CAR_Public/171103.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Friday, November 3, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 218



                            Headlines

241 REALTY: Villanueva Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA
ABM INDUSTRIES: "Castro" Suit Seeks to Certify Employee Class
ALLIANCE GROUND: Freeman-Mckee Sues over Biometric Info
ALLIED COLLECTION: "Simmons" Disputes Deceptive Collection Letter
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: "Etter" Suit Seeks Certification of Classes

ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
ARCH TELECOM: "Vazquez" Suit Seeks OT Compensation under FLSA
ASHLEY BLACK: Elson Sues over Defective FasciaBlaster Device
BICYCLE CASINO: Violates FCRA & Labor Code, Lancaster-Carson Says
BMW AG: "Marur" Suit Alleges Automobile Development Conspiracy

BRINDERSON CONSTRUCTORS: "Garza" Suit Seeks to Certify 2 Classes
BRUNO'S ON THE BOULEVARD: Vasquez Sues over Tips and Gratuities
BUREAU ESCANABA: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
CALIFORNIA CREDIT: Diaz Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
CAPITOL ONE: Faces "Thew" Suit in Central Dist. of California

CELGENE CORP: Faces New England Carpenters Antitrust Suit in N.J.
CENTEGRA HEALTH: Court Grants Class Action Settlement in "Byrne"
CHEMOURS COMPANY: Faces "Girardot" Suit in Delaware State Court
COLLECTO INC: Faces "Pyle" Suit in Southern Dist. of Illinois
CONILL ADVERTISING: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, "Keith" Suit Says

COOK COUNTY, IL: "Mengel" Suit Seeks Taxpayers Refunds
CUSTARD INSURANCE: Violates Wage and Hour Laws, Wadler Says
CUSTARD INSURANCE: "Walder" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
CVS RX: "Cabrera" Suit Moved to Northern District of California
DAVIS WIRE: "Lopez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code

DEVRY UNIVERSITY: Faces "Delacruz" Suit in S.D. New York
DH LONG: "Landsberg" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
DIGITAL ROOM: Underpays Workers, "Araica" Suit Claims
DIMENSIONS HEALTH: "Russell" Suit Moved to District of Maryland
EDS SERVICE: "Lugo" Suit Moved to Southern District of Florida

EDUCATORS CREDIT: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
EL KUCHO: Violates Overtime Wage Laws, "Romero" Suit Says
EL POLLO LOCO: "Godinez" Suit Seeks OT Pay under Labor Code
ELECTRIC CONNECTION: Ruiz et al. Seek Unpaid Wages
EQUIFAX INC: "Turner" Claims Damages Over Data Breach

EQUIFAX INC: Small Businesses Seek Damages Over Data Breach
EQUIFAX INC: Pellitteri Files Suit Over Data Breach
EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Henderson" Suit Arising From Data Breach
EQUIFAX INC: "Johnson" Suit Moved to District of Montana
EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Williams" Suit over Data Security Breach

EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Wilkins" Sues over Data Security Breach
EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Court Certifies 2 Classes in "Munguia-Brown"
ERIC D. HARGAN: Dey Files Placeholder Bid for Class Certification
FAY SERVICING: Motion for Class Certification Withdrawn
FCA US: Faces "Canfield" Suit over TPMS Valve Stems

FIDELITY DEPOSIT: "Sparks" Suit Challenges Force-Placed Insurance
FLORIDA: Court Defers Ruling on "Davis" Class Certification Bid
FRONTPOINT SECURITY: Fails to Pay OT Premium, "Brown" Suit Says
GAP INC: Coladonato Sues over Bogus Discounts
GEORGIA: Advocacy Office et al. Suit Filed in N.D. Georgia

GLOBAL CONNECT: Silva Seeks Unpaid OT Wages under Labor Code
GUAN FU: "Pei" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Compensation under FLSA
HAMILTON COUNTY, OH: Robinson Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Moore & Gilmore Sue over Biometric Info
HERSHEY COMPANY: "Bratton" Suit Seeks Certification of 3 Classes

HOME CARE PLUS: Violates Wage & Hour Laws, "Nguyen" Suit Says
HOMELAND SECURITY: Has Until Nov. 17 to Answer "Nio" Amended Suit
HOMELAND SECURITY: Court Certifies Class in "Nio" Suit
HUDDLE HOUSE: "Shipp" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
HUDDLE HOUSE: Hughes Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages

ICARD GIFT: "Snyder" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
ICON ENTERTAINMENT: De Angelis Seeks to Certify Dancers Class
ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY: Bid to Certify Physician Faculty Class Filed
JFK MEDICAL: Certification of Florida Patients Class Sought
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Health Plan Sues Over Monopoly of Infliximab

JP MORGAN: Faces "Sasso" Suit over Consumers' Credit Info
KELLERMEYER BERGENSONS: Reyes Seeks OT Pay under Labor Code
KELLY SERVICES: Faces "Haggins" Suit in California State Court
KING COUNTY, WA: "Johnson" Suit Moved to W.D. Washington
KOHN LAW: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed in "Betz"

KSJC ENTERPRISES: Certification of Employees Class Sought
LARGO CONCRETE: "Barrera" Suit Moved to C.D. California
LE BILBOQUET: Faces "Fontanez" Suit over Work Discrimination
LEGACY PRODUCE: Faces "Godoy" Suit over Mandatory Meal Deduction
LENDINGCLUB SECURITIES: WPERP Wins Class Certification

LITCO PETROLEUM: Cranford Seeks to Recover Minimum and OT Wages
LTD FINANCIAL: Motion for Class Certification, Stayed
LTI TRUCKING: Bid for Class Certification Continued to Nov. 30
LVNV FUNDING: "Lovelace" Suit Seeks to Certify Consumer Class
LYNNFELLS CO: Donuts Contain Margarine, Not Butter, Walsh Claims

M&M MEDIA: Yesh Music Sues over Copyrighted Musical Works
MAC PROPERTY: Kent Sues over Chicago Landlord and Tenant Rules
MARIO'S PIZZA: "Morales" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
MARSHALL ELECTRONICS: Violates Credit Reporting Act, Suit Says
MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Court Certifies Class in "Luna" Suit

MBF INSPECTION: Court Certifies Class of Inspection Personnel
MEIJER INC: Faces "Warren" Suit over Biometric Info
MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Nolet Sues over Debt Collection Practices
MESSIAH TRUCKING: Noble Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
MESILLA VALLEY: Class Certification Bid Continued to Nov. 30

MICRO IMAGE: "Benson" Suit Moved to S.D. West Virginia
MILLARD MAINTENANCE: Grabowska Sues over Biometric Information
MILWAUKEE, WI: "Hall" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
MO'S FISHERMAN: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Galvez Claims
MONARCH RECOVERY: Court Granted Class Certification in "Hartman"

MUFG UNION: Harrold Sues over Collection of Overdraft Fees
NATIONAL ENTERTAINMENT: De Angelis Seeks to Certify Dancers Class
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Certification of Borrowers Class Sought
NOLAN ENTERPRISES: De Angelis Seeks to Certify Dancers Class
NORTHWEST MEDICAL: Torres Sues over Collection Practices

NUMEREX CORP: "Franchi" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Sierra Merger
OLDENKAMP TRUCKING: Ventura Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
OMNICARE INC: "Esomonu" Suit Seeks to Certify 2 Classes
ORANGE, CA: "Randall" Suit Seeks to Certify Damages Class
ORBITAL ATK: Lickteig Challenges Northrop Grumman Merger

PACIFIC PROTECTION: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages, Madrigal Says
PALMER & REIFLER: "Cook" Suit Seeks to Certify 3 Classes
PAPA JOHN'S: "Thomas" Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
PARKING CONCEPTS: Illegally Calculated OT Pay, "Mena" Suit Says
PEARLCARE STAFFING: Rosado Sues over Hostile Work Environment

PENN NATIONAL: "Wysincavage" Suit Wins Class Certification
PHIA GROUP: "Weyant" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of New York
PLATINUM CORRAL: "Johnson" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
PLUMREWARD LLC: Reese Wants to Stop Unwanted & Unsolicited Texts
POLYPEPTIDE LAB: Huynh Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code

QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Harmening-Marl Suit Moved to M.D. Florida
R & L CARRIERS: "Hood" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Premium under FLSA
RAYMOURS FURNITURE: Accused by "Manopla" Suit of Invading Privacy
READY SECURITY: "Lewis" Action to Recover Minimum, Overtime Pay
RETRIEVAL-MASTERS: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed

RJW TRANSPORT: Faces "McGee" Suit over Biometric Information
RTG FURNITURE: "Arevalo" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages under FLSA
RUBICON COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Buechler" Suit in Texas
S & S DONUTS: Donuts Contain Margarine, Not Butter, Walsh Claims
SAFE HARBOR: Violates Landlord and Tenant Ordinance, Morris Says

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Lane" Suit Moved to W. Dist. Oklahoma
SCIAME CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Triumph" Suit over Prompt Payment Act
SEPHORA USA: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
SHIPMAN FAMILY: "Rhodes" Suit Seeks Exact Overtime Wages
SMITH TRANSPORT: Ratliff's Motion for Class Certification Stayed

STATE SECURITY: "Lipscomb" Action to Recover Minimum, OT Pay
STEVEN STOLPER: Konings Files Placeholder Class Certification Bid
SUMMITT TRUCKING: Class Certification Bid Continued to Nov. 30
SUNSHINE BANCORP: Bushansky Seeks to Enjoin CenterState Merger
TCC WIRELESS: Garcia Sues over Biometric Information Privacy Laws

TIDEWATER FINANCE: Ryan Seeks Redress for Noncompliant Notices
TNJ ENTERPRISES: $225,000 Accord in "Gomez" Has Preliminary OK
TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
TRANSCO LINES: Bid to Certify Class Terminated without Prejudice
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed

TAISHAN GYPSUM: "Peoples" Product Suit Transferred to E.D. La.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Drivers Sue over Black Car Fund Fee
ULTIMATE SERVICES: Teshabaeva Seeks Minimum Wages under Labor Law
US HEALTHWORKS: Rodriguez Sues over Consumer Credit Reporting
VENGROFF WILLIAMS: "Healy" Suit Moved to E.D. New York

VOLKSWAGEN AG: "Summer" Suit Moved to N.D. California
VOX MEDIA: Bradley, et al. Seek to Certify FLSA Class
WALMART STORES: Court Denies Stephens' Class Certification Bid
WASHINGTON AND JANE: Faces "Dixon" Suit Arising From Termination
WEBCOLLEX LLC: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed

WELLS FARGO: "Torres" Suit Seeks Payment Wages under Labor Code
WELLS FARGO: Wallace Balks at Overdraft Fees
WESTERN EXPRESS: Class Certification Hearing Continued to Nov. 27
WILLIAMS-SONOMA INC: Avetisyan Sues over Phony Discounts
WORLD CLASS: "Maldonado" Suit Seeks Wages & OT under Labor Code

YRC INC: Alvarez & Shroeder Seek Certification of 9 Classes


                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Group Had $200,000 Loss at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners Unit Has 55 Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt plc Has 11,600 Cases at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: James Hardie Victim Gets Payout Cut
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leeds Widower Seeks Info on Wife's Cancer

ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Fines Taterocks Pty for Asbestos Dump
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Released in Nieuwegein Fire
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Phoenix Jury Finds Co. Liable for Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bega Valley Shire Pipeline Has Asbestos Cement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suits vs. Pillsbury Site Owners Pending

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Family Awarded $5MM in Mesothelioma Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Georgia-Pacific Says Mill Fire Has No Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oxford Library Asbestos May Have Killed Prof.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: DIY Renovations Expose Thousands to Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Damages Awarded to Exposed Japanese Workers

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tokyo Ruling Should Lead to Better Relief Fund
ASBESTOS UPDATE: OneBeacon Not Required to Produce Communications
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Montana Not Enforcing Strict Asbestos Laws
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found at Old Darwin Hospital Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colgate-Palmolive Asks Court to Toss Talc Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: $7.2MM Reinsurance Coverage Judgment Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Warner Fails to Establish Covestro Negligence
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Roper" Suit Dismissed Following Resolution
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. High Court to Hear Duty to Warn Arguments
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4th Cir. Dismisses Campbell-McCormick Appeal

ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Cunningham" PI Suit Dismissed With Prejudice




                            *********


241 REALTY: Villanueva Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
HUGO VILLANUEVA, OSCAR SANANGO, FAUSTO SANANGO, PATRICIO LEMA,
JOSE ANGELO GONZALEZ LOPEZ, GUILLERMO CENTURION, CLAUDIO ESPINOZA,
RENE GUZMAN, WILSON CABRERA, CARLOS LANDA DEL VALLO,
JOSE RICARDO FERRUFINO, HUGO VILLANUEVA, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. 241 REALTY
ASSOCIATES, LLC, MANN MANAGEMENT, INC., EASTBROOK CONTRACTING,
INC., the Defendants, Case No. 656553/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Oct.
25, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs are former building service workers of Defendants
who seek unpaid overtime wages and pay notice/pay statement
liability from Defendants for the latters' systematic underpayment
of wages to Plaintiffs for building service work performed in New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David Wims, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DAVID WIMS
          Attorneys for Plaintiffs
          1430 Pitkin Ave., 2nd Fl.
          Brooklyn, NY 11233


ABM INDUSTRIES: "Castro" Suit Seeks to Certify Employee Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MARLEY CASTRO and LUCIA MARMOLEJO, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs,
v. ABM INDUSTRIES, INC.; ABM ONSITE SERVICES - WEST, INC.; ABM
SERVICES, INC.; ABM JANITORIAL SERVICES - NORTHERN CALIFORNIA,
INC.; and ABM JANITORIAL SERVICES, INC., the Defendants, Case No.
4:17-cv-03026-YGR (N.D. Cal.), Marley Castro and Lucia Marmolejo
will move the Court on January 16, 2018 for class certification
of:

   "all employees who were, are, or will be employed by ABM in
   the State of California with the Employee Master Job Code
   Description code Cleaner during the period beginning four
   years prior to the filing of the original complaint, October
   24, 2014, through the date of notice to the Class Members that
   a class has been certified in this action."

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court for appointment as class
representatives for the proposed classes and appointment of
Plaintiff's counsel as Class Counsel.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=IpCVE5J4

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class:

          Hunter Pyle, Esq.
          Chad Saunders, Esq.
          HUNTER PYLE LAW
          428 Thirteenth Street, 11th Floor
          Oakland, California 94612
          Telephone: (510) 444 4400
          Facsimile: (510) 444 4410
          E-mail: hunter@hunterpylelaw.com
                  csaunders@hunterpylelaw.com

               - and -

          Todd Jackson, Esq.
          Genevieve Casey, Esq.
          FEINBERG, JACKSON, WORTHMAN & WASOW
          383 4th Street, Suite 201
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (510) 269 7998
          Facsimile: (510) 269 7994
          E-mail: todd@feinbergjackson.com
                  genevieve@feinbergjackson.com


ALLIANCE GROUND: Freeman-Mckee Sues over Biometric Info
-------------------------------------------------------
CIA A. FREEMAN-MCKEE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ALLIANCE GROUND
INTERNATIONAL, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2017CH3636 (Circuit
Court of Cook County, Ill., Oct. 11, 2017), seeks an order
requiring Defendant to publicly disclose a written policy
establishing any specific purpose and length of term for which
Plaintiffs and other employees' biometrics have been collected,
stored, and used, as well as guidelines for permanently destroying
such biometrics when the initial purpose for collecting or
obtaining those identifiers or information has been satisfied or
within 3 years of the individual's last interaction with the
private entity, whichever occurs first.

The Defendant provides cargo, mail and ramp handling services to
20 international airlines in seven cities, including Chicago,
Illinois. Alliance requires its employees in Illinois to clock
"in" and "out" of their work shifts by scanning their
fingerprints, and Defendant's biometric computer systems then
verify employee and clock the employee "in" or "out."

