumer's
file at the time of the request and 1681g(c)(2) which requires
consumer reporting agencies to provide a summary of consumer
rights with each written disclosure by the agency to the consumer.
The Plaintiff here has alleged a concrete and particularized
injury beyond a bare procedural violation; namely, that consumers
might not understand that they have an OFAC alert in their
consumer file and might not know how to challenge the OFAC alert
because of the 1681g(a) and (c)(2) violations."

Notwithstanding Trans Union's protestations to the contrary, the
Ninth Circuit rule regarding standing in a class action is clear:
in a class action, standing is satisfied if at least one named
plaintiff meets the requirements, the Court concluded.  Mr.
Ramirez's Article III standing is sufficient to establish standing
for the class.

Accordingly, Trans Union's motion for leave to file a motion for
reconsideration is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 2, 2017 order is available at
https://is.gd/nd1svs from Leagle.com

Sergio L. Ramirez, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew J. Ogilvie,
Anderson, Ogilvie & Brewer.

Sergio L. Ramirez, Plaintiff, represented by Carol McLean Brewer,
Anderson -- carol@aoblawyers.com -- Ogilvie & Brewer LLP, David A.
Searles -- dsearles@consumerlawfirm.com -- Francis & Mailman,
James A. Francis -- jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com -- Francis and
Mailman, P.C. & John Soumilas -- jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com --
Francis and Mailman, P.C..

Trans Union, LLC, Defendant, represented by Bruce Steven Luckman -
- bluckman@shermansilverstein.com -- Sherman Silverstein Kohl Rose
and Podolsky, Julia B. Strickland -- jstrickland@stroock.com --
Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, Stephen Julian Newman --
snewman@stroock.com -- Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, Brian C.
Frontino -- bfrontino@stroock.com -- Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP
& Jason S. Yoo -- syoo@stroock.com -- Stroock & Stroock & Lavan
LLP.


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Plaintiffs Die Waiting for Settlement Checks
--------------------------------------------------------------
9 News reports that about 7,000 former students from President
Trump's now shuttered real estate seminar business Trump
University are due to receive checks in coming months -- but some
have died waiting.

The disclosure came as part of a court filing seeking to beat back
a last-ditch appeal by a Florida litigant that could delay the
payments from the $25 million settlement for months or years.

"For some class members, the relief is already too late," wrote
Rachel Jensen, a San Diego attorney that helped secure the
settlement for the two class-action suits filed in federal court.

Boyce Chait, 85, of Springfield, N.J.,died in January while
waiting for a refund on his $34,995 Trump University "mentorship
program" tuition.

Several other plaintiffs have died since the first lawsuits were
filed in 2010, according to claims forms. Payments can still be
issued to the estates of former students.

The seven-year legal battle came to a close in November, just
after Election Day, when Trump attorneys announced they'd settle
despite previous assurances the President and his company would
battle the case at trial. The settlement was approved in March,
and Trump admitted no wrongdoing.

Chait and his wife Evelyn told TIME in 2015 they were members of
the Tea Party and planned to vote for Trump over Hillary Clinton.
Nearly 200 of the litigants in the case registered as part of the
"elder abuse" subclass, meaning they were 65 or older at the time
of purchase. By that measure, more could pass away in coming
months and years, Jensen said.

One of the class action lawsuit's namesakes, Sonny Low of
California, is 76. He testified last year that he worries his
health may mean he could not survive the litigation or be able to
enjoy the financial refund. Low said he also still owes $8,000
from his 2009 Trump University purchase of a $25,000 "in-person
mentorship" on his credit card -- with 16% interest.

While those checks for "90 cents on the dollar" are stuck in legal
limbo, others have said they are facing bankruptcy and foreclosure
on their homes.

John Brown, 65, another former student in New York, owes $19,000
on his credit card from a 2009 class and said he was delaying
retirement until the settlement arrives, according to court
documents.

J.R. Everett, 73, of Florida, said she yanked $25,000 out of her
401K plan to purchase a "TU Gold Elite Program" in 2009 -- and
plans to put the money back after her check arrives.

Standing in the way is an appeal by Sherri Simpson, an attorney in
Florida. Simpson has dug in, claiming she was unhappy with the
settlement and unwittingly signed away her rights to pursue future
lawsuits against Trump University. She also wants an apology from
the President.

Plaintiffs in the case want Simpson to pay a bond of $220,833 to
cover the new administrative costs of continuing to delay the
case.

U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel is set to rule on whether to
Simpson needs to put up the money in coming weeks. The appeal is
being heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in
San Francisco. [GN]


U.S. STEEL: Suit Says Clairton Coke Pollution Harming Residents
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Aupperlee, writing for Trib Live, reports Cheryl Hurt can
see the stacks of U.S. Steel's Clairton Coke Works from the window
of the day care see runs out of her home.

And she checks them everyday before she lets the children outside
to play.

"I look at the sky to see how bad the smoke is coming out of the
stacks," Hurt, a lifelong Clairton resident, said.

Hurt and John Marcus, of neighboring Jefferson Hills, have sued
U.S. Steel over emissions from its Clairton Coke Works. The
lawsuit, filed on May 25 in the Allegheny County Court of Common
Pleas, alleges that U.S. Steel failed to contain toxic and
hazardous substances and that the pollution has harmed people
living near the coke works and hurt property values.

Meghan Cox, a spokeswoman for U.S. Steel, said the company does
not comment on pending litigation.