According to the complaint, unlike traditional time clock punch
cards which can be changed, replaced if lost or compromised,
fingerprints are unique, permanent biometric identifiers'
associated with each employee. This exposes Defendant's workforce
to serious and irreversible privacy risks. For example, if a
fingerprint database is hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed,
employees have no means by which to prevent identity theft and
unauthorized tracking. Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA)
expressly obligates Defendant to obtain an executed, written
release from an individual, as a condition of employment, in order
to capture, collect and store an individual's biometric
identifiers, especially a fingerprint, and biometric information
derived from it. BIPA further obligates Defendant to inform its
employees in writing that a biometric identifier or biometric
information is being collected or stored; to tell its employees in
writing for how long it will store their biometric information and
any purposes for which biometric information is being captured,
collected, and used; and to make available a written policy
disclosing when it will permanently destroy such information. BIPA
makes all of these requirements a precondition to the collection
or recording of fingerprints and associated biometric information.
Under BIPA, no biometric identifiers or information may be
captured, stored or recorded if these pre-capture, pre-collection
requirements are not met.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frank Castiglione, Esq.
          Kasif Khowaja, Esq.
          THE KHOWAJA LAW FIRM, LLC
          70 East Lake Street, Suite 1220
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 356 3200
          Facsimile: (312) 386 5800
          E-mail: fcastiglione@khowajalaw.com
                  kasif@khowajalaw.com

               - and -

          James X. Bormes, Esq.
          Catherine P. Sons, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C.
          8 South Michigan A venue Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 201 0575
          Facsimile: (312) 332 0600
          E-mail: jxbormes@bormeslaw.com
                  cpsons@bormeslaw.com


ALLIED COLLECTION: "Simmons" Disputes Deceptive Collection Letter
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Katanya Simmons, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Allied Collection Services,
Inc., Case No. 17-cv-07865 (D. N.J., October 4, 2017), seeks
statutory and actual damages, including reasonable attorneys' fees
and expenses, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such
other and further relief under the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

Plaintiff owed an obligation that was allegedly incurred to
Sprint. The latter allegedly contracted Allied to collect the
alleged debt via a collection letter that contained an offer to
settle the debt that was set to expire within seven days, a form
of a firm expiring offer rendering the letter deceptive and
overshadowing as it does not truly afford the consumer their
proper rights and ability to dispute since the least sophisticated
consumer could believe a settlement offer on par with the current
one may never arise again. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Yaakov Saks, Esq.
      RC LAW GROUP, PLLC
      285 Passaic Street
      Hackensack, NJ 07601
      Phone: (201) 282-6500
      Fax: (201) 282-6501


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: "Etter" Suit Seeks Certification of Classes
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JOHN C. ETTER, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, the
Plaintiff, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLSTATE INDEMNITY
COMPANY, ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
ALLSTATE NORTH BROOK INDEMNITY COMPANY, ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY
OF CALIFORNIA, LOUIS ODIASE and JOHN DOES 1-5, the Defendants,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00184-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move
the Court on December 14, 2017 for an order:

   1. appointing Plaintiff as class representative;

   2. appointing Plaintiff's counsel as class counsel; and

   3. certifying the following classes:

      Class A

      "all persons or entities successfully sent a facsimile on
      or about May 25, 2015, stating, "DO YOU KNOW THAT YOU CAN
      SAVE UP TO 40-60% ON COMMERCIAL AUTO INSURANCE?," "To get
      your free quote, please complete the form below and fax to:
      (510) 234-0518," and "You can unsubscribe at any time.
      Please fax your removal request to (877) 256-2022."

      Class B

      "all persons or entities successfully sent a facsimile on
      or about October 11, 2016, stating, "potentially save 40-
      60% off your Commercial auto insurance," "fill out the form
      below" and "FAX YOUR REQUEST TO: 510-234-0518, TEL 510-234-
      0516, OR EMAIL: A026315@ALLSTATE.COM," and "If you wish to
      be removed from our Fax list, please call 888-828-3086."

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=CfFeW3Wy

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert C. Schubert, Esq.
          Willem F. Jonckheer, Esq.
          SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 788-4220
          E-mail: rschubert@schubertlawfirm.com
                  wjonckheer@schubertlawfirm.com

               - and -

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


ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MELISSA HIRTHE, TERESA BUSHBERGER, and ANNE
O'BOYLE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ALLTRAN FINANCIAL, LP, the Defendant,
Case No. 2:17-cv-01481-DEJ (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order certifying a class in this case,
appointing the Plaintiffs as its representatives, and appointing
Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its Counsel, and for such other and
further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

The Plaintiffs further ask that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties
relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and
requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents
in support of this motion.

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=MIJd17zP

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          Ademi & O'Reilly LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482 8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482 8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com


ARCH TELECOM: "Vazquez" Suit Seeks OT Compensation under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
RAMON VAZQUEZ and NICHOLAS CAMPBELL, on behalf of themselves and
all other similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ARCH TELECOM,
INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-08136-CCC-CLW (D.N.J., Oct.
11, 2017), seeks to overtime compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendant operates Sprint branded wireless retail stores
across the United States, including in Washington, California,
Florida, New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. From these store
locations, Defendant sells Sprint wireless phones, other mobile
devices, wireless and data plans, and accessories.

The Defendant staffs its stores leanly, and strictly manages hours
worked by non-exempt workers to avoid paying them overtime. To
compensate for this deliberate understaffing, Defendant relies
heavily on its salaried SMs to perform the duties of nonexempt
employees when there are not enough hourly employees to do so.

Because of Arch Telecom's retail hours and lean staffing model,
SMs regularly work in excess of 40 hours per workweek and
frequently work ten or more hours a day. Although they are labeled
"managers," SMs are not responsible for true management functions.
To the contrary, SMs spend the vast majority of their time
performing the same duties as non-exempt employees. SMs' primary
duties, which occupy the majority of their time, are: customer
service, making sales to customers, activating accounts and
receiving and applying payments. The primary duties of SMs do not
fall within any of the exemptions under federal or state overtime
laws. The primary duties of the SM position do not vary among Arch
Telecom's stores. Arch Telecom regularly requires SMs to work in
excess of 40 hours per workweek.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Classes and Collective:

          Michael J. Palitz, Esq.
          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          Camar R. Jones, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          830 3rd Avenue, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (800) 616 4000
          Facsimile: (561) 447 8831


ASHLEY BLACK: Elson Sues over Defective FasciaBlaster Device
------------------------------------------------------------
EMILY ELSON, STACY ELAAVISTO, LORETTA OAKES, MICF0ELLE LANUM,
JULIA LEFEBVRE, SUE GRLICKY, TILLY DORENKAMP, DINA SALAS, ARLENE
RODRIGUEZ, JERRY GAINES, the Plaintiffs, v. ASHLEY BLACK, an
individual, ASHLEY DIANA BLACK INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, LLC,
a Delaware Corporation, ADB INTERESTS LLC, a Texas Corporation,
and DOES 1-100, the Defendants, Case No. BC680843 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Oct. 23, 2017), seeks to recover injunctive relief and for
damages under the laws of the State of California.

Defendants manufacture, test, market, endorse, distribute and/or
sell a putative medical device called "FasciaBlaster" which
allegedly not only did and does fail to deliver the aesthetic
results stridently guaranteed by Defendants' false and deceptive
advertising, but which moreover did and does cause a wide array of
physical injuries exemplified by the experiences of the
Plaintiffs, running the gamut from simply worsening the aesthetic
conditions which the device is supposed to improve, to far more
severe harms such as extreme hormonal instability, stroke, and
others.

In addition to the false advertising, Defendants did and do make
deceptive public representations e.g. regarding U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") approval of the FasciaBlaster, regarding
the scientific testing their devices have undergone, and regarding
the academic and medical credentials of multiple agents and
employees whom Defendants did and do feature prominently in
FasciaBlaster advertising and instructional materials.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Perrin F. Disner, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PERRIN F
          4630 Sepulveda Boulevard, Suite 105
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (310) 742 7944
          Facsimile: (888) 544 5154
          E-mail: pdisner@disnerlaw.com


BICYCLE CASINO: Violates FCRA & Labor Code, Lancaster-Carson Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL R. LANCASTER-CARSON, on behalf of himself, all others
similarly situated v. THE BICYCLE CASINO, INC., a California
corporation; BICYCLE CASINO, L.P., THE, a California limited
partnership; and DOES, 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC677557
(Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., September 28, 2017), accuses
the Defendants of violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the
California Labor Code and other similar laws.

The Bicycle Casino, Inc., is a California corporation doing
business in the state of California.  The Bicycle Casino, L.P., is
a California limited partnership doing business in the state of
California.  The Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and
capacities of the Doe Defendants.

The Bicycle Casino hosts poker rooms.  The Company also offers
Asian games and massage services.  The Company's amenities include
restaurants, an event center, a gift shop, and a court.  The
Bicycle Casino was founded in 1984 and is based in Bell Gardens,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BMW AG: "Marur" Suit Alleges Automobile Development Conspiracy
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Vinod Marur and Kunal Patel, Plaintiffs, on behalf of
themselves and other similarly situated, v. BMW AG, BMW OF NORTH
AMERICA, LLC, VOLKSWAGEN AG, VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.,
AUDI AG, AUDI OF AMERICA, INC., AUDI OF AMERICA, LLC, DR. ING.
H.C. F. PORSCHE AG, PORSCHE CARS NORTH AMERICA, INC., DAIMLER AG,
MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, MERCEDES-BENZ VANS, LLC, MERCEDESBENZ
U.S. INTERNATIONAL, INC., ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, and ROBERT BOSCH LLC,
the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-05865 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 11, 2017),
arises out of a vast, 20-year conspiracy by the largest and most
profitable German automobile manufacturers -- Audi, BMW, Daimler,
Porsche, and Volkswagen -- which was intended to, and did, create
the perception of innovation and competition among them, while in
fact they agreed to eliminate or severely curtail competition.
These coordinated actions enabled the Manufacturer Defendants --
the self-named "Funfer-Kreis," or Circle of Five -- to impose a
German automobile premium on consumers premised on superior German
engineering, while secretly stunting incentives to innovate.
Indeed, as one commentator noted, the Circle of Five acted at
times in greater coordination than divisions within each
Manufacturer Defendant company. Bosch, as a Tier One supplier to
the Manufacturer Defendants, played a critical role in enabling
and concealing the cartel, also profiting enormously from it.
Critically, the conspiracy described in this Complaint is based in
part upon the voluntary admissions made by the Daimler and VW
Defendants before the Bundeskartellamt (German Cartel Office) and
the European Commission, the antitrust agency of the European
Union. That is, this is not a case where an illegal agreement has
to be inferred; certain defendants have already admitted to the
conduct, and details of those admissions and agreements have
entered the public domain. Furthermore, the conspiracy is not
limited to agreements relating to emissions technology, and
therefore diesel vehicles. The agreements related to different
kinds of technologies and affect gas and diesel vehicles. It has
recently been reported that Volkswagen at least has made multiple
submissions to the German Cartel Office and the EC, and that the
subsequent submissions relate to each specific technology.

BMW AG is a Germany-based company which currently produces
automobiles and motorcycles, and produced aircraft engines until
1945. The company was founded in 1916 and has its headquarters in
Munich, Bavaria.[BN]

Counsel for Vinod Marur, Kunal Patel, and the Proposed Classes

          Lesley E. Weaver, Esq.
          Matthew S. Weiler, Esq.
          Emily C. Aldridge, Esq.
          BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
          1999 Harrison Street, Suite 670
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (415) 445 4003
          E-mail: lweaver@bfalaw.com
                  mweiler@bfalaw.com
                  ealdridge@bfalaw.com


BRINDERSON CONSTRUCTORS: "Garza" Suit Seeks to Certify 2 Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DANIEL GARZA, on behalf of himself, all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BRINDERSON
CONSTRUCTORS, INC., a California corporation; BRINDERSON L.P., a
California corporation; and CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Case No. 5:15-
cv-05742-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on
December 21, 2017 for an order certifying the following classes:

   "all of Defendants' current, former and prospective applicants
   for employment in the United States who applied for a job with
   Defendants and for whom Defendants obtained a background check
   report (inclusive of Social Security Verification) at any time
   during the period beginning five years prior to the filing of
   this action and ending on the date of the order granting class
   certification"; and

   "all of Defendants' current, former and prospective applicants
   for employment in California who applied for a job with
   Defendants and for whom Defendants obtained a background check
   report (inclusive of Social Security Verification) at any time
   during the period beginning five years prior to the filing of
   this action and ending on the date of the order granting class
   certification".

The Plaintiff further moves the Court for an order pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g) appointing Setareh Law Group as class
counsel.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=UeGQQ0rS

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BRUNO'S ON THE BOULEVARD: Vasquez Sues over Tips and Gratuities
---------------------------------------------------------------
JORGE VASQUEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. BRUNO'S ON THE BOULEVARD, INC.; JOHN
FELLIN; and any other related entities, the Defendant, Case No.
611210/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Oct. 20, 2017), seeks to recover
unlawfully retained tips and gratuities owed to Plaintiff and
other similarly situated persons under the New York Labor Law.

Defendants have allegedly engaged in a policy and practice of
failing to pay the Service Charge to Plaintiff and similarly
situated employees and instead retained the money for their own
benefit in violation of Labor Law Article.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
          Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
          Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
          Leeds Brown Law, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873 9550


BUREAU ESCANABA: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ZARKO STEFANOVIC, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. NORTHERN
SERVICE BUREAU ESCANABA, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-
01483-WED (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an
order certifying classes in this case, appointing the Plaintiff as
class representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as
Class Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court
may deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties
relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and
requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents
in support of this motion.

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Cf0GG1FP

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          Ademi & O'Reilly LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482 8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482 8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com


CALIFORNIA CREDIT: Diaz Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------
IRENE DIAZ, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA
CREDIT UNION, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC680444 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct.
19, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages and pre-judgment interest
under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants violated the California
Business and Professions Code by failing to provide Plaintiff and
the other class members all overtime compensation due to them,
failing to provide all meal and rest periods, failing to pay at
least minimum wages, and failing to pay wages timely as required
by California Labor Code section.

California Credit Union provides an exceptional banking experience
to members in San Diego, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Orange
Counties.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
          410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265 1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265 1021

               - and -

          Amir Nayebdadash, Esq.
          Heather Davis, Esq.
          PROTECTION LAW GROUP LLP
          136 Main Street, Suite A
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 290 3095
          Facsimile: (866) 264 7880


CAPITOL ONE: Faces "Thew" Suit in Central Dist. of California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital One Bank
USA, N.A. The case is captioned as Nathan Thew, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Capital
One Bank USA, N.A., the Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-02067-JGB-KK
(C.D. Cal., Oct. 9, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Jesus G. Bernal.

Capital One provides financial services. The Bank offers checking
accounts, credit and debit cards, loans, and insurance.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Daniel Guinn Shay, Esq.
DANIEL G. SHAY LAW OFFICES
409 Camino Del Rio South Suite 101B
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (619) 222 7429
Facsimile: (866) 431 3292
E-mail: danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com

     - and -

Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
Yana A Hart, Esq.
HYDE AND SWIGART
2221 Camino Del Rio South Suite 101
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (619) 233 7770
Facsimile: (619) 297 1022
E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com
        yana@westcoastlitigation.com

     - and -

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


CELGENE CORP: Faces New England Carpenters Antitrust Suit in N.J.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
New England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Celgene Corporation,
Case No. 2:17-cv-07637 (D.N.J., September 28, 2017), is a civil
antitrust action seeking damages arising out of Celgene's alleged
unlawful exclusion of competition from the market for thalidomide,
which Celgene sells under the brand-name Thalomid, and
lenalidomide, which it sells under the brand-name Revlimid.

To delay the onset of generic competition and squeeze more multi-
billion dollar years out of these products, Celgene engaged in a
multi-faceted scheme to maintain its monopoly and unlawfully
interfere with competitors' efforts to enter the market with
generic versions of Thalomid or Revlimid, the Plaintiff alleges.

Celgene is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
Delaware, having its principal place of business in Summit, New
Jersey.  Celgene has sold Thalomid and Revlimid in capsule format,
which are administered orally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frank R. Schirripa, Esq.
          Daniel B. Rehns, Esq.
          John A. Blyth, Esq.
          HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE LLP
          185 Madison Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 213-8311
          E-mail: fschirripa@hrsclaw.com
                  drehns@hrsclaw.com
                  jblyth@hrsclaw.com

               - and -

          Brent W. Landau, Esq.
          Katie R. Beran, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          325 Chestnut Street, Suite 900
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 985-3270
          E-mail: blandau@hausfeld.com
                  kberan@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          Walter D. Kelley, Jr., Esq.
          Melinda R. Coolidge, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 K Street NW, Suite 650
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          E-mail: wkelley@hausfeld.com
                  mcoolidge@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          Whitney E. Street, Esq.
          Matthew Smith, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          610 16th Street, Suite 214
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (415) 968-1852
          E-mail: wstreet@blockesq.com
                  msmith@blockesq.com

               - and -

          Todd A. Seaver, Esq.
          BERMAN TABACCO
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-3200
          E-mail: tseaver@bermantabacco.com

               - and -

          Patrick T. Egan, Esq.
          BERMAN TABACCO
          One Liberty Square
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 542-8300
          E-mail: pegan@bermantabacco.com


CENTEGRA HEALTH: Court Grants Class Action Settlement in "Byrne"
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Laura Byrne, the Plaintiff, v. Centegra
Health System, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00018 (N.D. Ill.),
the Hon. Judge Young B. Kim entered an order granting Parties'
joint motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement
and approval of settlement pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on October 18,
2017, Parties' joint motion for preliminary approval of a class
action settlement and approval of FLSA settlement is granted.

The Defendant has been ordered to provide Plaintiff with a class
list by October 25, 2017. Plaintiff then has until November 1,
2017, to issue the class notice. In light of this approval,
Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification is denied without
prejudice.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=s7ko6E2o


CHEMOURS COMPANY: Faces "Girardot" Suit in Delaware State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Chemours
Company. The case is captioned as Mark Girardot, Gerhard R.
Wittreich, and Peter Butler, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. The Chemours Company, the
Defendant, Case No. 61229868 (Del. Super. Ct., Oct. 11, 2017).

The Chemours Company, commonly referred to as Chemours, is an
American chemical company that was founded in July 2015 as a spin-
off from DuPont. It has its corporate headquarters in Wilmington,
Delaware, United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert K. Beste, Jr., Esq.
          COHEN SEGLIAS PALLAS GREENHALL & FURMAN, P.C.
          Nemours Building, Suite 1130
          1007 North Orange Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 425 5089
          Facsimile: (302) 425 5097
          E-mail: rbeste@cohenseglias.com


COLLECTO INC: Faces "Pyle" Suit in Southern Dist. of Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Collecto, Inc. The
case is captioned as Sheila Pyle, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Collecto, Inc.
d/b/a EOS CCA, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-01093-SMY-RJD (S.D.
Ill., Oct. 11, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Staci
M. Yandle.

Collecto, Inc., doing business as EOS/CCA, Inc., operates as a
debt management and recovery resource company. It offers
receivables collection services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          Francis R. Greene, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Patricia N. Jjemba, Esq.
          Tiffany N. Hardy, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS ET AL.
          20 South Clark St., Ste. 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739 4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419 0379
          E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com
                  ccombs@edcombs.com
                  fgreene@edcombs.com
                  jlatturner@edcombs.com
                  pjjemba@edcombs.com
                  thardy@edcombs.com


CONILL ADVERTISING: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, "Keith" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PAMELA KEITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. CONILL ADVERTISING, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case
No. BC680439 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 19, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum and overtime wages, and unreimbursed business
expenses, penalties, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and
expenses, and equitable, and restitutionary and injunctive relief
under the California Labor Code.

According to complaint, the Defendants allegedly failed to provide
meal periods, failed to authorize and permit rest
Periods, failed to pay minimum wages, failed to pay overtime
wages, failed to pay all wages due to discharged and quitting
employees, failed to furnish accurate itemized wage statements,
failed to maintain required records, failed to indemnify employees
for necessary expenditures incurred in discharge of duties.

Conill Advertising is a Latino marketing agency in the United
States. The company specializes in marketing to the Hispanic
consumer. Its services include creative, media,
digital/interactive, social engagement, strategic planning,
experiential marketing, grassroots marketing, brand
planning/building, broadcast production, print production, radio
production, and PR support.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          Launa Adolph, Esq.
          Deanna S. Leifer, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531 1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531 1901


COOK COUNTY, IL: "Mengel" Suit Seeks Taxpayers Refunds
------------------------------------------------------
JOHN MENGEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. MARIA PAPPAS, individually and as COOK
COUNTY TREASURER, the Defendant, Case No. 2017-CH-13657 (Circuit
Court of Cook County, Ill., Oct. 11, 2017), seeks to redress in
the form of mandamus, declaratory relief, and damages for
conversion against the Defendant, Maria Pappas, Cook County
Treasurer and ex officio County Collector, and individually, for
Defendant's knowing, continuous and improper application of 35
ILCS 200/23-20, P.A. 94-558.

Allegedly, the defendant has continuously refused to pay refunds
from the next funds collected after final orders from the Property
Tax Appeal Board which would have resulted in tax refunds for
taxpayers.

Cook County is a county in the U.S. state of Illinois. It is the
second-most populous county in the United States after Los Angeles
County, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven B. Pearlman & Associates
          350 W. Hubbard, Suite 630
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: 312 832 0123
          Facsimile: 312 832 7722
          E-mail: nad@stevepearlman.com

               - and -

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cassandra P. Miller, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603-1824
          Telephone: (312) 739 4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419 0379
          E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com


CUSTARD INSURANCE: Violates Wage and Hour Laws, Wadler Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
PERRY WADLER, GERALD SPRINGER, TROY WILLIS, and KEITH TYNER,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. CUSTARD INSURANCE ADJUSTERS, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 3:17-cv-05840-EDL (N.D. Cal., Oct. 11, 2017), seeks to
recover unpaid wages including unpaid overtime compensation and
interest, unpaid flat-rate tasks and interest, unpaid drive-time
and/or unreimbursed mileage and interest, compensation for missed
meal and rest periods, interest, and other penalties under the
California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, Custard has had consistent policy of
permitting, encouraging and/or requiring its allegedly overtime-
exempt salaried and commission-based insurance adjusters including
Plaintiffs and Classes to work in excess of eight hours as
required by Fair Labor Standards Act and California's wage and
hour laws.

Custard Insurance operates as a loss adjusting company in the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
          Corey B. Bennett, Esq.
          Mark G. Griffin, Esq.
          SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC
          www.scalaw.com
          1970 Broadway, Ninth Floor
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 891 9800
          Facsimile: (510) 891 7030
          E-mail: scole@scalaw.com
                  cbennett@scalaw.com
                  mgriffin@scalaw.com


CUSTARD INSURANCE: "Walder" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled PERRY WALDER, GERALD SPRINGER, TROY WILLIS,
and KEITH TYNER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CUSTARD INSURANCE
ADJUSTERS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-05840-EDL (N.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on November 28, 2017,
for an order to certify a collective action and authorize notice
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=M5ZNTXfn

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
          Corey B. Bennett, Esq.
          Mark G. Griffin, Esq.
          SCOTT, COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC
          www.scalaw.com
          1970 Broadway, Ninth Floor
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 891 9800
          Facsimile: (510) 891 7030
          E-mail: scole@scalaw.com
                  ebennett@scalaw.com
                  mgriffin@scalaw.com


CVS RX: "Cabrera" Suit Moved to Northern District of California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Sigfredo Cabrera, as individuals,
on behalf of themselves and all other similar persons similarly
situated, and Enko Telahun, the Plaintifffs, v. CVS RX Services,
Inc., a New York corporation; CVS Pharmacy, Inc., a Rhode Island
Corporation; and Garfield Beach CVS, LLC, a California limited
liability company, Case No. RG17870184, was removed on Oct. 9,
2017 from California Superior Court of Alameda, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California in San
Francisco.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-
05803-MEJ to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James.

CVS is a prescription benefit management company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

Dawn M. Berry, Esq.
R Craig Clark, Esq.
CLARK LAW GROUP
205 West Date Street
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 239 1321
Facsimile: (888) 273 4554
E-mail: cclark@clarkmarkham.com

     - and -

Walter Lewis Haines, Esq.
UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, P.C.
5500 Bolsa Ave., Suite 201
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
Telephone: (562) 256 1047
Facsimile: (562) 256 1006
E-mail: admin@uelglaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

Tyler Ryan Andrews, Esq.
Roger Leonard Scott, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
3773 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 400 North
Las Vegas, NV 89169
Telephone: (702) 792 3773
E-mail: andrewst@gtlaw.com
        scottro@gtlaw.com


DAVIS WIRE: "Lopez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
------------------------------------------------------------
LOUIE LOPEZ, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DAVIS WIRE CORPORATION, a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, the Defendants, Case
No. BC680398 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 19, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid wages, penalties, and declaratory relief under California
Labor Code.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff was not provided all
required meal periods due to Defendants' meal period
policies/practices which fail to provide uninterrupted, duty-free
30-minute meal periods prior to the sixth hour of work commencing.
Specifically, Defendants have a policy/practice of requiring
Plaintiff to remain on-duty during his meal periods, as a result
of him having to attend to a machine which had to be operating 24
hours per day without interruption. As a result of this
policy/practice, Plaintiff was not permitted to take off-duty meal
periods, because Defendants did provide for coverage of his job
duties despite the opportunity to do so. Despite the foregoing,
Defendants' policies require nonexempt employees like Plaintiff to
verify the taking of meal periods, despite not being provided with
the opportunity to take lawful, off-duty meal periods. Further,
although Defendants' written policies require employees to report
to their supervisor if they are not provided with a meal period,
Defendants were aware that Plaintiff and other putative class
members were not getting said off-duty meal periods in violation
of their policies and the law. Defendants failed to require
Plaintiff to clock out and in for meal periods and did not
otherwise record or keep records of Plaintiffs meal periods.

Davis Wire Corporation manufactures various types of wires. The
company offers its products in various categories, including bead
wire and building products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          Tuvia Korobkin, Esq.
          Daniel J. Brown, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          2274 East Maple Avenue
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292 2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292 2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
                  tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com
                  dbrown@haineslawgroup.com


DEVRY UNIVERSITY: Faces "Delacruz" Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DeVry University,
Inc. The case is captioned as Emanuel Delacruz, and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DeVry
University, Inc. and DeVry/New York Inc., the Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-07772-JMF (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 11, 2017). The case is assigned
to the Hon. Judge Jesse M. Furman.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite OHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (917) 796 7437
          Facsimile: (212) 982 6284
          E-mail: danalgottlieb@aol.com


DH LONG: "Landsberg" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
-------------------------------------------------------------
GALEN LANDSBERG and MARVIN IVARENGA, as individuals and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. DH LONG POINT
MANAGEMENT LLC, a California limited liability company, dba
TERRANEA RESORT; LONG POINT DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; LOWE ENTERPRISES, INC., a California
corporation and DOES 10-20, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
BC680486 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 19, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid
wages and penalties under the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiffs allege that each Defendant acted and is continuing
to act as a co-conspirator of each other Defendants and of certain
unnamed and as-yet unknown co-conspirators. The purpose of the
ongoing conspiracy includes unlawfully evading compliance with
state labor laws in an effort to reduce Defendants' labor costs
and unlawfully maximize their profits by failing to pay Plaintiffs
and similarly-situated employees the wages and benefits required
by law; failing to provide meal periods, rest breaks and other
labor rights mandated by law. Plaintiffs are currently unaware of
when each Defendant or other co-conspirator joined said conspiracy
but, on information and belief, allege that all defendants and
their co-conspirators knowingly, maliciously and willfully entered
into said conspiracy which continues to this day.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lauren Teukolsky, Esq.
          TEUKOLSKY LAW, APC
          234 E. Colorado Blvd., 8th Floor
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 522 8982
          Facsimile: (626) 522 8983
          E-mail: lauren@teuklaw.com


DIGITAL ROOM: Underpays Workers, "Araica" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------
CINDY ARAICA, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DIGITAL ROOM
INC., a California corporation; DIGITAL ROOM LLC, a California
limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. BC6800445 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 19, 2017),
seeks to recover monetary damages and restitution under the
California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, Defendants hired Plaintiff and other
class members, classified them as hourly-paid or non-exempt
employees, and failed to compensate them for all hours worked and
missed meal periods and/or rest breaks.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
          410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265 1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265 1021


DIMENSIONS HEALTH: "Russell" Suit Moved to District of Maryland
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Monique Russell and Jasmine
Riggins, on their own behalf and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Dimensions Health Corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. CAL-17-22761, was removed on Oct. 24, 2017
from the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland (Greenbelt). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:17-cv-03106-TDC to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Theodore D.
Chuang.

Dimensions Health provides general hospital services. The Company
offers services in behavioral health and cardiac
rehabilitation.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Cory L Zajdel, Esq.
          Z LAW LLC
          2345 York Road, Suite B-13
          Timonium, MD 21093
          Telephone: (443) 213 1977
          E-mail: clz@zlawmaryland.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Gina Marie Smith, Esq.
          Joseph B Chazen, Esq.
          Samuel Thomas Wolf, Esq.
          MEYERS RODBELL AND ROSENBAUM PA
          6801 Kenilworth Ave Ste 400
          Riverdale, MD 20737-1385
          Telephone: (301) 699 5800
          Facsimile: (301) 779 5746
          E-mail: gsmith@mrrlaw.net
                  jchazen@mrrlaw.net
                  swolf@mrrlaw.net


EDS SERVICE: "Lugo" Suit Moved to Southern District of Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Pablo Lugo, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. EDS Service
Solutions, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and Eddisons
Facility Services, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, the
Defendants, Case No. CACE-15-14112, was removed on Oct. 25, 2017
from the 17th Judicial Circuit of Florida, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida (Ft Lauderdale). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:17-cv-62091-WPD to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William P.
Dimitrouleas.

Eddisons Facility is a business management company in Atlanta,
Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter Michael Hoogerwoerd, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          44 West Flager Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416 5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416 5005
          E-mail: pmh@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Robyn Elyse Lustgarten, Esq.
          Michael John Carney, Esq.
          KUBICKI DRAPER, PA
          One East Broward Blvd., Suite 1600
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 768 0011
          Facsimile: (954) 768 0514
          E-mail: rel@kubickidraper.com
                  mjc@kubickidraper.com


EDUCATORS CREDIT: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled KIM DEY, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. EDUCATORS CREDIT
UNION, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01423-PP (E.D. Wisc.), the
Plaintiff asks the requests the Court to enter an order certifying
classes in this case, appointing the Plaintiff as class
representatives, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class
Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff also asks the Court to stay this class certification
motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed,
and that the Court grant the parties relief from the local rules'
automatic briefing schedule and requirement that Plaintiff file a
brief and supporting documents in support of this motion.

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=dbggICf7

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482 8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482 8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com


EL KUCHO: Violates Overtime Wage Laws, "Romero" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------
EVELIA ROMERO and JESUS PINEDA, the Plaintiff, v. EL KUCHO MEXICAN
RESTAURANT LLC and LUIS ZEPEDA, as an individual, the Defendants,
Case No. 520539/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Oct. 24, 2017), seeks to
recover damages for egregious violations of state overtime wage
laws arising out of Plaintiffs' employment at El Kucho Mexican
Restaurant LLC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          69-12 Austin Street
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Telephone: (718) 263 9591


EL POLLO LOCO: "Godinez" Suit Seeks OT Pay under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------
PETRA GODINEZ and JOSE RODRIGUEZ, Individually and on Behalf of
All Other Similarly Situated Employees of Defendants, the
Plaintiffs, v. EL POLLO LOCO, INC.; W.K.S. RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.;
SUNNYVALE/SANTA CLARA EL POLLO LOCO, LLC; W.K.S. RESTAURANT
CORPORATION; and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. 17CV317828 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 20, 2017), seeks to
recover damages, restitution, injunctive relief and other relief
under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, Godinez and Rodriguez allege they were
routinely required to work in excess of eight hours per day or
forty hours per week. As exempt employees, however, they did not
receive overtime compensation. Defendants also used the executive
exemption as a means to deprive Plaintiffs and the Class of
legally required 30-minute meal breaks, 10-minute rest breaks, and
accurate wage statements.

El Pollo Loco are two independent restaurant chains that are
controlled by different companies.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert S. Arns, Esq.
          Jonathan E. Davis, Esq.
          Kevin M. Osborne, Esq.
          Julie C. Erickson, Esq.
          Shounak S. Dharap, Esq.
          THE ARNS LAW FIRM
          515 Folsom Street, 3rd Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 495 7800
          Facsimile: (415) 495 7888


ELECTRIC CONNECTION: Ruiz et al. Seek Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------
ALEJANDRO RUIZ, an Individual; and ELIJAH BERNAL, an Individual;
the Plaintiffs, v. ELECTRIC CONNECTION, INC., CLASS CLAIMS:
a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive
The Defendant, Case No. BC680834 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 23, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid wages under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs, and Aggrieved
Employees were not properly paid all wages earned, including meal
and rest period premiums, minimum wage, and overtime. As a result,
Plaintiffs', Aggrieved Employees' paystubs were inaccurate and
Defendants knowingly and intentionally failed to pay all wages due
in a timely fashion for all Aggrieved Employees whose employment
is or has been terminated.

Electric Connection is a full line electrical distributor located
in the heart of the Shenandoah Valley in Staunton , Virginia.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Alejandro Ruiz and Elijah Bernal
on behalf of themselves and Aggrieved Employees:

          Zachary Cantor, Esq.
          CANTOR LAW
          www.CantorLawyers.com
          1112 Montana Avenue, Suite C
          Santa Monica, CA 90403
          Telephone: (310) 393 6620
          Facsimile: (310) 393 6680


EQUIFAX INC: "Turner" Claims Damages Over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------
Nathan Turner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Equifax Inc., a Georgia Corporation, Case
No. 17-CV-2041 (S.D. Cal., October 4, 2017), seeks redress for
negligence, unjust enrichment and violation of the California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code and Unfair
Competition Law.

Equifax, one of the three major consumer credit reporting
agencies, was hacked and the consumers' data it held was stolen.
Equifax waited more than a month to advise affected users,
including the Plaintiff, that their private, personal information
had been compromised. Data included names, Social Security
numbers, birth dates, addresses, driver's license numbers and
credit card numbers. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander M. Schack, Esq.
      Natasha N. Serino, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ALEXANDER M. SCHACK
      16870 West Bernardo Drive, Suite 400
      San Diego, CA 92127
      Tel: (858) 485-6535
      Fax: (858) 485-0608
      Email: alexschack@amslawoffice.com
             natashaserino@amslawoffice.com


EQUIFAX INC: Small Businesses Seek Damages Over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kademi, LLC, Superior Services, Investment Group, LLC, Forest
Express Properties, LLC, Just Rev, LLC, Pierce N Tell of Sarasota,
LLC, Martin's Auto Repair, Mojo Mama's LLC, Young's Distributing
Co., Inc., Coastal Communications, LLC, The Mello Group, Inc.,
Dawn Lea Chalmers, Richard Alexander, Kbar Ali, Poonam Ali,
Reevney St. Luc, Oshik Perez, Teresa Sue Martin, William Marvin
Martin, Jr., Ngela M. Krout, Bridgette Young, Jeff Newkirk, Chris
Williams, individually and on behalf of others, similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Equifax, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-
03886, (N.D. Ga., October 4, 2017), seeks appropriate injunctive
relief designed to ensure against the recurrence of a data breach
by adopting and implementing the best security data practices to
safeguard customers' financial and personal information and that
would include, without limitation, an order and judgment directing
Equifax to encrypt and protect all data and directing Equifax to
provide to Plaintiffs and Class members extended credit monitoring
services, pre judgment and post-judgment interest, costs of suit,
including reasonable attorneys' fees and such other and further
relief resulting from negligence and under the Fair Credit
Reporting Act and various consumer protections statutes and data
protection laws.