The lawsuit claims that pollution from the coke works exposes
people to sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, ammonia, benzene,
carbon disulfide, lead, naphthalene, toluene, a mix of methane,
carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide and other toxic and hazardous
chemicals. The pollution has been linked to heart and respiratory
diseases, cancer and asthma. Hurt said many children need to use
inhalers while playing sports because of asthma and it seems like
everyone in town has a relative or knows someone with cancer.

"We want to breathe," Hurt said. "Bottom line, we want to
breathe."

Downtown attorney Rob Peirce, Esq. said several Clairton residents
contacted his law firm with concerns about the coke works. Hurt
and Marcus have requested that the lawsuit be a class-action suit.
As a class-action suit, people living within about three-mile
radius of the coke works could join. About 7,000 people are
possibly affected by the coke works, Peirce said.

U.S. Steel agreed to make improvements at the coke works last year
in a settlement with the Allegheny County Health Department. The
agreement required U.S. Steel to inspect the walls of the coke
ovens and come up with a plan to fix them, meet standards to limit
pollution within three years, keep coal inside ovens for less time
to reduce emissions and make observations of smoke plumes from
equipment several times a day.

U.S. Steel paid nearly $4 million in fines to the county since
2009 because of emissions violations.

Hurt said she feels the county as well as state, federal and local
governments, haven't done enough to fix the problem.

"It's time that we try to correct some of the things that are
wrong," Hurt said. "Something has to happen in terms of correcting
the pollution that we're exposed to." [GN]


UCP INC: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., on May 30 disclosed that it has filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of holders of UCP, Inc.
("UCP") common stock in connection with the proposed acquisition
of UCP by Century Communities, Inc. ("Century") announced on April
11, 2017 (the "Complaint").  The Complaint, which alleges
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against UCP, its
Board of Directors (the "Board"), and Century, is captioned Tola
v. UCP, Inc., Case No. 5:17-cv-02713 (N.D. Cal.).  If you wish to
discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice
or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel,
Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 2
Righter Parkway, Suite 120, Wilmington, DE 19803, by telephone at
(888) 969-4242; by e-mail at info@rl-legal.com; or at
http://rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/.

On April 10, 2017, UCP entered into an agreement and plan of
merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Century.  Pursuant to the
Merger Agreement, shareholders of UCP will receive $5.32 in cash
and 0.2309 of a share in a newly combined company for each share
of UCP stock they own (the "Proposed Transaction").  Among other
things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to secure
shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction, defendants
issued materially incomplete disclosures in a registration
statement (the "Registration Statement") filed with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017.  The
Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement, which
recommends that UCP stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed
Transaction, omits material information necessary to enable
shareholders to make an informed decision as to how to vote on the
Proposed Transaction, including material information with respect
to UCP"s financial projections, the analyses performed by UCP"s
financial advisor, and the background of the Proposed Transaction.
The Complaint seeks injunctive and equitable relief and damages on
behalf of holders of UCP common stock.  If you wish to serve as
lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 31,
2017.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation.  Any member of
the proposed class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.

With offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden City, New York,
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. -- http://www.rigrodskylong.com--
regularly prosecutes securities fraud, shareholder corporate, and
shareholder derivative litigation on behalf of shareholders in
state and federal courts throughout the United States. [GN]


UNILEVER: Faces Fraud Class Action Over "Natural" Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Georgina Caldwell of Global Cosmetics News, citing a report
published by Legal NewsLine, reported that Unilever is facing a
class action lawsuit after a consumer accused the company of fraud
and negligent misrepresentation in a complaint filed in the US
District Court for the Central District of California.

The plaintiff alleges that he suffered damage after using a
shampoo and conditioner billed as "natural" that contained
synthetic ingredients.  He is accusing Conopco, for the Anglo-
Dutch FMCG giant, of using the term despite being aware that the
products contain artificial ingredients.

The complainant is seeking trial by jury, as well as compensatory
and punitive damages and costs.  This is the second such suit to
be bought against Unilever this year, with two women accusing the
manufacturer of St Ives facial scrub of false advertising in
January.  Colgate-Palmolive is also battling a similar claim over
its Tom's of Maine brand. [GN]


VANGUARD: Breach of Contract Claim Can Proceed, Judge Rules
-----------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
a prospective class action filed by a couple claiming investment
firm Vanguard overcharged them on share commissions by 250 percent
can move forward on a breach of contract claim.

U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in part Vanguard's motion
to dismiss Alex and Orit Taksir's case against Vanguard.  While
allowing the breach of contract claim to go through, Rufe tossed
the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law claim.

The Taksirs claimed that after they joined the "Vanguard Voyager"
program, an enhanced service offered by the firm, the commission
per share went up from two dollars to seven dollars, something the
couple alleged they were not informed would happen.

The central question in the case was whether the breach of
contract claim was pre-empted by the Securities Litigation Uniform
Standards Act's requirement that plaintiffs allege "a
misrepresentation or omission of material fact," or "a
manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance, in connection
with the purchase or sale of a covered security."

Vanguard argued that the "in connection with" requirement was
satisfied if the securities transaction and the fraud coincided,
whereas the plaintiffs argued that the requirement was satisfied
only if the fraud was material to the transaction in this case,
opting for premium services without knowing of a price increase.

The breach claim survived, Judge Rufe said in her opinion, because
U.S. Supreme Court precedent "make[s] clear that fraudulent or
deceptive conduct must be 'material' -- meaning that it makes a
significant difference -- to an individual's decision to purchase
or sell a covered security to satisfy SLUSA's 'in connection with'
requirement."