Equifax is a credit-reporting company that track and rates the
financial history of U.S. consumers. The companies are supplied
with data about loans, loan payments and credit cards, as well as
information on everything from child support payments, credit
limits, missed rent and utilities payments, addresses and employer
history. Equifax experienced a cybersecurity incident impacting
approximately 143 million U.S. consumers exposing their names,
Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses, driver's license
numbers and credit card numbers.

Plaintiffs represent a class of small business owners and
consumers who blame Equifax for failure to safeguard personally
identifiable information during the data breach. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason R. Doss, Esq.
      Samuel T. Brannan, Esq.
      THE DOSS FIRM, LLC
      36 Trammell Street, Suite 101
      Marietta, GA 30064
      Tel: (770) 578-1314
      Fax: (770) 578-1302
      Email: jasondoss@dossfirm.com


EQUIFAX INC: Pellitteri Files Suit Over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------
Carmen Pellitteri and Kent Toft, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Equifax, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-03881 (N.D. Ga., October 5, 2017), seeks
appropriate injunctive relief designed to ensure against the
recurrence of a data breach by adopting and implementing the best
security data practices to safeguard customers' financial and
personal information and that would include, without limitation,
an order and judgment directing Equifax to encrypt and protect all
data and directing Equifax to provide to Plaintiffs and Class
members extended credit monitoring services.  The lawsuit further
seeks pre judgment and post-judgment interest, costs of suit,
including reasonable attorneys' fees and such other and further
relief resulting from negligence and under the Fair Credit
Reporting Act and various consumer protection statutes and data
protection laws.

Equifax is a credit-reporting company that track and rates the
financial history of U.S. consumers. The companies are supplied
with data about loans, loan payments and credit cards, as well as
information on everything from child support payments, credit
limits, missed rent and utilities payments, addresses and employer
history. Equifax experienced a cybersecurity incident impacting
approximately 143 million U.S. consumers exposing their names,
Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses, driver's license
numbers and credit card numbers.

Plaintiffs' personal and confidential information, was included in
the massive data breach of Defendant's systems.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David A. Bain, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF DAVID A. BAIN, LLC
      1230 Peachtree Street N.E., Suite 1050
      Atlanta, GA 30309
      Telephone: (404) 724-9990
      Facsimile: (404) 724-9986
      Email: dbain@bain-law.com

             - and -

      Mark Reinhardt, Esq.
      Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq.
      Brant D. Penney, Esq.
      Roberta A. Yard, Esq.
      REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
      E-1250 First National Bank Building
      332 Minnesota Street
      St. Paul, MN 55101
      Telephone: (651) 287-2100
      Email: m.reinhardt@rwblawfirm.com
             g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com
             b.penney@rwblawfirm.com
             r.yard@rwblawfirm.com


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Henderson" Suit Arising From Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
SHON HENDERSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. EQUIFAX, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-03829-LMM (N.D. Ga.,
September 29, 2017), arises from a data breach that allowed third
parties to access the names, addresses, Social Security numbers,
and other personally identifiable information of over 140 million
United States consumers.

The data breach purportedly began in mid-May and ended on July 29,
2017, when Equifax finally realized its security had been
compromised.  While Equifax allegedly learned of the Breach on
July 29, 2017, Equifax did not acknowledge the Breach nor inform
the public until September 7, 2017, well over one month later, Ms.
Henderson contends.

Equifax, Inc., is a corporation organized under the laws of
Georgia and headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.  Equifax is one of
the three largest credit bureaus in the United States.  Equifax's
business model revolves around buying, selling, collecting, and
storing consumers' PII for financial gain.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ranse M. Partin, Esq.
          CONLEY GRIGGS PARTIN LLP
          4200 Northside Parkway, NW
          Building One, Suite 300
          Atlanta, GA 30327
          Telephone: (404) 467-1155
          E-mail: ranse@conleygriggs.com

               - and -

          Deval R. Zaveri, Esq.
          ZAVERI TABB, APC
          402 West Broadway, Suite 1950
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 831-6988
          E-mail: dev@zaveritabb.com


EQUIFAX INC: "Johnson" Suit Moved to District of Montana
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Elvis A. Johnson, Individually and
on Behalf of all Other Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Equifax Inc., the Defendant, Case No. BDV-17-00723CV-17-00071-BU-
BMM, was removed on Oct. 25, 2017 from the 1st Judicial District
Court, Lewis & Clark County, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Montana (Helena). The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 6:17-cv-00100-SHE to the proceeding. The case is assigned
to the Hon. Judge Sam E Haddon.

Equifax Inc. is a consumer credit reporting agency. Equifax
collects and aggregates information on over 800 million individual
consumers and more than 88 million businesses worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Farris-Olsen, Esq.
          MORRISON, SHERWOOD, WILSON & DEOLA, PLLP
          401 N Last Chance Gulch
          PO Box 557
          Helena, MT 59624
          Telephone: (406) 442 3261
          Facsimile: (406) 443 7294
          E-mail: rfolsen@mswdlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Charles Henry Carpenter, Esq.
          CARPENTER LAW FIRM PLC
          210 N. Higgins Ave., Suite 336
          Missoula, MT 59802
          Telephone: (406) 543 0511
          E-mail: carpentc@carpenterlawfirmplc.com


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Williams" Suit over Data Security Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
Cherie Williams, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Equifax Inc. and Equifax Information
Services LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-13307-NGE-SDD (E.D.
Mich., Oct. 9, 2017), asks the Court to declare that Equifax's
existing internet security measures do not comply with its
obligations, and to compel the Company to comply with its
obligations.

The Plaintiff brings this class action suit on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, to redress Defendants' failure
to adequately safeguard confidential personal information and
related data.  This action arises from one of the largest data
security breaches ever to occur in the United States. As a result
of this breach, Plaintiff and the millions of individuals whose
sensitive personal data was made accessible now face substantial
risk further injury from identity theft, credit and reputational
harm, false tax claims, or even extortion.

Equifax Inc. is a consumer credit reporting agency. Equifax
collects and aggregates information on over 800 million individual
consumers and more than 88 million businesses worldwide.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff Cherie Williams and Proposed Classes:

Richard M. Hagstrom, Esq.
Mark E. Rath, Esq.
HELLMUTH & JOHNSON, PLLC
8050 West 78th Street
Edina, MN 55439
Telephone: (952) 941-4005
Facsimile: (952) 941-2337
E-mail: rhagstrom@hjlawfirm.com
        mrath@hjlawfirm.com

     - and -

Michael R. Cashman, Esq.
Gregory S. Otsuka, Esq.
8050 West 78th Street
Edina, MN 55439
Telephone: (952) 941 4005
Facsimile: (952) 941 2337
E-mail: mcashman@hjlawfirm.com
        gotsuka@hjlawfirm.com


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Wilkins" Sues over Data Security Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
KIRBY WILKINS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. EQUIFAX, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-03972-TWT (N.D. Ga., Oct. 9, 2017), seeks remedies
including but not limited to reimbursement of out-of-pocket
losses, further credit monitoring services with accompanying
identity theft insurance, and improved data security on behalf of
themselves and all similarly-situated individuals and entities
whose sensitive personal identifying information was accessed
during the Equifax Breach.

This case is a class action on behalf of the 143 million
individuals whose sensitive personal identifying information was
compromised in a cybersecurity breach of Equifax, which was
announced on September 7, 2017.  According to Company's public
announcement of the Equifax Breach, the compromised information
includes Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses and, in
some instances, driver's license numbers. Also, hackers accessed
credit card numbers and certain dispute documents with personal
identifying information for some consumers.

Equifax failed to adequately protect consumers' sensitive personal
identifying information. Lack of proper safeguards provided a
means for unauthorized intruders to breach Equifax's computer
network and steal sensitive personal identifying information.
Armed with this sensitive personal identifying information,
hackers can commit a variety of crimes including, among other
things, taking out loans in another person's name; opening new
financial accounts in another person's name; using the victim's
information to obtain government benefits; filing a fraudulent tax
return and using the victim's information to obtain a tax refund;
obtaining a driver's license or identification card in the
victim's name but with another person's picture; or giving false
information to police during an arrest.

As a result of the Equifax Breach, Plaintiff and Class members
have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and
identity theft. Plaintiff and Class members must now and in the
future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against
identity theft. Plaintiff and Class members may be faced with
fraudulently incurred debt. Plaintiff and Class members may also
incur out of pocket costs for, among other things, obtaining
credit reports, credit freezes, or other protective measures to
deter or detect identity theft.

Equifax Inc. is a consumer credit reporting agency. Equifax
collects and aggregates information on over 800 million individual
consumers and more than 88 million businesses worldwide.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff Kirby Wilkins

Lisa L. Heller, Esq.
ROBBINS ROSS ALLOY BELINFANTE LITTLEFIELD LLC
999 Peachtree Street, N.E. Suite 1120
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (678) 701 9381
Facsimile: (404) 856 3250

     - and -

Kessler Topaz, Esq.
Naumon A. Amjed, Esq.
Joshua D'Ancona, Esq.
Ethan J. Barlieb, Esq.
Meredith L. Lambert, Esq.
MELTZER & CHECK LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (610) 667 7706
Facsimile: (610) 667 7056

     - and -

David H. Thompson, Esq.
Davis Cooper, Esq.
COOPER & KIRK, PLLC
1523 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: (202) 220 9600
Facsimile: (202) 220 9601


EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Court Certifies 2 Classes in "Munguia-Brown"
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JAVANNI MUNGUIA-BROWN, ANGELINA MAGANA,
NORMA RODRIGUEZ, and DAVID BONFANTI, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. EQUITY RESIDENTIAL,
ERP OPERATING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, EQUITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT,
LLC, EQRWOODLAND PARK A LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, and EQR-WOODLAND PARK B LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-01225-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Jeffrey S. White entered an order:

   1. certifying a Standard Late Fee Class of:

      "all Equity Residential tenants in California from
      September 3, 2010 until the date of class certification who
      were charged one or more late fee(s) under Equity
      Residential's standard late fee provision: 5% of the
      outstanding balance owed (called at 5% of the total amount
      of monthly recurring charges) or $50, whichever is greater;

   2. certifying a Woodland Park Preexisting Lease Class of:

      "all Equity Residential tenants in the Woodland Park
      Property from December 1, 2011 until Defendant sold the
      property in February 2016 who were charged one or more late
      fee(s) of $50 under Equity Residential's policy of charging
      a flat $50 late fee to tenants on pre-existing non-EQR
      leases;

   3. appointing Plaintiff David Bonfanti as class representative
      for the Standard Late Fee Class, and Plaintiffs Javanni
      Munguia-Brown, Angelina Magana, and Norma Rodriguez as
      class representatives for the Woodland Park Preexisting
      Lease Class;

   4. appointing counsel, Goldstein, Borge, Dardarian & Ho,
      Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto, and Nicholas &
      Tomasevic, LLP as class counsel; and

   5. approving proposed class notices submitted with their
      papers and request that they be issued to the proposed
      class members.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=mblvl7Jk


ERIC D. HARGAN: Dey Files Placeholder Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled KIM DEY, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. EDUCATORS CREDIT
UNION, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01423-PP (E.D. Wisc.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying classes in
this case, appointing the Plaintiff as class representatives, and
appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such
other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties
relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and
requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents
in support of this motion.

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=M8JVd20X

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482 8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482 8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com


FAY SERVICING: Motion for Class Certification Withdrawn
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled David Pagan, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. Fay
Servicing, LLC, the Defendant, Case No.: 1:17-cv-05795 (N.D.
Ill.), the Hon. Judge Manish S. Shah entered an order withdrawing
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on October 19,
2017, all fact discovery must be noticed in time to be completed
by July 31, 2018. Any requests to amend the pleadings must be made
by April 4, 2018. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is
withdrawn. Continued status hearing is set for Feb. 7, 2018 at
9:30 a.m.

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


FCA US: Faces "Canfield" Suit over TPMS Valve Stems
---------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY CANFIELD, ANDREW CATTANO, JAMES LETT, DENNIS PECK, STEVEN
SPRATLEY, SUSAN STEBBINS, AND YVETTE TAYLOR, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
FCA US LLC f/k/a CHRYSLER GROUP LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
61235287 (Del. Super. Ct., Oct. 11, 2017), seeks awards of damages
in excess of $1,000,000, including the costs of inspecting and
replacing the TPMS valve stems as well as the tires that failed as
a result of air loss from defective TPMS valve stems, and other
appropriate relief.

This proposed class action is brought by Plaintiffs in three
states who allege that Chrysler concealed a known safety defect
from its customers. The defective component is the copper-bearing
aluminum 2000 series metal alloy ("AL2000") valve stem and nut on
vehicles equipped with a tire pressure monitoring system ("TPMS").

A TPMS is an electronic system designed to monitor the air
pressure inside the pneumatic tires on various types of vehicles.
A TPMS reports real-time tire-pressure information to the driver
of the vehicle by utilizing pressure sensors in the wheels that
transmit pressure information to the vehicle's instrument cluster.

The Firestone tire recall in the late 1990s, which was linked to
more than 100 deaths from rollovers following tire tread-
separation, prompted the United States Congress to enact
legislation mandating the use of TPMS technology in all light
motor vehicles (under 10,000 pounds), to help alert drivers of
under-inflation events. This legislation mandated that by 2008 all
new passenger car models must be equipped with a TPMS. The valve
stem, a critical component of the TPMS, is subject to corrosion
since it protrudes from each tire and is, therefore, exposed to
corrosive elements like road salt. When the valve stem fails, air
can be rapidly released from the tire without warning (an "air-
out") and at any speed, a condition akin to a tire blow out.

The Plaintiffs and class members purchased Chrysler vehicles
fitted with AL2000 TPMS valve stems and nuts with a defect that
renders them particularly susceptible to such sudden, life-
threatening failures. This defect is unreasonably dangerous, as it
can cause a driver to lose control of the vehicle, and there is
often no warning before the valve stems and nuts fail. Indeed,
Chrysler recognized the risk posed by a corroded valve stem and
nut and, in later model vehicles, replaced the AL2000 valve stems
and nuts with a new rubberized part that was less likely to
corrode. Nevertheless, Chrysler has failed to recall the
inherently dangerous AL2000 valve stems and nuts or reimburse
vehicle owners for the inevitable failure of this critical part.
Unfortunately, the TPMS defect is as pervasive as it is dangerous.
The defect affects a number of Chrysler's most popular vehicles,
including the Chrysler Town and Country Minivan, Dodge Grand
Caravan Minivan, Jeep Liberty, and Dodge Journey SUVs. Demand for
TPMS replacements parts has been so extreme that the part has
often been on nationwide backorder. Each of the Plaintiffs has
suffered harm as a result of Chrysler's decision not to disclose
the TPMS defect. Each Plaintiff bought or leased a 2010 Jeep
Liberty, Chrysler Town & Country, or Dodge Journey. And each
Plaintiff has experienced TPMS-related problems, such as the
corrosion-related valve stem break at high speeds that causes a
rapid loss of tire air.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          P. Bradford DeLeeuw, Esq.
          Jeffrey S. Goddess, Esq.
          ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A.
          919 N. Market Street, Suite 1401
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 656 4433
          E-mail: bdeleeuw@rmgglaw.com
                  jgoddess@rmgglaw.com

               - and -

          Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
          Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
          MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
          412 H Street N.E., Ste. 302
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 470 3520

               - and -

          Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
          Jay I. Brody, Esq.
          KANTROWITZ GOLDHAMER
          & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
          747 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200
          Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
          Telephone: (845) 356 2570

               - and -

          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
          5101 Wisconsin Ave NW, Suite 305
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 429 2290

               - and -

          Elmer Robert Keach, III, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ELMER ROBERT KEACH III, P.C.
          1040 Riverfront Center
          P.O. Box 70
          Amsterdam, NY 12010
          Telephone: (518) 434 1718

               - and -

          Daniel Calvert, Esq.
          PARKER WAICHMAN LLP
          27300 Riverview Center Boulevard, Suite 103
          Bonita Springs, FL 34134
          Telephone: (239) 390 1000


FIDELITY DEPOSIT: "Sparks" Suit Challenges Force-Placed Insurance
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JILL SPARKS and DENNIS ROSS individually, and JOHN TANIS, in his
capacity as Administrator of the Estate of Eleanore Tanis, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. FIDELITY
DEPOSIT AND DISCOUNT BANK, FIDELITY D&D BANCORP, INC., and
AMERICAN MODERN HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 170903640 (Penn.
Ct. of Common Pleas, Philadelphia Cty., September 28, 2017),
alleges that the Bank has set up illegal practices related to
force-placed insurance.

The Plaintiffs contend that lenders have entered into collusive
relationships with certain force-placed insurance providers that
result in exceptional profits to both the lenders and the force-
placed insurers.  The Plaintiffs add that Fidelity established,
supervised and implemented policies, procedures, and business
practices of the Bank relating to force-placed insurance on loans.

Fidelity Deposit and Discount Bank is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Fidelity D&D, Inc.  Both Defendants' headquarters are located in
Dunmore, Pennsylvania.  The Fidelity Defendants were engaged in a
joint venture or joint enterprise relative to the activities
challenged herein or the Bank is the alter ego of Fidelity.