"Plaintiffs' claims do not satisfy this requirement because
plaintiffs do not allege that defendant's misrepresentation that
its brokerage commissions were $2, rather than $7, made a
significant difference to their decision to purchase Nokia shares
(or any other securities)," Judge Rufe said.

However, Judge Rufe granted Vanguard's request to throw out the
Taksirs' UTPCPL claim on the grounds that they failed to allege
justifiable reliance.

"Here, plaintiffs do not allege justifiable reliance, and more or
less disclaim it, as they argue that defendant's alleged
misrepresentations concerning its brokerage commissions did not
induce them to maintain an account with defendant or to engage in
any securities transactions, as explained above," Judge Rufe said.

The Taksirs' attorney, Christopher Nelson of the Weiser Law Firm
in Berwyn, said, "We're pleased with the court's ruling and we're
happy to get to discovery to prove the allegations of our case."
Stuart Steinberg of Dechert represents Vanguard and declined to
comment. [GN]


VIRGINIA: Judge Won't Reconsider Drivers' Class Action v. DMV
-------------------------------------------------------------
WVIR reports that a federal judge in Charlottesville will not
reconsider a lawsuit filed over a Virginia law that suspends
people's driver's licenses if they fail to pay court fees.

The Charlottesville-based Legal Aid Justice Center filed the class
action lawsuit in July 2016.

The lawsuit argues the DMV's practice of automatically suspending
the licenses of people who fail to pay fines and court fees
unfairly targets the poor.

A judge dismissed the lawsuit in February, but Legal Aid Justice
Center asked him to reconsider.

In an order, the judge denied the request, writing the issue was,
"fairly litigated before." [GN]


VISA INC: Broadway Grill Sues Over Alleged Antitrust Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Underwood, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that it is all a matter of semantics for a California restaurant
that alleged antitrust violations against a major credit brand.

It came down to the truest definition of "class" in an opinion set
by Judge Mary M. Schroeder and dissent by Judge Johnnie B.
Rawlinson on May 18 when plaintiff Broadway Grill Inc., was not
allowed to amend its antitrust violation complaint against Visa to
modify the meaning of the class-action suit under the Class Action
Fairness Act (CAFA) in order to deny federal court jurisdiction
over the case.

District Judge Steven Paul Logan, also presiding over the matter,
agreed with Judge Schroeder.

"After [the] defendants removed the action to federal court under
the Class Action Fairness Act, [the] plaintiffs amended their
complaint to change the plaintiff class to include only
'California citizens,'  in order to eliminate diversity, and then
sought a remand, which the district court granted," according to
the decision.

Basing their decision on Benko v. Quality Loan Service Corp., the
panel "held that in this case, [the] plaintiffs had attempted to
do what the Class Action Fairness Act was intended to prevent,"
which is "changing the nature of the class to divest the federal
court of jurisdiction," according to the court's opinion.

"I respectfully dissent," Judge Rawlinson said in the decision. "I
agree with the district court that the amendment of the complaint
in this case fits within the parameters recently articulated by us
in Benko v. Quality Loan Serv. Corp."

The original argument stemmed from Broadway Grill filing action
against Visa Inc. for violating the state antitrust laws through
fixed rates and "and preventing merchants from applying a
surcharge for the use of credit cards," according to the opinion,
further noting that the complaint described the class to include
any California businesses that had accepted Visa-branded cards
since 2004.

"[The] class as described in the original state court complaint
included both California and non-California citizens," according
to the opinion.  Because it included in-state and out-of-state
citizens, the court held that "CAFA's minimal diversity
requirement was satisfied."

That is when the California restaurant attempted to amend the
"class" definition to entail California residents "only in order
to remove any considered minimal diversity," according to the
opinion. "Thus, unlike other civil actions, where there must be
complete diversity between named plaintiffs and defendants, CAFA
requires only what is termed 'minimal diversity.'"

The panel deemed that while the law delivers "minimal diversity"
at the time of removal, "the amendment in this case, however, did
not provide an explanation of the allegations, but changed the
definition of the class itself," according to the order.

Judge Logan disagreed.  According to his dissent in the opinion,
the class amendment "in no way" altered the nature of the action
against Visa. [GN]


WELLPET LLC: Class Action Over "Made in the USA" Label Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Maynar, writing for ConsumerAffairs, reports that
Every dog may have its day, but a multi-state class action suit
against Wellpet LLC's pet food products will not go forward after
being dismissed in a Chicago federal court.  In the suit, lead
plaintiff Dale Sabo alleged that Wellpet made false and deceptive
claims surrounding its "Made in the USA" labeling.

The claims were false, Sabo said, because the products contained
vitamins and minerals sourced from outside the U.S., a fact that
he alleged violated consumer fraud statutes in nine states.
However, while District Judge Elaine E. Bucklo conceded that the
plaintiff made persuasive arguments, she ultimately ruled in favor
of Wellpet because the class could not prove any actual financial
damages as a result of the labeling.

"Where the plaintiff's claim loses traction . . . is on the issue
of actual damages. To prevail on an ICFA claim, it is not enough
to establish a violation of the statute; plaintiffs must also
plead and prove actual damages, i.e., 'actual pecuniary loss.',"
she said.

Couldn't prove damages

As part of his argument, Sabo claimed that the vitamin C present
in Wellpet's Wellness Large Breed Puppy and Adult Foods came in
the form of ascorbic acid, which has not been produced in the U.S.
since 2009.  And, since these minerals tend to come in packs, he
argued that it was likely that other vitamins were sourced from
outside the U.S. as well.