American Modern Home Insurance Company is an insurer, and is a
subsidiary of American Modern Insurance Group, with headquarters
in Amelia, Ohio.

At all relevant times, the Bank is (or was) the assignee, holder,
and/or servicing agent of loans secured by the Plaintiffs' and
Class Members' property when the Bank obtained force-placed
insurance for said property.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard Shenkan, Esq.
          SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS, LLC
          6550 Lakeshore St.
          West Bloomfield, MI 48323
          Telephone: (248) 562-1320
          Facsimile: (888) 769-1774
          E-mail: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com


FLORIDA: Court Defers Ruling on "Davis" Class Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MARK DAVIS, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. JULIE JONES,
in her official capacity as an employee of the Florida Department
of Corrections, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00820-
MMH-PDB (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Marcia Morales Howard entered
an order:

   1. granting Defendants' unopposed motion for extension of time
      to respond to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification;

   2. directing Defendants to have 21 days after a ruling on the
      Motion to Dismiss to file a response to Plaintiffs' Motion
      for Class Certification.

   3. deferring ruling on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
      Certification.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Yk58UPU3

In the lawsuit styled MARK DAVIS, MARK GERALDS, JESSE GUARDADO,
JOSEPH JORDAN, KHALID PASHA, ROBERT RIMMER, JOHN TROY, STEVEN
STEIN, and GARY WHITTON, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. JULIE JONES, KEVIN JORDAN,
and BARRY REDDISH, in their official capacities as employees of
the Florida Department of Corrections, the Defendants, Case No.
3:17-cv-00820-MMH-PDB (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs move the Court
for an order to certify a class of:

   "all persons in the State of Florida who have been sentenced
   to death, are in the custody of the Florida Department of
   Corrections ("FDOC"), and are being held at Union Correctional
   Institution ("UCI") or Florida State Prison ("FSP").

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Linda McDermott, Esq.
          Martin J. McClain, Esq.
          McCLAIN & MCDERMOTT P.A.
          141 NE 30th Street
          Wilton Manors, FL 33334-1064
          Telephone: (850) 322 2172
          Facsimile: (954) 564 5412
          E-mail: Lindamcdermott@msn.com

              - and -

          Seth A. Rosenthal, Esq.
          Claire Wheeler, Esq.
          Maggie T. Grace, Esq.
          Matthew T. Shea, Esq.
          VENABLE LLP
          575 7th Street NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone (202) 653 3750
          Facsimile (202) 344 8300
          E-mail: Sarosenthal@venable.com
                  Cmwheeler@venable.com
                  Mtgrace@venable.com
                  Mtshea@venable.com


FRONTPOINT SECURITY: Fails to Pay OT Premium, "Brown" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
ARIN BROWN, 2910 College A venue, A29 Costa Mesa, CA 92626, JIMMY
(FRANK) ABERNATHY, 903 Jaysmith Street Great Falls, VA 22066,
CHARLES FIELDS, 70 Joan Drive York Haven, PA 17370, VENEE
GALLOWAY, 21033 Timber Ridge Terrace Unit 201 Ashburn, VA 20147,
and LAMONT WILKINS, 6162 Popes Creek Place Haymarket, VA 20169,
the Plaintiff, v. FRONTPOINT SECURITY SOLUTIONS, LLC 1568
Springhill Road, Suite 301 McLean, VA 22102, the Defendant, Case
No. 201714845 (Circuit Court for Fairfax County, Oct. 19, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime and an additional and equal
amount as liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

According to the complaint, Defendant employs Sales Consultants
and/or Security Consultants at its call center in McLean,
Virginia, to sell these security systems to customers over the
phone. Defendant's policy and practice has been to reduce its
labor costs by unlawfully classifying Sales Consultants as exempt
from the overtime protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Although Plaintiffs and the collective they seek to represent
worked significant overtime hours, Defendant illegally failed to
pay them overtime premium pay for all hours worked over forty in a
workweek.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Carla D. Brown, Esq.
          CHARLSON BREDEHOFT COHEN & BROWN, P.C.
          11260 Roger Bacon Drive, Suite 201
          Reston, VA 20190
          Telephone: (703) 318 6800
          E-mail: cbrovm@charlsonbredehoft.com

               - and -

          Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
          Melissa L. Stewart, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          685 Third Ave., 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 245 1000
          E-mail: jms@outtengolden.com
                  mstewart@outtengolden.com

               - and -

          Jennifer Liu, Esq.
          THE LIU LAW FIRM, P.C.
          1390 Market St., Suite 200
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 896 4260
          E-mail: jliu@liulawpc.com


GAP INC: Coladonato Sues over Bogus Discounts
---------------------------------------------
CARON COLADONATO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE GAP, INC.; GAP (APPAREL) LLC; GAP
INTERNATIONAL SALES, INC.; BANANA REPUBLIC, LLC; and BANANA
REPUBLIC (APPAREL) LLC, the Defendants, Case No. CAM-L-003932-17
(N.J. Super. Ct., Oct. 9, 2017), seeks injunctive relief, in the
form of an order requiring Defendants to stop the complained-of
practices in its Gap Factory and Banana Republic Factory stores in
New Jersey.

The Plaintiff brings this proposed class action for injunctive
relief only against Defendants, under the New Jersey Declaratory
Judgment Act and New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, alleging
violations of federal and New Jersey state pricing regulations.
Specifically, the lawsuit alleges Defendants engaged in a uniform
policy of advertising fictitious, purported former prices and
percentage-off discounts in the advertising, marketing, and sales
of apparel and other personal items in their Gap Factory and
Banana Republic Factory stores in New Jersey. First, Defendants
have a uniform policy of creating an arbitrary, "fake" base price
for every item offered for sale in their Gap Factory and Banana
Republic Factory stores in New Jersey, which fake base price is
listed on the price tag of each item. This fake base price is an
artificially high price that purports to be -- but is not -- each
item's original or regular, nondiscounted price.

The Gap, Inc., commonly known as Gap Inc. or Gap, is an American
worldwide clothing and accessories retailer. It was founded in
1969 by Donald Fisher and Doris F. Fisher.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq.
DeNITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C.
5 Greentree Centre
525 Route 73 North, Suite 410
Marlton, NJ 08053
Telephone: (856) 797 9951


GEORGIA: Advocacy Office et al. Suit Filed in N.D. Georgia
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against State of Georgia.
The case is captioned as The Georgia Advocacy Office; The Arc of
the United States; R.F., by and through his mother; C.S., by and
through his mother, M.S.; Q.H., by and through his mother; and
V.H., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. State of Georgia; Nathan Deal, in his official
capacity as Governor of the State of Georgia; Georgia Board of
Education; Georgia Department of Education; Richard Woods, in his
official capacity as State School Superintendent of Georgia;
Georgia Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental
Disabilities; Judy Fitzgerald, in her official capacity as
Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Behavioral Health and
Developmental Disabilities; Department of Community Health; and
Frank Berry, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the
Georgia Department of Community Health, the Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-03999-SCJ (N.D. Ga., Oct. 11, 2017). The case is assigned
to the Hon. Judge Steve C Jones.

Georgia is a southeastern U.S. state whose terrain spans coastal
beaches, farmland and mountains. Capital city Atlanta is home of
the Georgia Aquarium and the Martin Luther King Jr. National
Historic Site, dedicated to the African-American leader's life and
times. The city of Savannah is famed for its 18th- and 19th-
century architecture and leafy public squares.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Craig Lewis Goodmark, Esq.
          Goodmark Law Firm, LLC
          One West Court Square, Suite 410
          Decatur, GA 30030
          Telephone: (404) 719 4848
          E-mail: cgoodmark@gmail.com

               - and -

          Jessica C. Wilson, Esq.
          Christopher G. Campbell, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP (US)-BOSTON
          33 Arch Street, 26th Floor
          Boston, MA 02110-1447
          Telephone: (617) 406 6044
          E-mail: jessica.wilson@dlapiper.com
                  christopher.campbell@dlapiper.com

               - and -

          Leslie K. Lipson, Esq.
          GEORGIA ADVOCACY OFFICE
          100 Crescent Center, Suite 520
          Tucker, GA 30084
          Telephone: (404) 885 1234

               - and -

          Alison N. Barkoff, Esq.
          Ira A. Burnim, Esq.
          BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
          1101 15th Street NW, Suite 1212
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 467 5730
          E-mail: abarkoff@cpr-ma.org
                  irabster@gmail.com

               - and -

          Devon Orland, Esq.
          GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF LAW
          40 Capitol Square, S.W.
          Atlanta, GA 30334-1300
          Telephone: (404) 885 1234
          Facsimile: (404) 378 0031
          E-mail: dorland@thegao.org


GLOBAL CONNECT: Silva Seeks Unpaid OT Wages under Labor Code
------------------------------------------------------------
RUBEN ULISES MEDRANO SILVA, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GLOBAL CONNECT, INC., a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. (S.D. Fla., Oct. 19, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and due wages under the California Labor
Code.

The Plaintiff and similarly situated employees routinely working
over eight hours per day or 40 hours per week without being
properly compensated for hours worked in excess of eight hours per
day or 40 hours per week by, among other things, failing to track
all hours worked, failing to pay for all tracked hours worked,
rounding tracked time entries, editing tracked time entries, as
well as by failing to compute nondiscretionary bonus, incentive
and/or commission pay in calculating overtime wages.

Global Connect is a provider of Recruitment and Human Resource
Solutions worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
          BIBIYAN & BOKHOUR, P.C.
          287 South Robertson Boulevard, Suite 303
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 438 5555
          Facsimile: (310) 300 1705


GUAN FU: "Pei" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Compensation under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pei Hua Yang, individually and on behalf all other employees
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Guan Fu Inc., d/b/a Guan Fu
Szechuan, Wei Xue, and Longfei Li, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-
cv-06158 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 23, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-
judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all
other and former non-exempt employees who have been or were
employed by the Defendants at each of their four finishing
locations for up to the last three years, through entry of
judgment in this case and whom failed to receive minimum wages,
spread-of-hours pay, and/or overtime compensation for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per week, and have been subject to
the same common decision, policy, and plan to not provide required
wage notices at the time of hiring, in contravention to federal
and state labor laws.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul Mendez, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          136-18 39th Ave., Suite #1003
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353 8522
          E-mail: pmendez@hanglaw.com


HAMILTON COUNTY, OH: Robinson Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SAMUEL ROBINSON, on behalf of Himself and a
class of others similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. SHERIFF JIM
NEIL, individually and In his capacity as Sheriff of Hamilton
County, Ohio, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00652-SJD (S.D.
Ohio), the Plaintiff move the Court to certify this action to
proceed as a class action on behalf of:

   "all inmates detained in the Hamilton County Justice Center",
   including the following 2 subclasses:

      "(1) all inmates detained in the Hamilton County Justice
      Center awaiting trial and who are not serving time pursuant
      to a judgment of conviction of a crime punishable by
      imprisonment"; and

      "(2) all inmates detained in the Hamilton County Justice
      Center who are serving time pursuant to a judgment of
      conviction of a crime punishable by imprisonment".

The Plaintiffs seek to represent an estimated 5,000 other
detainees who are being, or will be detained in Hamilton County
Justice Center during the pendency of this litigation, and who
have been made to suffer from dangerous and inhumane conditions of
confinement in that facility.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=c5UTjbCa

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert B. Newman, Esq.
          NEWMAN-MEEKS
          215 E. 9th St. Ste. 650
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 639 7000
          E-mail: robertnewman@newman-meeks.com

               - and -

          Michael Jay O'Hara, Esq.
          O'HARA, TAYLOR, SLOAN & CASSIDY
          25 Town Center Blvd. Ste. 201
          Covington, KY 41017
          Telephone: 859-221 2000
          E-mail: mohara@oharataylor.com

               - and -

          Marc D. Mezibov, Esq.
          MEZIBOV & BUTLER
          615 Elsinore PI. Ste. 105
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 621 8800
          E-mail: mdm@mezibov.com


HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Moore & Gilmore Sue over Biometric Info
------------------------------------------------------------
EARRIOUS MOORE and EBONY GILMORE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. HEALTHCARE
SERVICES GROUP, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation, the Defendant,
Case No. 2017-CH-13658 (Circuit Court of Cook County, Ill., Oct.
11, 2017), seeks an order declaring that Defendant's conduct
violates Biometric Information Privacy Act, requiring Defendant to
cease the unlawful activities discussed, and awarding liquidated
damages to Plaintiffs and the proposed Class.

According to the lawsuit, HCSG uses a biometric time tracking
system that requires employees to use their fingerprint as a means
of authentication, instead of key fobs or identification cards.
While there are tremendous benefits to using biometric time clocks
in the workplace, there are also serious risks. Unlike key fobs or
identification cards -- which can be changed or replaced if stolen
or compromised -- fingerprints are unique, permanent biometric
identifiers associated with the employee. This exposes employees
to serious and irreversible privacy risks. For example, if a
fingerprint database is hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed,
employees have no means by which to prevent identity theft and
unauthorized tracking. Recognizing the need to protect its
citizens from situations like these, Illinois enacted the BIPA
specifically to regulate companies that collect and store Illinois
citizens' biometrics, such as fingerprints. Despite this law, HCSG
disregards its employees' statutorily protected privacy rights and
unlawfully collects, stores, and uses their biometric data in
violation of the BIPA.[BN]

HCSG provides housekeeping, nutrition, maintenance, and janitorial
services to nursing homes, retirement complexes, rehabilitation
centers, and hospitals located throughout the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Sydney M. Janzen, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: 312 589 6370
          Facsimile: 312 589 6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com
                  sjanzen@edelson.com

               - and -

          David Fish, Esq.
          John Kunze, Esq.
          THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
          200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123
          Naperville, IL 60563
          Telephone: (630) 355 7590
          Facsimile: (630) 778 0400
          E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com
                  jkunze@fishlawfirm.com


HERSHEY COMPANY: "Bratton" Suit Seeks Certification of 3 Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ROBERT BRATTON, Individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE HERSHEY
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-4322-C-NKL (W.D. Mo.),
the Plaintiff moves the Court for an Order:

   1. appointing Plaintiff as representative of the Classes;

   2. appointing Plaintiff's counsel as counsel for the Classes;
      and

   3. granting certification of the following classes:

      The Missouri Consumer Class:

      "all Missouri residents who purchased a 5-ounce box of
      Whoppers candy and/or a 4-ounce box of Reese's Pieces candy
      for personal, family, or household purposes within the
      relevant statute-of-limitations period";

      The Unjust Enrichment (Restatement) Multi-State Class:

      "all persons residing in Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut,
      District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, New York,
      Oklahoma, or West Virginia who purchased a 5-ounce box of
      Whoppers candy and/or a 4-ounce box of Reese's Pieces candy
      for their personal or household use within the relevant
      statute-of-limitations period"; and

      The Unjust Enrichment (Appreciation) Multi-State Class:

      "all persons residing in Alaska, Florida, California,
      Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri,
      Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South
      Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont,
      Washington, or Wisconsin who purchased a 5-ounce box of
      Whoppers candy and/or a 4-ounce box of Reese's Pieces candy
      for their personal or household use within the relevant
      statute-of-limitations period."

      Excluded from any proposed Class is (i) Defendant, any
      entity in which Defendant has a controlling interest, (ii)
      the Court and its staff, and (iii) Class Counsel and their
      staff.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David L. Steelman, Esq.
          Stephen F. Gaunt, Esq.
          STEELMAN, GAUNT &HORSEFIELD
          901 Pine Street, Suite 110
          Rolla, MO 65401
          Telephone: 573 458 5231
          Facsimile: 573 341 8548
          E-mail: dsteelman@steelmanandgaunt.com
                  sgaunt@steelmanandgaunt.com

               - and -

          Scott A. Kamber, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW LLC
          142 57th Street, 11th Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: 646 964 9600
          Facsimile: 212 202 6364
          E-mail: skamber@kamberlaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher D. Moon, Esq.
          Naomi B. Spector, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW LLP
          9404 Genesee Avenue, Suite 340
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: 310 400 1053
          Facsimile: 858 800 4277
          E-mail: cmoon@kamberlaw.com
                  nspector@kamberlaw.com


HOME CARE PLUS: Violates Wage & Hour Laws, "Nguyen" Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
GWEN NGUYEN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. HOME CARE PLUS CORPORATION, a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. BC680720 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 24, 2017),
seeks to recover overtime wages under the California Labor Code.

The lawsuit claims Defendants subject Plaintiff and other Class
members to wage-and-hour policies and practices that violate
California labor law. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as an
in-home caregiver. Plaintiff's job lacked the requisite
independence for her to be classified as an independent
contractor, and Defendants exerted pervasive control over
Plaintiffs performance of her job duties and responsibilities. Yet
Defendants classified Plaintiff as an independent contractor. In
fact, Plaintiff, as well as every other Class member, was a non-
exempt employee. As non-exempt employees, Plaintiff and all other
Class members were guaranteed myriad wage-and-hour rights.
Defendants violated Plaintiffs and all other Class members' wage
and hour rights. Among other things, Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiff and other Class members at the least the applicable
minimum wage for all hours worked, Defendants failed to Plaintiff
and other Class members all overtime wages for overtime hours
worked, and Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and other Class
members premiums for 30-minute, duty-free, uninterrupted meal
periods that they were not provided. Accordingly, Plaintiff, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, prays for
relief to redress Defendants' unlawful practices.