Sabo further claimed that he puts a premium on American-made
products, and that he and other Americans are generally willing to
pay more for them.  He alleged that he and other members of the
class were misled by the products' labeling and "paid more for
them than they were worth in reliance on the false 'Made in the
USA' label."

However, in her decision Judge Bucklo points out that there was no
proof that the class members in fact paid more for the pet food.
"Indeed, [the plaintiff] does not claim that [Wellpet] charged
more for its pet food products because they were (supposedly)
'Made in the USA,' nor does he claim that comparable pet food
products that lacked domestic-source designations were less
expensive," she said.

Judge Bucklo went on to dismiss the suit, saying that the damages
allegations were too speculative and that adequate arguments were
not made for future damages.


WELLS FARGO: Judge Wants Full Pay for Account-Scandal Victims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Wells Fargo must guarantee full compensation and credit
history repairs for an estimated 2.73 million victims of its sham
accounts scandal before a judge will approve a proposed $142
million settlement.

U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria laid out his conditions for
approving the deal in a ruling May 24, less than one week after
several lawyers urged him to reject the settlement during a May 20
hearing.

The class action settlement in Jabbari v. Wells Fargo would
release the bank from liability over its employees opening an
estimated 3.5 million unauthorized accounts and lines of credit
from 2002 to 2017 to meet aggressive sales goals.

A parade of attorneys fighting separate but related class actions
across the nation denounced the deal as letting the bank off too
easy and failing to factor in claims like identity theft and
privacy violations against Wells Fargo.

In a three-page ruling, Chhabria said Wells Fargo must agree to
pledge additional funds if $142 million falls short of fully
compensating victims.

Chhabria insisted on that concession, despite finding that $142
million would likely be more than enough to repay an estimated
2.73 million class members who were charged about $25 each in
phony account fees. The judge said he was still unsure about the
full cost and magnitude of victims' credit-related injuries.

Wells Fargo must provide more details on how it will repair
damaged credit histories and compensate victims for higher
borrowing costs. The parties must also allow the judge the option
of appointing a special settlement master to evaluate the adequacy
of the bank's plan to compensate victims and repair their credit
scores. The judge added he would also thoroughly scrutinize that
plan before granting final approval.

Additionally, Chhabria asked that victims be given an opportunity
to describe in detail any unique credit-related injuries they
suffered when filing claims, and that they be given more time to
file those claims.

Class members should also be allowed to file objections to the
settlement or opt out online, the judge said.

Turning to the bank's release of liability, Chhabria said the bank
should only be released from liability on claims based on the
"identical factual predicate." The release should clearly exclude
claims for violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, based
on debt collection calls for unauthorized accounts.

The judge also urged the parties to consider using an email blast
to notify all current and former Wells Fargo customers about the
settlement.

Wells Fargo and the plaintiffs have until June 8 to file a revised
settlement agreement for preliminary approval.

Attorneys for Wells Fargo and the class did not immediately return
phone calls seeking comment on May 25 afternoon.

In September 2016, the bank said it was getting rid of its sales
goals for credit cards and other banking products, after federal
regulators slammed it with $185 million in fines.

Wells Fargo also faces a shareholder class action claiming its
board of directors breached its fiduciary duty by failing to stop
the bogus accounts scandal that is expected to cost the bank
billions more in future lost revenue.

A consulting firm concluded in October 2016 that the bank could
lose $212 billion in deposits and $8 billion in revenue over the
next 18 months due to the scandal, according to Forbes.

Wells Fargo announced in March that it opened 42 percent fewer
checking accounts and had 55 percent fewer credit card
applications in February this year, compared to February 2016.

The bank is represented by David Fry of Munger Tolles & Olson in
San Francisco. The class is represented by Derek Loeser of Keller
Rohrback in Seattle.

The case is captioned SHAHRIAR JABBARI, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v.
WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case 3:15-cv-02159-VC
(N.D. Cal.).


YELLOWPAGES: 9th Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
James Bogan III, Esq. -- Jbogan@kilpatricktownsend.com -- of
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, in an article for JDSupra,
wrote that while courts continue to grapple with efforts by class
action defendants to "pick off" a named plaintiff by mooting his
or her individual damages claim, class representatives pressing
claims for injunctive and declaratory relief remain subject to
well-settled Article III standing limitations.  Where a class
defendant has an independent basis for challenging the named
plaintiff's damages claim (such as an inability to prove an
essential substantive requirement for monetary relief), these
standing limitations provide powerful tools to terminate the class
representative's injunctive and declaratory relief claims prior to
any class certification determination.

Since the advent of modern class action practice -- following the
amendments to Rule 23 in 1966 -- class action defendants have
tried a variety of strategies to "pick off" a named plaintiff's
damages claim.  In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663
(2016), the Supreme Court held that an unaccepted offer of
judgment for the full amount of the plaintiff's individual damages
claim has no force and does not serve to moot the representative's
claim.  But the Supreme Court reserved judgment on whether a
plaintiff's claims would be mooted if a district court entered
judgment in the plaintiff's favor upon the defendant's depositing
the full amount of the plaintiff's individual claim into an
account payable to the plaintiff.

In Chen v. Allstate Ins. Co., 819 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2016), the
Ninth Circuit addressed the issue left open by the Supreme Court,
holding that a "pick off" executed via an unconditional payment to
the plaintiff did not suffice to moot the claim.  But do these
rules apply to non-monetary claims for injunctive and declaratory
relief? A recent decision by the Ninth Circuit confirms that,
whatever special rules courts may apply to prevent "mooting" of
damages claims, injunctive and declaratory claims asserted by a
putative class plaintiff remain subject to long-settled
limitations on Article III standing. Long v. Ingenio, Inc., No.
15-16810, 2017 WL 1532057 (9th Cir. Apr. 28, 2017).

In Long, a business (Long Photo) claimed to have been defrauded
into purchasing worthless "pay per call" advertising from an
advertising and publishing company ("Yellowpages").  But Long
Photo never paid for the advertising, an essential requirement for
seeking restitution.  It also pressed claims for injunctive and
declaratory relief as a means of contesting the amounts owed to
Yellowpages for the "pay per call" advertising. Long Photo not
only sought individual relief, but relief on behalf of a putative
class.

Yellowpages moved for summary judgment, challenging Long Photo's
ability to press any damages claim and further arguing that the
parties no longer had any ongoing relationship, such that Long
Photo's claims for injunctive and declaratory relief were moot.
Among other things, Yellowpages explicitly represented that it
would not seek to file a claim against Long Photo for payment and
deliberately did not assert a compulsory counterclaim seeking to
recover the charges at issue.

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of
Yellowpages and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.  Regarding Long
Photo's claim for injunctive relief, the Ninth Circuit ruled that
it did not have standing to pursue a claim for injunctive relief,
given that the parties were no longer in a contractual
relationship, Long Photo was no longer threatened by the alleged
misconduct, and there was no real or immediate threat of
irreparable injury. 2017 WL 1532057, at *1 (citing Hangarter v.
Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 373 F.3d 998, 1021-22 (9th Cir.
2004)).

Regarding Long Photo's claim for declaratory relief, that claim
also was moot, because of Yellowpages' representation it would not
pursue a claim for monetary relief and its binding waiver of any
compulsory counterclaim against Long Photo for the unpaid charges.
Id. (citations omitted).

Having affirmed the grant of summary judgment on Long Photo's
individual claims, the Ninth Circuit also affirmed the dismissal
of the putative class action in its entirety.  "Although Long's
claims for declaratory relief are moot, any class member who had
paid money to Yellowpages would be free to pursue class-wide
monetary and declaratory relief and could reject Yellowpages's
efforts to satisfy the original claims." 2017 WL 1532057, at *1
(citing Campbell-Ewald, 136 S. Ct. at 670).  Because other members
of the putative class (unlike Long Photo) may have viable damages
claim, the class claims were not "'transitory' so as to keep the
case alive until the district court has the opportunity to rule on
class certification." Id. (citing, inter alia, Chen, 819 F.3d at
1142-43).  Thus, the district court properly had dismissed "the
entire lawsuit before reaching class certification." Id.
(citations omitted).

The Long decision shows that, while it continues to be difficult
for class defendants to moot a named plaintiff's damages claim
(especially in the Ninth Circuit), defendants with a separate
basis for attacking the named representative's monetary claim
still can employ traditional standing limitations on declaratory
and injunctive relief claims to terminate putative class actions.
Particularly if the Supreme Court resolves the open "damages
mootness" question from Campbell-Ewald favorably for defendants,
these long-established requirements for equitable relief can
provide the remaining tools a defendant needs to extinguish the
named plaintiff's non-monetary claims. [GN]


ZILLOW: Bay Area Homeowners, Agents React to Zestimates Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Budman, writing for NBC Bay Area, reports that a class
action lawsuit filed against Zillow claims the real estate site's
estimate on the value of homes violates consumer protection laws.

The suit, filed in Chicago, calls Zillow's estimates, or
"Zestimates," illegal appraisals and criticizes the company for
posting the estimates without getting consent from the homeowners.

In the Bay Area, Zillow's estimates are drawing fire from both
real estate agents and homeowners.

Brian Demers, who is selling his Bay Area home, admits to checking
Zillow to get an idea of what his house is supposed to be worth.
But Mr. Demers said Zillow undervalues his home.

Meanwhile, real estate agent Holly Barr said "Zestimates" often
overvalue homes.

The lawsuit claims Zillow "should not be engaging in this business
practice without a valid appraisal license and, further, the
consent of the homeowner."

In a statement, Zillow said, "We believe the claims in this case
are without merit."

Solo Climber is First Up Yosemite's El Capitan Without Ropes
"We always say that the Zestimate is a starting point to determine
the home's value, and isn't an official appraisal," the statement
read.

The real estate website's information page on the Zestimate said
its accuracy "depends on location and availability of data in an
area."

"Some counties have deeply detailed information on homes such as
number of bedrooms, bathrooms and square footage and others do
not," the page reads.  "The more data available, the more accurate
the Zestimate."

Bay Area Keeps Eye on Security Following Attacks in London
A spokesperson for Zillow added that the company tells homeowners
looking to sell their property "if you're serious about selling
your home you should work with a qualified real estate agent."
According to Zillow's site, the company claims the Zestimate has a
national median error rate of 5 percent. [GN]


ZONI LANGUAGE: 2nd Cir. Affirmed Wage & Overtime Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that the Second Circuit affirmed
dismissal on May 26, of a minimum-wage and overtime complaint
against the Zoni Language Centers in Manhattan by English language
teachers.