Home Care Plus Corporation provides personalized comprehensive
non-medical services customize to an individual's needs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yashdeep Singh, Esq.
          YASH LAW GROUP
          3 Pointe Drive, Suite 304
          Brea, CA 92821
          Telephone: (714) 494 6244
          Facsimile: (714) 406 2722
          E-mail: ysingh@yashlaw.com


HOMELAND SECURITY: Has Until Nov. 17 to Answer "Nio" Amended Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled KUSUMA NIO, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00998-ESH (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge
Ellen Segal Huvelle entered an order:

   1. denying as moot Plaintiffs' first motion for class
      certification and Defendants motion to dismiss the First
      Amended Complaint; and

   2. directing Defendants to have until November 17, 2017, to
      answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs' Second Amended
      Complaint.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kpnvnq7j


HOMELAND SECURITY: Court Certifies Class in "Nio" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled KUSUMA NIO, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00998-ESH (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge
Ellen Segal Huvelle entered an order:

   1. granting Plaintiffs' amended motion for class
      certification;

   2. appointing Plaintiffs as representatives of the class of:

      "all persons who have (i) enlisted in the Selected Reserve
      through the MAVNI program prior to October 13, 2017; (ii)
      served honorably with a Selected Reserve unit through
      participation in at least one qualifying drill period or
      served in an active-duty status; (iii) submitted N-400
      Applications for Naturalization; (iv) been issued Form N-
      426s certifying honorable service as a member of the
      Selected Reserve or in active-duty status; and (v) have had
      the processing or final adjudication of their
      naturalization applications (including naturalization
      itself) withheld or delayed because of (a) a final USCIS
      processing hold for MAVNIs, (b) a DOD N-426 policy review,
      (c) a DOD N-426 recall/decertification policy, (d) enhanced
      DOD security screenings, (e) a DOD CAF adjudication, (f) a
      national security determination, and/or (g) military
      service suitability vetting determination"; and

   3. appointing Plaintiffs' as class counsel.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=AHe1X663

The Plaintiffs moved the Court for an order certifying a class
consisting of all persons who:

   (i) have enlisted in the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve
       ("Selected Reserve") through the Military Accessions Vital
       to the National Interest ("MAVNI") program;

  (ii) have served honorably in the U.S. military through
       participation in at least one Selected Reserve drill
       period or in an active-duty status;

(iii) have received from the U.S. military executed Form
       N-426s certifying their honorable service as members
       of the Selected Reserve or in active-duty status;

  (iv) have submitted N-400 Applications for Naturalization to
       United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
       ("USCIS"); and

   (v) have had the processing or final adjudication of their
       naturalization applications (including naturalization
       itself) withheld or delayed because of (a) a final USCIS
       processing hold for MAVNIs, (b) a United States Department
       of Defense ("DoD") N-426 policy review, (c) a DoD N-426
       recall/decertification policy, (d) enhanced DoD security
       screenings, (e) a DoD Consolidated Adjudications Facility
       ("CAF") adjudication, (f) a so-called national security
       determination, and/or (g) a so-called military service
       suitability vetting or determination.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7J7FIVFg

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph J. LoBue, Esq.
          Douglas W. Baruch, Esq.
          Jennifer M. Wollenberg, Esq.
          Neaha P. Raol, Esq.
          Webster R. M. Beary, Esq.
          Shaun A. Gates, Esq.
          Katherine L. St. Romain, Esq.
          FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS, SHRIVER & JACOBSON LLP
          801 17th Street, NW
          Washington, D.C. 20006
          Telephone: (202) 639-7000
          Facsimile: (202) 639-7003
          E-mail: joseph.lobue@friedfrank.com
                  douglas.baruch@friedfrank.com
                  jennifer.wollenberg@friedfrank.com


HUDDLE HOUSE: "Shipp" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN SHIPP, MICHAEL SEALS and CHRISTINA LAFAYE HOLIFIELD,
Individually, and on behalf of themselves and other similarly
situated current and former employees v. HUDDLE HOUSE, INC., a
Georgia Corporation, Case No. 3:17-cv-00191-MPM-RP (N.D. Miss.,
September 28, 2017), is brought as a collective action under the
Fair Labor Standards Act to recover alleged unpaid overtime
compensation.

Huddle House Inc. is a Georgia corporation with its corporate
headquarters located in Sandy Springs, Georgia.  Huddle House owns
and operates, as well as franchises, Huddle House restaurants
throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          George B. Ready, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE B. READY
          175 East Commerce St.
          P.O. Box 127
          Hernando, MS 38632
          Telephone: (662) 429-7088
          E-mail: GBReady@georgegreadyatty.com

               - and -

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Paula R. Jackson, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 759-1745
          E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com
                  pjackson@jsyc.com


HUDDLE HOUSE: Hughes Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROSIE HUGHES and NANCY CRANFORD, Individually, and on behalf of
themselves and other similarly situated current and former
employees v. HUDDLE HOUSE, INC., a Georgia Corporation, Case No.
3:17-cv-00193-SA-RP (N.D. Miss., September 29, 2017), is brought
as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act to
recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation and other
damages.

Huddle House Inc. is a Georgia corporation with its corporate
headquarters located in Sandy Springs.  The Defendant owns and
operates Huddle House restaurants in states across the United
States.  The primary function of Huddle House restaurants is to
sell food and beverage items to customers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          George B. Ready, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE B. READY
          175 East Commerce St.
          P.O. Box 127
          Hernando, MS 38632
          Telephone: (662) 429-7088
          E-mail: GBReady@georgegreadyatty.com

               - and -

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Paula R. Jackson, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 759-1745
          E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com
                  pjackson@jsyc.com


ICARD GIFT: "Snyder" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled CECILIA SNYDER, individually and on behalf
of a class of similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v.
ICARD GIFT CARD, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, and
CASH STAR, INC., a Delaware corporation, the Defendants, Case No.
0:15-cv-61718-WPD (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an Order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all persons in the United States and its Territories who
      were sent the text message: "Do you have an iPhone?
      Download the new iCard Gift Card app in the App Store and
      save 10% on your gift card purchase. Enter promo code:
      APP10" on their cellular telephones from the shortcode
      313131 in July 2015";

   2. appointing Plaintiff Cecilia Snyder as Class
      Representative;

   3. appointing Evan M. Meyers and Eugene Y. Turin of McGuire
      Law, P.C. as Class Counsel; and

   4. awarding such additional relief as the Court deems
      reasonable and just.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kOg8ecnU

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David P. Healy, Esq.
          DUDLEY, SELLERS, HEALY & HEATH, PLLC
          Suntrust Financial Center
          3522 Thomasville Rd., Suite 301
          Tallahassee, FL 32309
          Telephone: (850) 222 5400
          Facsimile: (850) 222 7339

               - and -

          Evan M. Meyers, Esq.
          Eugene Y. Turin, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Dr., 9th Fl.
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893 7002
          Facsimile: (312) 275 7895

The Defendant is represented by:

          Nolan Klein, Esq.
          Hector Ramirez, Esq.
          Jonathan Zim, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN, P.A.
          Wells Fargo Tower - Suite 1500
          One East Broward Boulevard
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          E-mail: klein@nklegal.com
                  amy@nklegal.com
                  ramirez@nklegal.com

               - and -

          Alan E. McKenna, Esq.
          STEVENSON MCKENNA & CALLANAN, LLP
          350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          E-mail: amckenna@smcattorneys.com

               - and -

          Craig Salner, Esq.
          CLARKE SILVERGLATE, P.A.
          799 Brickell Plaza, 9th Fl.
          Miami, FL 33131
          E-mail: csalner@cspalaw.com


ICON ENTERTAINMENT: De Angelis Seeks to Certify Dancers Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled STEPHANIE DE ANGELIS, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ICON
ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC., dba KAHOOTS, the Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-00927-JLG-CMV (S.D. Ohio), Ms. Stephanie De Angelis asks
the Court to certify a class of:

   "all of Defendant's current and former Dancers who are or were
   employed with Defendant during the three years before this
   Complaint was filed up to the present. ("Dancers" or
   "Collective Action Members").

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=NzD5HI6O

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven C. Babin, Jr., Esq.
          Lance Chapin, Esq.
          CHAPIN LEGAL GROUP, LLC
          580 South High Street, Suite 330
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: 614 221 9100
          Facsimile: 614 221 9272
          E-mail: sbabin@chapinlegal.com
                  lchapin@chapinlegal.com


ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY: Bid to Certify Physician Faculty Class Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SAJIDA AHAD, M.D., on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES
OF SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY and SIU PHYSICIANS
& SURGEONS, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-03308-SEM-TSH
(C.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   a. certifying a class of:

      "female physician faculty employed by Defendants at any
      point since October 27, 2010 for Counts II through IV of
      her Amended Complaint;

   b. appointing Plaintiff as the Class Representative; and

   c. appointing Plaintiff's counsel J. Bryan Wood and Michael
      Brown as Class Counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=F6Nb8Dtn

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Bryan Wood, Esq.
          THE WOOD LAW OFFICE, LLC
          303 W. Madison St., Suite 2650
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 554 8600
          Facsimile: (312) 577 0749
          E-mail: bryan@jbryanwoodlaw.com

               - and -

          Michel Brown, Esq.
          DVG LAW PARTNER LLC
          4321 W. College Avenue, Suite 200
          Appleton, Wisconsin 54914
          Telephone: (920) 757 2488
          Facsimile: (920) 273 6177
          E-mail: mbrown@dvglawpartner.com


JFK MEDICAL: Certification of Florida Patients Class Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MARISELA HERRERA, NICOLAS ACOSTA,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. JFK MEDICAL CENTER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP d/b/a JFK
MEDICAL CENTER; MEMORIAL HEALTHCARE GROUP INC., d/b/a MEMORIAL
HOSPITAL JACKSONVILLE; and HCA MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LP, the
Defendants, Case No. 8:14-cv-02327-JSM-TBM (M.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to grant their motion to certify a class
of:

   "all Florida patients who receive Radiological Services (CT
   Scans, X-Rays, and MRIs) in emergency care departments in
   Florida HCA hospitals, and whose PIP insurance is charged for
   those services."

HCA is a national hospital chain, with $9 billion in revenue from
Florida in 2016. Yet, its Florida hospitals gouge PIP patients,
devouring their $10,000 policies. These hospitals follow a
generally applicable policy of charging 75% of their bloated
chargemaster prices for emergency services (such as x-rays, CT-
scans, and MRIs) to patients presenting at their emergency
departments with Personal Injury Protection ("PIP") as their
primary insurer. This is far more than what HCA charges patients
with private insurance, or Medicare, or even those with no
insurance at all.

According to the complaint, the unreasonable and discriminatory
"75% of chargemaster" policy hastens the depletion of PIP
patients' $10,000 coverage. The policy violates the PIP statute,
and thereby the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.
The PIP law requires that healthcare providers charge PIP patients
reasonable and "usual and customary charges" -- consistent with
what they charge other patients.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=QIa7qOOs

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Theodore J. Leopold, Esq.
          Leslie M. Kroeger, Esq.
          Diana L. Martin, Esq.
          Andrew N. Friedman, Esq.
          Douglas J. Mcnamara, Esq.
          Eric A. Kafka, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
          2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200
          Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
          Telephone: (561) 515 1400
          E-mail: tleopold@cohenmilstein.com
                  lkroeger@cohenmilstein.com
                  dmartin@cohenmilstein.com
                  afriedman@cohenmilstein.com
                  dmcnamara@cohenmilstein.com
                  ekafka@cohenmilstein.com

Attorneys for JFK Medical Center Limited Partnership, Memorial
Healthcare Group, Inc.:

          Walter J. Tache, Esq.
          Magda C. Rodriguez, Esq.
          TACHE, BRONIS, CHRISTIANSON AND DESCALZO, P.A
          150 Southeast 2nd Avenue, Suite 600
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 537 9565
          Facsimile: (305) 537 9567
          Email: wtache@tachebronis.com
                 mrodriguez@tachebronis.com

Attorneys for HCA Management Services, L.P.:

          George A. Shannon, Esq.
          Adam C. Kiehne, Esq.
          SHANNON, MARTIN, FINKELSTEIN,ALVARADO & DUNNE, P.C.
          1001 McKinney St., Suite 1100
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 646 5500
          E-mail: gshannon@smfadlaw.com
                  akiehne@smfadlaw.com

               - and -

          John D. Emmanuel, Esq.
          Ashley Bruce Trehan, Esq.
          BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY, PC
          401 E Jackson St Ste 2400
          Tampa, FL 33602-5236
          Telephone: (813) 222 2083
          Facsimile: (813) 384 2814
          E-mail: john.emmanuel@bipc.com
                  ashley.trehan@bipc.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Health Plan Sues Over Monopoly of Infliximab
---------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL EMPLOYEES HEALTH PLAN, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated Plaintiff v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON and
JANSSEN BIOTECH, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-04326 (E.D. Pa., September
28, 2017), alleges that J&J has monopolized the market for
biologic infliximab in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and
the Clayton Act.

Infliximab is an infusion-administered TNF-inhibiting
immunosuppressant with FDA approved indications for rheumatoid
arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, ulcerative
colitis, Crohn's disease and plaque psoriasis.

In an effort to maintain and extend its monopoly in the market for
its powerhouse biologic medication, Remicade (a.k.a. infliximab),
J&J has worked to suppress competition and raise prices to
purchasers of the biologic by imposing a web of exclusionary
contracts on both health insurers and healthcare providers, the
Plaintiff alleges.  The Plaintiff contends that this was done in
an effort to maintain its grasp on the nearly $5 billion annual
market for the medication and shut out would-be competitors whose
entrance into the market would naturally cause prices for the
important drug to decline.

National Employees Health Plan is an "employee welfare benefit
plan" under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and a
jointly managed multi-employer plan under the National Labor
Relations Act.  The Plan represents thousands of employees and
their dependents across the country, principally in Michigan and
Florida, on whose behalf health and other benefits are provided on
a self-funded and insured basis.

J&J is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of New
Jersey with its principal place of business located in New
Brunswick, New Jersey.  J&J is an international pharmaceutical
company -- one of the largest in the world -- and was the sole
supplier of infliximab, marketed as Remicade, between 1998 and
2016, when Inflectra came on the market.

Janssen Biotech, Inc., is a wholly owned subsidiary of J&J.
Janssen is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
Pennsylvania and is headquartered in Horsham, Pennsylvania.
Janssen co-owns or has licenses to the Remicade patents and
performs the marketing for Remicade in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq.
          James C. Shah, Esq.
          Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          35 E. State Street
          Media, PA 19063
          Telephone: (610) 891-9880
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          E-mail: nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com
                  jshah@sfmslaw.com
                  jgoldstein@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq.
          David W. Mitchell, Esq.
          Brian O. O'Mara, Esq.
          Alexandra S. Bernay, Esq.
          Carmen A. Medici, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: patc@rgrdlaw.com
                  davidm@rgrdlaw.com
                  bomara@rgrdlaw.com
                  xanb@rgrdlaw.com
                  cmedici@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Randi D. Bandman, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          30 Vesey Street, Suite 200
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 693-1058
          Facsimile: (212) 693-7423
          E-mail: randib@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Howard S. Susskind, Esq.
          SUGARMAN & SUSSKIND, P.A.
          100 Miracle Mile, Suite 300
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 529-2801
          Facsimile: (305) 447-8115
          E-mail: hsusskind@sugarmansusskind.com


JP MORGAN: Faces "Sasso" Suit over Consumers' Credit Info
---------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL SASSO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-07722-VSB (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 9, 2017), seeks damages
and injunctive relief for recovery of economic injury resulting
from the illegal actions of Defendant, in willfully and
systematically reporting negative and inaccurate information on
consumers' credit reports that Defendant knew or should have known
was erroneous and which caused Plaintiff and the Class damages.

JPMorgan Chase is a global financial services firm and one of the
largest banking institutions in the United States, with operations
worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Ramona Ladwig, Esq.
HYDE & SWIGART
1910 Pacific Ave, Suite 14155
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 880 6362
E-mail: ramona@westcoastlitigation.com


KELLERMEYER BERGENSONS: Reyes Seeks OT Pay under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------
BLASA REYES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. KELLERMEYER BERGENSONS SERVICES, LLC,
a Delaware Limited Liability Company; KELLERMEYER BUILDING
SERVICES, LLC, an Ohio Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1-50,
Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC680525 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Oct. 20, 2017), seeks to recover overtime pay under the California
Labor Code.

Defendants allegedly failed to pay Plaintiff and the Class for
time spent working when meal periods were less than 30 minutes,
yet were deducted 30 minutes of time for a short meal period, and
not paid for this time, including regular hours and for hours
Plaintiff and Class Members worked in excess of eight hours per
day and/or 40 hours per week, and double time wages for work over
12 hours in a day.

Kellermeyer Bergensons provides contract cleaning and related
facilities support services to retailers and commercial facilities
in North America.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          Gregory Mauro, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387 7200
          Facsimile: (949) 387 6676
          E-mail: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                  Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com


KELLY SERVICES: Faces "Haggins" Suit in California State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kelly Services, Inc.
The case is captioned as Haggins, Rondell, on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Does 1-100, Kelly Services,
Inc., a Calif. Corp., Nissan Motor Corporation In USA, a Calif.
Corp., and Nissan North American, Inc., a Calif. Corp., the
Defendants, Case No. 34-2017-00220473-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Oct. 11, 2017).