The case is captioned, ZHARA FERNANDEZ, TANYA CHAMBERS, KENYA
BROWN, AMY CHU, JOHN VOLPE, ANDREW BULLINGTON, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.
ZONI LANGUAGE CENTERS, INC. (D/B/A ZONI LANGUAGE CENTERS), ZONI
LANGUAGE CENTERS-FLUSHING LLC (D/B/A ZONI LANGUAGE CENTERS), and
ZOILO C. NIETO, Defendants-Appellees, Docket No. 16-1689-cv (2nd
Cir.).


ZOOMPASS HOLDINGS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
---------------------------------------------------------
Naymish Patel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Zoompass Holdings, Inc., Robert Lee, and Brian
Morales, Case No. 2:17-cv-03831 (D.N.J., May 30, 2017), alleges
that the Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies. Specifically, the Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose: (i) Zoompass
unlawfully engaged in a scheme to promote the Company's stock;
(ii) discovery of the foregoing conduct would subject the Company
to heightened regulatory scrutiny and potential criminal
sanctions; and (iii) that as a result of the foregoing, Zoompass'
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

Zoompass Holdings, Inc. develops a mobile money platform that
enables brands to transform their financial interactions with
customers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq.
      LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
      570 Broad Street - Suite 1201
      Newark, NJ 07102
      Telephone: (973) 623-3000
      Facsimile: (973) 623-0858
      E-mail: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

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


ZOOMPASS HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Class Action in New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on May 30 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Zoompass Holdings, Inc. ("Zoompass" or the
"Company") (OTCMKTS:ZPAS) and certain of its officers.  The class
action, filed in United States District Court, District of New
Jersey, and docketed under 17-cv-03831, is on behalf of a class
consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
Zoompass securities, seeking to recover compensable damages caused
by defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Zoompass securities between
April 24, 2017 and May 24, 2017, both dates inclusive, you have
until July 31, 2017 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead
Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained
at www.pomerantzlaw.com.  To discuss this action, contact Robert
S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980.  Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and number of shares purchased.

Zoompass Holdings, Inc. develops a mobile money platform that
enables brands to transform their financial interactions with
customers.  The company also offers mobile money solutions that
include international and domestic money transfers, contractor
payments, direct payroll deposit, merchant payments, and bill
payments.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Zoompass unlawfully engaged in
a scheme to promote the Company's stock; (ii) discovery of the
foregoing conduct would subject the Company to heightened
regulatory scrutiny and potential criminal sanctions; and (iii)
that as a result of the foregoing, Zoompass' public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On May 9, 2017 Zoompass disclosed that it had been "made aware of
and requested by the OTC Markets Group, Inc. to comment on recent
trading and potential promotional activity."

On May 25, 2017, Seeking Alpha published an article alleging that
Zoompass had erroneously denied its involvement with a scheme
designed to promote Zoompass' stock; and that Zoompass had
purposely kept hidden the fact that the Company's CEO was involved
in a pump-and-dump scheme.

On this news, shares of Zoompass fell $0.70 or over 23% to close
at $2.25 per share on May 25, 2017.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.  Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions.  Today, more than 80 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.  The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members. [GN]


* Chesley Wins Beverly Hills Supper Club Faulty Wiring Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WKRC reports that now disbarred attorney Stan Chesley filed a
class action lawsuit against the companies that made the aluminum
wiring and other materials in The Beverly Hills Supper Club.  He
won millions for the victims.

A total of 165 people died in The Beverly Hills Supper Club fire.
Many of the people who died were overcome by fumes given off from
materials that burned.

An investigation found several things contributed to the fire
including faulty aluminum wiring.  The club was also operating
over capacity that night.  And fire codes were not properly
enforced. [GN]


* Employers Still Contend with Class Action Waivers Issue
---------------------------------------------------------
Jon Hyman, Esq. -- jhyman@meyersroman.com -- of Meyers, Roman,
Friedberg & Lewis, in an article for Workforce, wrote that there
has been much judicial and administrative ink spilled over the
past few years over whether the National Labor Relations Act
permits employers to require employees to give up their rights to
litigate or arbitrate class or collective actions.

This is one of the most important issues facing employers, which
have looked to class-action and collective-action waivers as an
important weapon to fight to scourge of wage and hour litigation.
Recently, in NLRB v. Alternative Entertainment, the 6th Circuit
Court joined the battle.

At issue in this case is the following arbitration provision.
By signing this policy, you and AEI also agree that a claim may
not be arbitrated as a class action, also called "representative"
or "collective" actions, and that a claim may not otherwise be
consolidated or joined with the claims of others.

This 6th Circuit concluded that this provision violates Section 7
of the NLRA, which guarantees to employees the right to engage in
protected concerted activity.

The NLRA prohibits mandatory arbitration provisions barring
collective or class action suits because they interfere with
employees' right to engage in concerted activity, not because they
mandate arbitration. These are grounds that would apply to any
contract.

Ultimately, we conclude that the NLRA is unambiguous and that the
statute itself makes clear that the right to concerted activity is
a substantive right.

Checking the scorecards, let's see where we stand on this issue.
Upholding the legality of class-action waivers:

   -- 5th Circuit (and earlier)
   -- 8th Circuit (and earlier)

Concluding that the NLRA invalidates class-action waivers:

   -- 6th Circuit
   -- 7th Circuit
   -- 9th Circuit
   -- California Supreme Court

While the "no's" have it, in reality, this issue is deadlocked, as
the SCOTUS has already agreed to decide this dispute and
(hopefully) resolve this issue once and for all.  This case will
be very interesting to watch, as the Court has already upheld
class-action waivers in consumer agreements.  It remains to be
seen whether layering the NLRA on top of this issue will make a
difference to SCOTUS, although I have my doubts.

For now, follow the law of your Circuit, and stay tuned, as we
should have some much needed clarity on this issue within the
year. [GN]


* IT Industry Faces Employee Age Discrimination Issue
-----------------------------------------------------
Bob Violino, writing for CIO, reports that how old is too old to
work in IT? That depends on who is doing the hiring and paying the
salaries of IT pros. But one thing is for certain: Widespread age
discrimination has become a central issue, affecting many people
working or seeking work in today's IT industry, according to legal
and career experts.

"Large percentages of IT professionals see age discrimination as a
serious problem, and leaders in the tech industry boast of their
preference for young workers," says Cathy Ventrell-Monsees, senior
attorney advisor at the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC).

The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws that make it
illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or employee
because of a person's race, color, religion, sex, national origin,
disability, genetic information, or age.

Although laws against age discrimination have existed for decades,
ageism persists and is more prevalent in certain industries, such
as technology, says David Miklas, an attorney who specializes in
management, labor, and employment law.

Central to this issue is a familiar discriminatory stereotype:
"Many employers believe that older workers are reluctant to try
new technologies," Mr. Miklas says. Worse,  "Older female workers
are more likely to be perceived negatively than older male
workers," he adds.

But the bottom line is also a factor, with firms targeting younger
individuals because they typically demand lower salaries and are
often less demanding about time off, says Damian Cavaleri --
dcavaleri@hnrklaw.com -- a partner in the labor and employment
practice of law firm Hoguet Newman Regal & Kenney LLP.  Especially
at startups.

"In many cases, the existence of age discrimination is not even
acknowledged because the startup culture implicitly seeks recent
college graduates, and creates a culture of high-energy
workplaces, which appear to be incompatible with older employees,"
Mr. Cavaleri says.

Pattern recognition: Ageism in the workplace

The tell-tale signs of age discrimination in the workplace can be
obvious, and often obscured.

These last few weeks I had the lyrics of the popular song from
Albert Hammond stuck in the back of my mind.  And what an
appropriate time for such catchy lyrics, as for the last few weeks
we certainly had our share of rain.

How you are treated compared with younger people with comparable
qualifications is a key indicator of age discrimination, according
to the AARP Foundation, a charitable affiliate of AARP that serves
as an advocate for older workers.

But oftentimes, ageism is more pervasive, and often subtle, in how
you are treated at your organization in general.

"Discriminatory actions based on age are similar to discriminatory
actions based on race or sex," says the EEOC's Ventrell-Monsees.
"Supervisors may make ageist comments about an older worker.
Discriminatory practices include harassment such as frequent name-
calling and belittling.  Common discriminatory practices involve
employers taking away job responsibilities from an older employee
and giving them to a younger employee, and even telling the older
employee to train the younger worker."

Often age bias is reflected in the language used by managers when
discussing career opportunities, says Kelly Dermody, a partner at
the law firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, who specializes
in class and collective actions on behalf of plaintiffs in
employment and consumer cases.

"For example, a manager may explain a lack of promotion on the
basis that the manager wanted 'young blood,' or may describe a
decision not to hire the 'old geezers,'" Ms. Dermody says.  "But
bias may be reflected in patterns even if no biased statements are
used, as when a company never hires anyone older than 30 or limits
the amount of prior experience an applicant may have."

Any age-related comments such as "aren't you getting a little old
for this?" or "wouldn't you rather be spending time with your
grandkids?" (or, these days, even just "kids") are obvious
indicators of bias. Another giveaway is if you are denied access
to a training program or promotion when someone younger with the
same or fewer qualifications is granted the promotion or training
opportunities.

And what if you lose your job as part of a larger layoff? You may
not know this, but you are entitled to receive a list of the
positions and ages of other employees subjected to the
restructuring, Mr. Cavaleri says.  "This may indicate whether
there may be a pattern" showing age discrimination, he says.

Ageism in hiring

When it comes to the job search, age discrimination can be harder
to prove.

It's difficult to tell if you have not been hired for a position
based on your age if you don't get an interview or know who was
hired, Ms. Ventrell-Monsees says.

Still, ageism can be blatant in the hiring process.

"A particularly problematic issue is when an employer has a job
posting declaring a preference for 'new' or 'recent' graduates, or
even declaring a preference for specific graduation year," Mr.
Miklas says. "The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission views
such conduct as illegal because it deters older applicants from
applying."

Despite the legal risks, ageism oftentimes seems like an
acceptable bias. "Employers would never advertise for 'whites
only,' but it is common for employers to run ads that have the
result of having a disparate impact on older workers," Mr. Miklas
says.  "As an example, in 2013 Facebook settled a discrimination
case where they had a job listing that included the language,
'Class of 2007 or 2008 preferred.'"

Another recent problematic trend is for employers to require job
candidates to be "digital natives" as opposed to "digital
immigrants," Mr. Miklas says, with digital native signaling one
who grew up using technology from an early age rather one who
adopted technology later in life.

How to deal with age discrimination

There's no need for you to give in to age discrimination and lose
out on career opportunities.  Here, it's important to know your
rights, says Laurie McCann, senior attorney with AARP Foundation.

The federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) applies to
employers (including federal, state, and local government
agencies) with 20 or more employees.  ADEA protects individuals
age 40 and older from age discrimination in every aspect of the
employment relationship, Ms. McCann says.