Kelly Services is an American office staffing and workforce
solutions company that operates globally. The company places
employees at all levels in various sectors including the financial
services, information technology, and law industries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Galen T. Shimoda, Esq.
          SHIMODA LAW GROUP
          www.shimodalaw.com
          9401 East Stockton Boulevard, Suite 200
          Elk Grove, CA 95624
          Telephone: (916) 525 0716
          Facsimile: (916) 760 3733
          E-mail: attorney@shimodalaw.com


KING COUNTY, WA: "Johnson" Suit Moved to W.D. Washington
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Pam Johnson, individually and
behalf of all similarly situated taxpayers, the Plaintiff, v.
King County, the Defendant, Case No. 172118325, was removed on
Oct. 23, 2017 from the Pierce County Superior Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington (Seattle).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-01565 to the
proceeding.

King County is a county located in the U.S. state of Washington.
The population was 2,149,970 in a 2016 census estimate. King is
the most populous county in Washington, and the 13th-most populous
in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric D Lowney, Esq.
          SMITH & LOWNEY PLLC
          2317 E John St
          Seattle, WA 98112
          Telephone: (206) 860 2883
          E-mail: knoll@smithandlowney.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          David JW Hackett, Esq.
          KING COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY'S OFFICE (4TH AVE)
          500 4th Ave., Ste 900
          Seattle, WA 98104-5039
          Telephone: (206) 205 0580
          E-mail: david.hackett@kingcounty.gov


KOHN LAW: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed in "Betz"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JESSICA BETZ, SALLY CZARNECKI, JENNIFER
WOJCIESKI, DENISE DEROSIA, and ENEIDA JOHNSON, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. KOHN
LAW FIRM, S.C., MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC. and MIDLAND
FUNDING, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01478-DEJ (E.D.
Wisc.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying
classes in this case, appointing the Plaintiffs as class
representatives, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class
Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
deem appropriate.

The Plaintiffs further ask that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties
relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and
requirement that Plaintiffs file a brief and supporting documents
in support of this motion.

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482 8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482 8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com


KSJC ENTERPRISES: Certification of Employees Class Sought
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JIMMIE EDMONSTON, JUSTIN ALEXANDER, and
OTIS SMITH on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. KSJC ENTERPRISES, INC., D/B/A
SWEET WATER TAVERN, and JEFFREY CAIN, the Defendants, Case No.
5:17-cv-12789-JCO-MKM (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs move the Court
to conditionally certify a Fair Labor Standards Act collective
action and to order notice sent to members of a class of:

   "all current and former employees of Defendants KSJC
   Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Sweet Water Tavern and Jeffrey Cain
   ("Defendants") for Defendants, and who were not properly paid
   for all hours worked and/or who worked hours in excess of
   forty per week but were not paid 1.5 times their regular rate
   for overtime hours, and order Defendants to provide contact
   information for all potential opt-in plaintiffs within two
   weeks of conditional certification. Pursuant to LR 7.1 (a),
   Plaintiffs' counsel requested concurrence on this Motion on
   October 6, 2017, and received no response from Defendants'
   counsel.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Maia J. Braun, Esq.
          David A. Hardesty, Esq.
          GOLD STAR LAW, P.C.
          2701 Troy Center Dr., Ste. 400
          Troy, MI 48084
          E-mail: mjohnson@goldstarlaw.com
                  dhardesty@goldstarlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          David M. Foy, Esq.
          Randolph T. Barker, Esq.
          BERRY MOORMAN, PC
          535 Griswold, Ste. 1900
          Detroit, MI 48226
          E-mail: dfoy@berrymoorman.com
                  rbarker@berrymoorman.com


LARGO CONCRETE: "Barrera" Suit Moved to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Santos Barrera, individually, and
on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Largo Concrete, Inc., a California
corporation and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, ,
Case No. CIVDS1717920, was removed on Oct. 23, 2017 from the San
Bernardino Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for Central
District of California (Eastern Division - Riverside). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:17-cv-02178-FMO-KK
to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Fernando
M. Olguin.

Largo Concrete, Inc. is a full service structural concrete
contractor.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Han, Esq.
          Daniel J Park, Esq.
          Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
          JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
          411 North Central Avenue Suite 500
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 230 7502
          Facsimile: (818) 230 7259
          E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com
                  dpark@justicelawcorp.com
                  statavos@justicelawcorp.com

Attorneys for Largo Concrete, Inc.:

          Tiffany Nicole Cruz, Esq.
          James E Hart, Esq.
          Richard S Falcone
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          2050 Main Street Suite 900
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 705 3000
          Facsimile: (949) 724 1021
          E-mail: tncruz@littler.com
                  jhart@littler.com
                  rfalcone@littler.com


LE BILBOQUET: Faces "Fontanez" Suit over Work Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------
CARMEN FONTANEZ, the Plaintiff, v. LE BILBOQUET NY, LLC, d/b/a
LE BILBOQUET, the Defendant, Case No. 159466/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
Oct. 24, 2017), seeks money damages, as well as an injunction
restraining Defendant from its discriminating policy under the New
York City and New York State Laws.

The Defendant allegedly maintains policy, practice, custom and/or
usage of discrimination against Plaintiff and other persons
similarly situated because of gender and/or disability, with
respect to compensation, terms, conditions, and privileges of
employment, including without intending to limit, hiring,
transfer, promotion and pay; and limiting, segregating and
classifying employees of Defendant in ways which deprive Plaintiff
and other persons similarly situated of equal employment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Megan Goddard, Esq.
          NESENOFF & MILTENBERG, LLP
          Gabrielle M. Vinci, Esq.
          363 Seventh Avenue, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 736 4500


LEGACY PRODUCE: Faces "Godoy" Suit over Mandatory Meal Deduction
----------------------------------------------------------------
IGNACIO GODOY individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. LEGACY PRODUCE AF, INC. and DOES 1-25
the Defendants, Case No. 17CIV04840 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 20,
2017), seeks to recover damages as a direct and proximate
consequence of the Defendants' willful and illegal conduct by
forcing Plaintiff and Class to work continuously throughout the
day, every day, without being allowed to take meal and rest
periods under the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff brings this class action pursuant to California Code
of Civil Procedure on behalf of a Class consisting of all current
and former employees of Defendants in the State of California who
were unlawfully deducting Plaintiff and Class members' wages for a
mandatory meal deduction, meal credits/charges/fringe benefits,
and denying meal and rest periods. As a proximate result,
Plaintiff and Class members suffered damages during all applicable
statutes of limitations. The wrongful acts or omissions were and
are a uniform practice that affected all putative class members
equally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ashwin Ladva, Esq.
          LADVA LAW FIRM
          530 Jackson St., 2nd floor
          San Francisco, CA 94133
          Telephone: (415) 296-8 844
          E-mail: ladvalaw@gmail.com

               - and -

          Daniel Martinez de la Vega, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL VEGA
          201 Spear Street, Suite 1100
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 287 6203
          Facsimile: (415) 704 5067
          E-mail: dvega@vegalawyer.com


LENDINGCLUB SECURITIES: WPERP Wins Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled re: LENDINGCLUB SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case
No. 3:16-cv-02627-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Alsup
entered an order:

   1. conditionally granting Plaintiffs' motion to intervene;

   2. granting WPERP's motion for class certification of:

      "all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
      acquired the common stock of LendingClub Corporation during
      the period from December 11, 2014 through June 8, 2016,
      inclusive."

      Excluded from the Class are short sellers who incurred
      losses during the class period as a result of their short
      sales, defendants and their families, the officers,
      directors, and affiliates of defendants, at all relevant
      times, members of their immediate families and their legal
      representatives, heirs, successors or assigns, and any
      entity in which defendants have or had a controlling
      interest. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Class shall
      include any investment company or pooled investment fund,
      including, but not limited to, mutual fund families,
      exchange traded funds, fund of funds and hedge funds, in
      which the Underwriter Defendants, or any of them, have, has
      or may have a direct or indirect interest, or as to which
      any Underwriter Defendant's affiliates may act as an
      investment advisor, but as to which any Underwriter
      Defendant alone or together with any of its respective
      affiliates is neither a majority owner nor the holder of a
      majority beneficial interest.

   3. appointing Water and Power Employees' Retirement,
      Disability and Death Plan of the City of Los Angeles shall
      as lead plaintiff, and appointing Robbins Geller Rudman &
      Dowd LLP is as class counsel;

   4. denying without prejudice WPERP's motion for an injunction
      to renewal;

   5. directing all parties to submit jointly an agreed-upon form
      of notice within twenty-one calendar days of the date of
      entry of this order, to both the state and federal actions;

   6. directing WPERP along with defendants to submit a joint
      proposal for dissemination of the notice, and the timeline
      for opting out of the action. Plaintiff must bear the costs
      of the notice, which shall include mailing by first-class
      mail;

   7. directing all parties (including intervenors to appear
      before Chief Magistrate Judge Spero for the November 28
      settlement conference; and

   8. directing Defendants to not negotiate a settlement with
      state plaintiffs on any claims that are not in that action.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Jc9jjBcv


LITCO PETROLEUM: Cranford Seeks to Recover Minimum and OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
NANCY CRANFORD and ROSIE HUGHES, Individually, and on behalf of
themselves and other similarly situated current and former
employees v. LITCO PETROLEUM, INC., a Mississippi Corporation,
and, TAFT LITTLE and MARK LITTLE, Individually, Case No. 3:17-cv-
00194-MPM-RP (N.D. Miss., September 29, 2017), is brought as a
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover
unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation and other damages.

LITCO Petroleum, Inc., is a Mississippi corporation with its
corporate headquarters located in Corinth, Mississippi.  Taft
Little has been the President of LITCO.  Mark Little has been the
Secretary-Treasurer of LITCO.

LITCO owned and operated franchised Huddle House restaurants in
Mississippi and other states in the United States.  The primary
function of LITCO's franchised Huddle House restaurants is to sell
food and beverage items to customers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          George B. Ready, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE B. READY
          175 East Commerce St.
          P.O. Box 127
          Hernando, MS 38632
          Telephone: (662) 429-7088
          E-mail: GBReady@georgegreadyatty.com

               - and -

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Paula R. Jackson, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 759-1745
          E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com
                  pjackson@jsyc.com


LTD FINANCIAL: Motion for Class Certification, Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JACQUELINE OLSON, the Plaintiff, v. LTD
FINANCIAL SERVICES LP, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01028-LA
(E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge Lynn Adelman entered an order
granting plaintiff's motions to stay the class certification
motion and for relief from the local rules and staying plaintiff's
motion for class certification.

The Plaintiff brings this putative class action, alleging
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

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


LTI TRUCKING: Bid for Class Certification Continued to Nov. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Jerome Ratliff Jr., the Plaintiff, v. LTI
Trucking Services, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07190
(N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Jorge L. Alonso entered an order
continuing Plaintiff's motion for class certification to Nov. 30,
2017 at 9:30 a.m.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on October 23,
2017, Plaintiff's motion for class certification is entered and
continued to Nov. 30, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. Initial status hearing set
for Nov. 30, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=c5UTjbCa


LVNV FUNDING: "Lovelace" Suit Seeks to Certify Consumer Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DEAREST NATHANIEL LOVELACE, the PLAINTIFF,
V. LVNV FUNDING, LLC, the DEFENDANT, Case No. 4:13-cv-00985-BP
(W.D. Mo.), Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class of:

   "all individuals against whom LVNV filed a lawsuit in the
   states of Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Montana,
   Missouri, Ohio, South Dakota, Utah, and Washington, for the
   collection of alleged consumer debts, arising from the use of
   a Sears department store card more than four years after the
   accrual of the statute of limitations on that claim under
   Article II, section 725 of the Uniform Commercial Code during
   the time period of October 10, 2012 to the present."

This case seeks damages for Defendant's alleged violation of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act arising from Defendant's filing
of lawsuits on certain Sears Card accounts beyond the four-year
statute of limitations provided by the Uniform Commercial Code
("UCC").

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9Ysq69Ob

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradford B. Lear, Esq.
          Todd C. Werts, Esq.
          LEAR WERTS LLP
          2003 W. Broadway, Ste. 107
          Columbia, MO 65203
          Telephone: (573) 875 1991
          Facsimile: (573) 875 1985
          E-mail: lear@learwerts.com
                  werts@learwerts.com

               - and -

          Terry L. Lawson, Esq.
          LAWSON LAW CENTER, LLC
          700 E. Eighth Street, Ste. 200
          Kansas City, MO 64106
          Telephone: (816) 802 6677
          Facsimile: (816) 802 6678
          E-mail: terry@llckc.com


LYNNFELLS CO: Donuts Contain Margarine, Not Butter, Walsh Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
LOREN WALSH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. LYNNFELLS CO., LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 173058 (Mass. Super. Ct., Oct. 20, 2017), alleges that
Lynfells has engaged in a scheme whereby the Company, through its
Dunkin' Donuts locations in the Commonwealth, knowingly and
habitually deceives its customers by providing margarine (or a
butter substitute) when customers specifically request butter and
are charged for butter on their bagels or other baked good
products.

Lynfells Co., LLC owns Dunkin' Donut franchises.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John R. Yash, Esq.
          Matthew T. LaMothe, Esq.
          FORREST, LAMOTHE, MAZOW,
          MCCULLOUGH, YASI & YASI, P.C.
          Salem Green, Suite 2
          Salem, MA O1970
          Telephone: (617) 231 7829
          E-mail: jyasi@forrestlamothe.com


M&M MEDIA: Yesh Music Sues over Copyrighted Musical Works
---------------------------------------------------------
YESH MUSIC, LLC, and JOHN EMANUELE, individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated copyright holders, the Plaintiffs,
v. M&M MEDIA, INC. d/b/a TREBLE MUSIC, the Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-05939-NGG-SJB (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 11, 2017), seeks to remedy
Defendant's systematic infringement of their copyrighted
recordings, and failure to pay sound recording and composition
(mechanical) royalties.

The Plaintiffs bring this class action complaint and jury demand
against Defendant based on defendant's infringement of plaintiffs'
and the Putative Class' exclusive rights to their copyrighted
musical works pursuant to the Copyright Act and Copyright
Revisions Act.

M&M Media, Inc. is in the communication services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard M. Garbarini, Esq.
          GARBARINI FITZGERALD P.C.
          150 East, 58th Street
          New York, NY 10155
          Telephone: (212) 300 5358
          Facsimile: (888) 265 7054
          E-mail: info@garbarinilaw.com


MAC PROPERTY: Kent Sues over Chicago Landlord and Tenant Rules
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROBBIN KENT, Individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. MAC PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, L.L.C., THE
SUTHERLAND, LLC and SUTHERLAND MASTER TENANT, LLC, the Defendants,
Case No. 2017CH3659 (Circuit Court Of Cook County, Ill., Oct. 11,
2017), seeks to recover damages as a results of Defendants'
violation of Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance.

The case is a class action against Defendants for violating the
City of Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance.  The
lawsuit says Defendants failed to attach to Plaintiff's and the
class' leases a copy of the then current RLTO summaries published
by the City of Chicago required by the Section 5-12-170 of the
RLTO. Instead of attaching the RLTO Summaries, Defendants attached
to Plaintiffs and the class' leases their own versions of the
summaries that were different than the RLTO Summaries and that did
not include all of the disclosures provided by the required RLTO
Summaries.

Defendants are engaged in the business of owning, leasing and
managing a large quantity of residential dwelling units in
Chicago, Illinois, including the building where Plaintiff leased
her dwelling unit. The Premises alone consisted of more than 40
residential dwelling units.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Sobek, Esq.
          JS LAW
          29 E. Madison Street, Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone (312) 756-1330
          E-mail: jeffs@jsslawoffices.com


MARIO'S PIZZA: "Morales" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
GUILLERMO MORALES, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. MARIO'S PIZZA 11, CORP., and JULIO
OSALINAS, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07778 (S.D.N.Y., Oct.
11, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants knowingly and willfully
failed to pay Plaintiff his lawfully earned "spread of hours"
premium in direct contravention of the New York Labor Law.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Cilenti, Esq.
          Pete H. Cooper, Esq.
          CILENTI & COPPER PLLC
          708 Third Avenue - 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 209 3933
          Facsimile: (212) 209 7102
          E-mail: info@jcpdaw.com


MARSHALL ELECTRONICS: Violates Credit Reporting Act, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. MARSHALL ELECTRONICS, INC. and DOES 1-
10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC680544 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Oct. 24, 2017), seeks to enforce the protections afforded to
workers under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), and an
individual action under California's Investigative Consumer
Reporting Agencies Act.

According to complaint, Marshall failed to provide Plaintiff with
a copy of his consumer report and a summary of Plaintiff s rights
under the law, which was required before it decided to revoke its
conditional offer of employment to him. The duty to provide a pre-
adverse action notice is not only one of the most important duties
imposed on employers under the FCRA, but has been clarified
numerous times by both agency opinions and case law. Marshall
knew, or should have known, that it has the duty to provide a pre-
adverse action notice.