The law prohibits age discrimination in decisions about hiring,
firing, layoffs, pay, benefits, promotions, demotions, performance
reviews, or any other condition of employment. States also have
laws protecting against age discrimination. The Workplace Fairness
website provides information on each state's discrimination law.

If you suspect you've discriminated against, it might be a good
idea to let your employer or supervisor know that you are aware of
your rights under the ADEA and/or state law, Ms. McCann says.
Sometimes managers assume workers are not aware of such
protections.

"For those on the job confronting age discrimination, tell someone
in authority, such as [human resources management], about the
concern and that you want to be treated fairly and equally," Ms.
Ventrell-Monsees says.  "Be proactive in requesting training,
coaching, and opportunities to dispel stereotypes."

Also, keep a record of any age-related statements or other
incidents that suggest you are being treated unfairly because of
your age, Ms. McCann says. And depending on personalities and
internal politics, a good first step might be to talk to your
manager about your concerns or file an internal grievance.

"If you are not receiving feedback on your performance, ask for
it," Ms. McCann says.  "You need to know if there are concerns
about your performance so that you have the opportunity to address
them. Sudden changes in performance appraisals are often viewed
with suspicion and may support a claim of discrimination."

Record keeping applies to job interviews as well.

"If an interview raises concerns, take careful notes as soon as
possible after the interview that reflect who was in the
conversation, what was said, and the date of the conversation,"
Ms. Dermody says.  "If you think you are being denied a job due to
age, contact a lawyer and/or the EEOC."

There are important time limitations for challenging age
discrimination.  In most states, you must file a charge of age
discrimination with the EEOC within 300 days of the alleged
action, Ms. McCann says.  In some states, the filing time is 180
days.  Make sure you know which time limit applies to you and keep
track of these deadlines.

If you file a charge with the EEOC or your state fair employment
practice agency, be as helpful as you can to the investigator
assigned to your charge, Ms. McCann says.  Provide them with names
of potential witnesses, your notes about age-related comments, and
other incidents.

If you lost your job in a group termination or layoff, consider
joining with other affected colleagues in a class action.  There
are advantages to proceeding as a group, Ms. McCann says,
including the ability to share the costs of the litigation and a
strengthened negotiating position.

When there are no other recourses than pursuing legal action, be
sure to select a lawyer that has experience with employment
discrimination issues, then discuss the merits of your claim and
what you will need to do under the laws of the state in which you
reside.  You can find employment attorneys through the National
Employment Lawyers Association. Experts say it's wise to carefully
consider the pros and cons of pursuing a legal case before you
act.

The hard truth of ageism in tech

Because age discrimination is difficult to prove in a lawsuit, the
best defense might be to do everything you can to avoid becoming a
victim, Ms. McCann says.  That includes being a lifelong learner
and staying on top of developments in your field at every stage of
your career, and seeking out training at your workplace and on
your own.

Make sure your employer knows you're willing to undertake training
to retain and gain knowledge and skills.

It's also important to show current or potential employers that
you bring value to the organization through experience and
flexibility.

"Demonstrate added value by showing the importance of inter-
generational departments, and display a willingness to work with
and under younger individuals," Mr. Cavaleri says.

One thing you can do to minimize the age factor when exploring
career opportunities is remove college graduation dates and
irrelevant work history from your resume and LinkedIn profile
page. It's probably a good idea to also delete references to older
technologies that are no longer in use.

That way if you're interested in a particular job and want to get
your foot in the door with an interview that might sway a
recruiter no matter your age, you have a better chance to be
considered.

During job interviews be prepared for questions such as how you
would you fit in with a youthful company, and would you have
issues working for a younger manager, etc.

Also be ready for questions such as whether you are overqualified
for the position or if you have difficulty dealing with a younger
or less experienced supervisor, Ms. McCann says.  "Only include
the most recent, relevant positions on your resume and leave off
dates unless relevant or required," she says. "Strive to
demonstrate progression, flexibility, and responsibility."

By becoming aware of the signs of age discrimination at your
organization and taking the proper steps to address it, you can
enhance your chances of not being victimized by this type of
discrimination. [GN]


* McKenzie Lake Commences Hernia Mesh Class Action in Canada
------------------------------------------------------------
McKenzie Lake Lawyers, LLP, on May 30 disclosed that it has filed
a class action lawsuit with respect to Hernia Mesh.  Doctors often
use mesh to treat patients suffering from a hernia. Use of certain
models of hernia mesh have been linked to an increased risk of
serious side effects including migration and nerve entanglement,
which can lead to chronic pain and potentially life threatening
conditions.

The claim alleges that the Defendants knew or should have known of
the serious risks associated with certain models of their hernia
mesh and failed to adequately warn doctors and in turn their
patients.  The lawsuit also claims the Defendants aggressively
marketed and sold hernia mesh through carefully planned,
multifaceted marketing campaigns and strategies, offering
misleading expectations with respect to both the utility and
safety of hernia mesh.

Matthew Baer -- baer@mckenzielake.com -- of McKenzie Lake Lawyers
explains: "We believe that through this action, the Defendants
will be required to explain to Canadians what it knew about the
risks and efficacy associated with using certain models of hernia
mesh and when they first became aware of those risks.  We are
concerned about whether Canadians and their doctors were
adequately warned of the known risks and efficacy associated with
using these products".

It is too early to quantify the value of class member claims, but
it is anticipated that the amounts are significant.  Canadians who
suffered complications after having received hernia mesh are
encouraged to visit: www.mckenzielake.com or call 1-844-672-5666
for more information.



                         *********


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  * * *