Marshall's conduct amounts to despicable conduct that subjects
Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of
his statutory rights; intentional misrepresentation or deceit;
and/or willful and conscious disregard of Plaintiff s rights.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

          Joshua E. Kim, Esq.
          A NEW WAY OF LIFE REENTRY PROJECT
          9512 S. Central Ave.
          Los Angeles, CA 90002
          Telephone: (323) 563 3575
          Facsimile: (323) 563 3445
          E-mail: joshua@anewwayoflife.org

               - and -

          Christian Schreiber, Esq.
          CHAVEZ & GERTLER LLP
          42 Miller Ave
          Mill Valley, CA 94941
          Telephone: (415) 381 5599
          Facsimile: (415) 381 5572
          E-mail: christian@chavezgertler.com


MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Court Certifies Class in "Luna" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DANIEL LUNA, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MARVELL
TECHNOLOGY GROUP, LTD., and SEHAT SUTARDJA, the Defendants, Case
No. 3:15-cv-05447-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Alsup
entered an order:

   1. granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification of:

      "all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
      acquired the common stock of Marvell Technology Group, Ltd.
      ("Marvell" or the "Company") during the period from
      February 19, 2015 through December 7, 2015, inclusive (the
      "Class Period"), and were damaged thereby". Excluded from
      the Class are investors who sold all of their shares prior
      to September 11, 2015, and Defendants, present or former
      executive officers of Marvell and their immediate family
      members.;

   2. appointing Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund
      as lead plaintiff;

   3. appointing the firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as
      lead counsel.

   4. directing parties to submit jointly an agreed-upon form of
      notice, a joint proposal for dissemination of the notice,
      and the timeline for opting out of the action, within
      TWENTY-ONE CALENDAR DAYS of the date of entry of this
      order; and

   5. directing Plaintiff to bear the costs of the notice,
      which shall include mailing by first-class mail.

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


MBF INSPECTION: Court Certifies Class of Inspection Personnel
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled THOMAS GANCI, the Plaintiff, v. MBF
INSPECTION SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-02959-
GCS-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge George C. Smith grants
Plaintiff's motion for class certification and certifies
Plaintiff's Fair Wage Act claims for the following class:

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

The Court said, " Obviously, the federal courts are unconvinced
that claim or issue preclusion is a sufficient reason to find
class treatment inferior to other methods of adjudication, and the
Court will not now withhold class certification on this basis. In
class actions such as this one brought under Rule 23(b)(3), the
preclusive effect of a judgment or settlement is addressed through
the "opt out" mechanism: before being bound by any judgment or
settlement, class members will receive notice of the class action,
their right to exclude themselves from the class action, and, if
they decline to do so, their inability to bring their own
individual claims for unpaid overtime. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2).
The parties can also categorize class members by whether they have
opted in to the FLSA collective action and craft different notices
for each category. This will ensure that each class member fully
understands his or her rights as a consequence of remaining in or
opting out of the class. The preclusive effect of a Rule 23
judgment therefore does not render class treatment inferior to
other methods of adjudication."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=AWCDF6kf


MEIJER INC: Faces "Warren" Suit over Biometric Info
---------------------------------------------------
The case, DE ANTOINE WARREN, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MEIJER, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 2017-CH-13723 (Circuit Court of Cook County,
Ill., Oct. 11, 2017), asks the Court to compel Meijer to collect,
store, and use biometric identifiers or biometric information in
compliance with Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA).

According to the complaint, when Meijer hires an employee, he or
she is enrolled in its employee database, which is used to monitor
the time worked by its hourly employees. Although many employers
use traditional means for tracking their employees' time worked
(such as ID badge swipes or punch clocks), Meijer's employees are
required to have their fingerprints scanned by a biometric
timekeeping device. Fingerprints are unique, permanent biometric
identifiers associated with each employee and, unlike time cards
or ID badges, they cannot be changed or replaced if stolen or
compromised. This exposes Meijer's employees to serious and
irreversible privacy risks. For example, if a database containing
fingerprints or other sensitive, proprietary biometric data is
hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed -- like in the recent
Equifax data breach -- employees have no means by which to prevent
identity theft, unauthorized tracking or other unlawful or
improper use of this highly personal and private information.

According to the lawsuit, acknowledging the need to protect its
citizens, Illinois enacted the BIPA, specifically to regulate
companies that collect and store Illinois citizens' biometrics,
such as fingerprints. Despite the clear and unequivocal
requirements of the law, Meijer disregards employees' statutorily
protected privacy rights and unlawfully collects, stores, and uses
their employees' biometric data in violation of BIPA.

Meijer is a regional grocery store chain with its corporate
headquarters in Walker, Michigan. Meijer operates throughout
Illinois and in this Circuit.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq.
          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Stephan Zouras LLP
          205 N. Michigan Avenue Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 6060
          Telephone: (312) 233 1550
          Facsimile: (312) 233 1560
          E-mail: aficzko@stephanzouras.com


MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Nolet Sues over Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
LORALIE NOLET, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01399-DEJ (E.D. Wisc., Oct. 11, 2017),
seeks judgment in favor of Plaintiff and the Class and against
Defendant for actual damages, statutory damages, attorneys' fees,
litigation expenses and costs of suit, and
such other or further relief as the Court deems proper.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a Class, consisting
of (a) all natural persons in the State of Wisconsin (b) who were
sent a debt collection letter (c) providing contradictory
representations as to the current creditor (d) seeking to collect
a debt for personal, family or household purposes, (e) between
October 12, 2016 and October 12, 2017, inclusive, (f) that was not
returned by the postal service.

Mercantile is engaged in the business of collecting debts owed to
others and incurred for personal, family or household purposes.
Mercantile is a debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482 8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482 8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com


MESSIAH TRUCKING: Noble Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOSE NOBLE, individually and on behalf of all aggrieved employees
the Plaintiff, v. MESSIAH TRUCKING, INC. a California corporation,
NORMA A. RUIZ, an individual, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
the Defendant, Case No. BC680697 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 23, 2017),
seeks recovery on a class-wide basis from Defendants for failure
to pay for rest and recovery periods; failure to provide accurate,
itemized wage statements; and failure to pay all wages due upon
separation from employment under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, from approximately February 2014 to
November 4, 2016, Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a truck
driver. Plaintiff's job duties consisted of driving trucks loaded
with products or hazardous materials to other locations as
directed by Defendants. Plaintiff was paid a variable flat rate
per load set at Defendants' discretion. Frequently Plaintiff was
required to wait hours for the truck to be loaded or unloaded by
employees at the locations where he delivered and picked up truck
loads. Plaintiff was not paid at all for this time. Plaintiff was
also not paid for rest or recovery time. Plaintiff was not
provided with meal and rest periods. A variable flat rate was paid
to Plaintiff for each load. Plaintiff was not paid any wages for
time spent waiting for other designated individuals to load or
unload the truck, for conducting training classes at Defendant's
place of business or waiting to be engaged for other assigned
deliveries. Each morning Plaintiff contacted dispatch who would
provide him with the first assignment. Once completed, Plaintiff
would then contact dispatch for his next assignment. Plaintiff
estimates he worked on average 10-12 hours each day. Defendant
also deducted from Plaintiffs wages fuel, insurance, and a lease
cost in violation of Labor Code.

Messiah Trucking, Inc. is a privately held company in Los Angeles,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
          Katherine J. Odenbreit, Esq.
          Morgan E. Glynn, Esq.
          MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
          249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 590 5550
          Facsimile: (562) 590 8400
          E-mail: kmahoney@mahonev-law.net
                  kodenbreit@mahonev-law.net
                  mglvnn@mahoney-law.net


MESILLA VALLEY: Class Certification Bid Continued to Nov. 30
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Jerome Ratliff Jr., the Plaintiff, v.
Mesilla Valley Transportation, Inc., et al., the Defendant, Case
No.: 1:17-cv-07192, the Hon. Judge Jorge L. Alonso entered an
order to continue Plaintiff's motion for class certification to
Nov. 30, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on October 23,
2017, Defendants' unopposed motion to stay Plaintiff's motion for
class certification is granted. The Plaintiff's motion for class
certification is entered and continued to Nov. 30 at 9:30 a.m.
The Motion hearing date of October 24 was stricken.  The Initial
status hearing is set for Nov. 30 at 9:30 a.m.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=wlkc01bq

The Defendants have asked the Court to grant their unopposed
motion to stay the class certification deadline until after the
Defendants have filed their responsive pleading and the parties
have appeared for their initial status conference in Court.

A copy of the Defendants' Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6oXYg6V2

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Aschenbrener, Esq.
          Adam C. York, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW, LLC
          220 North Green Street
          E-mail: masch@kamberlaw.com
                  ayork@kamberlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Andrew J. Butcher, Esq.
          SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON, & FEARY, P.C.
          30 West Monroe Street, Suite 600
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 255 7172
          E-mail: abutcher@scopelitis.com


MICRO IMAGE: "Benson" Suit Moved to S.D. West Virginia
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Lacey Benson, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Joseph Ashley
also known as: Joe Ashley, in his capacity as a manager of Micro
Image, Inc., and Micro Image, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 17-C-
279, was removed on Oct. 19, 2017, from the Wood County Circuit,
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia (Charleston). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:17-cv-04182 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Thomas E. Johnston.

Microimage provides HR Software, Mobile, Media and Broadcast
software solutions and Digital Services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          D. Adrian Hoosier, II, Esq.
          LORD HOOSIER
          225 Hale Street
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 345 8030
          Facsimile: (304) 553 7227
          E-mail: adrian@lordhoosier.com

Attorneys for Micro Image, Inc.:

          Justin M. Harrison, Esq.
          S. Andrew Stonestreet, Esq.
          BOWLES RICE
          P. O. Box 1386
          Charleston, WV 25325-1386
          Telephone: (304) 347 1100
          Facsimile: (304) 347 1756
          E-mail: jharrison@bowlesrice.com
                  astonestreet@bowlesrice.com

               - and -

          Raymond C. Carr, Esq.
          MACFARLANE FERGUSON MCMULLEN
          625 Court Street, Suite 200
          Clearwater, FL 33757
          Telephone: (727) 441 8966
          Facsimile: (727) 442 8470


MILLARD MAINTENANCE: Grabowska Sues over Biometric Information
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANNA GRABOWSKA, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MILLARD MAINTENANCE COMP
ANY, LLC d/b/a THE MILLARD GROUP, LLC OF ILLINOIS, the Defendant,
Case No. 2017-CH-13730 (Circuit Court of Cook County, Ill. Fla.,
Oct. 11, 2017), seeks an order that Defendant has violated the
Biometric Information Privacy Act, and enter judgment in favor of
Plaintiff and others similarly situated.

According to the complaint, Millard employees in Illinois have
been required to clock "in" and "out" of their work shifts by
scanning their fingerprints, and Millard's biometric computer
systems then verify the employee and clock the employee "in" or
"out." Unlike traditional time clock punch cards which can be
changed or replaced if lost or compromised, fingerprints are
unique, permanent biometric identifiers' associated with each
employee. This exposes Defendant's workforce to serious and
irreversible privacy risks. For example, if a fingerprint database
is hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed, employees have no means
by which to prevent identity theft and unauthorized tracking. BIPA
expressly obligates Defendant to obtain an executed, written
release from an individual, as a condition of employment, in order
to capture, collect and store an individual's biometric
identifiers, especially a fingerprint, and biometric information
derived from it. BIPA further obligates Defendant to inform its
employees in writing that a biometric identifier or biometric
information is being collected or stored; to tell its employees in
writing for how long it will store their biometric information and
any purposes for which biometric information is being captured,
collected, and used; and to make available a written policy
disclosing when it will permanently destroy such information.
BIPA makes all of these requirements a precondition to the
collection or recording of fingerprints and associated biometric
information.

The Millard Group, LLC is an Illinois limited liability company,
which provides janitorial services to facilities such as
commercial offices, educational campuses, restaurants and home
associations. Millard employs over 3,700 people daily and services
thousands of facilities across 30 states.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kasif Khowaja, Esq.
          THE KHOWAJA LAW FIRM, LLC
          70 East Lake Street, Suite 1220
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 356 3200
          Facsimile: (312) 386 5800
          E-mail: kasif@khowajalaw.com


MILWAUKEE, WI: "Hall" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MELISSA Hall, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF MILWAUKEE,
and DAVID A. CLARKE, JR., in his Official capacity, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00379-LA (D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to certify a class of:

   "dozens of women whose labor, delivery, and post-partum care
   was impeded by the Milwaukee County Jail's drastic policy of
   shackling women to their beds while they gave birth."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=AS541pMR

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arthur Loevy, Esq.
          Michael Kanovitz, Esq.
          Scott Rauscher, Esq.
          Theresa Kleinhaus, Esq.
          Sam Heppell, Esq.
          Aisha N. Davisv
          LOEVY & LOEVY
          311 N. Aberdeen Street, Third Floor
          Chicago, IL 60607
          Telephone: (312) 243 5900


MO'S FISHERMAN: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Galvez Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
CLEMENTE GALVEZ, SALVADOR LOPEZ, JUAN LOPEZ and CARLOS MELGAR,
Plaintiffs, on behalf themselves and others similarly situated v.
MO'S FISHERMAN EXCHANGE, INC. d/b/a MO'S TOWSON AND MO'S; MO'S
PULASKI HIGHWAY CORP., d/b/a MO'S WHITE MARSH, MO'S SEAFOOD
RESTAURANT, AND MO'S; MO'S CRAB AND PASTA FACTORY, INC., d/b/a
MO'S CRAB & PASTA AND MO'S LITTLE ITALY; MO'S FISHERMAN'S RITCHIE
HIGHWAY, INC., d/b/a MO'S SEAFOOD FACTORY; MO'S BELAIR SEAFOOD,
INC., d/b/a MO'S FISHERMAN'S WHARF AND MO'S INNER HARBOR; MO'S
EASTERN AVENUE, INC., d/b/a MO'S SEAFOOD FACTORY NEIGHBORHOOD BAR
& GRILL AND MO'S NEIGHBORHOOD BAR & GRILL; FISHERMAN'S WHARF INNER
HARBOR, INC. d/b/a MO'S FISHERMAN'S WHARF AND MO'S INNER HARBOR;
and MOHAMMED S. MANOCHEH, a/k/a MOHAMMAD S. MANOCHEH, d/b/a MO'S
SEAFOOD RESTAURANT, MO'S FISHERMAN'S WHARF, MO'S, MO'S INNER
HARBOR, MO'S TOWSON, MO'S WHITE MARSH, MO'S SEAFOOD FACTORY, MO'S
CRAB AND PASTA FACTORY, AND MO'S NEIGHBORHOOD BAR AND GRILL, Case
No. 1:17-cv-02901-GLR (D. Md., September 29, 2017), arises from
the Defendants' alleged willful failure to pay the Plaintiffs
their wages, including minimum and overtime wages, in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law and
the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law.

Mo's Fisherman's Exchange, Inc., doing business as Mo's and Mo's
Towson; Mo's Pulaski Highway Corp., doing business as Mo's White
Marsh, Mo's Seafood Restaurant, and Mo's; Mo's Crab and Pasta
Factory, Inc., doing business as Mo's Crab & Pasta and Mo's Little
Italy; Mo's Belair Seafood, Inc., doing business as Mo's
Fisherman's Wharf and Mo's Inner Harbor; Mo's Fisherman's Ritchie
Highway, Inc., doing business as Mo's Seafood Factory; Mo's
Eastern Avenue, Inc., doing business as Mo's Seafood Factory
Neighborhood Bar & Grill, and Mo's Neighborhood Bar & Grill; and
Fisherman's Wharf Inner Harbor, Inc., doing business as Mo's
Fisherman's Wharf and Mo's Inner Harbor are Maryland corporations
with their principal place of business in Baltimore County,
Maryland.

Mohammed S. Manocheh operates or, since May 19, 2012, has
operated, restaurants at six locations in Maryland that serve food
and drink on the premises.  Mr. Manocheh owns each of the
restaurants either personally or through corporations that he
wholly owns, including Defendants Mo's Fisherman's Exchange, Mo's
Pulaski Highway, Mo's Crab & Pasta, Mo's Belair, Mo's Ritchie
Highway, Mo's Eastern Avenue, and Fisherman's Wharf.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew D. Freeman, Esq.
          Jessica P. Weber, Esq.
          Brooke E. Lierman, Esq.
          BROWN, GOLDSTEIN & LEVY LLP
          120 East Baltimore Street, Suite 1700
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 962-1030
          Facsimile: (410) 385-0869
          E-mail: adf@browngold.com
                  jweber@browngold.com
                  blierman@browngold.com

               - and -

          Sally Dworak-Fisher, Esq.
          Monisha Cherayil, Esq.
          PUBLIC JUSTICE CENTER
          One North Charles Street, Suite 200
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Telephone: (410) 625-9409
          Facsimile: (410) 625-9423
          E-mail: dworak-fishers@publicjustice.org
                  cherayilm@publicjustice.org


MONARCH RECOVERY: Court Granted Class Certification in "Hartman"
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MELISSA HARTMAN, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MONARCH RECOVERY
MANAGEMENT, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-25., the Defendant, Case No.
2:15-cv-01364-CB (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Cathy Bissoon entered an
order:

   1. granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification of:

      a) all persons with Pennsylvania addresses; b)who were sent
      one or more letter(s) from Monarch Recovery Management,
      Inc.; c)in an attempt to collect a debt allegedly owed to
      Synchrony Bank; d)which were sent in an envelope containing
      a glassine window in which the consumers file number was
      visible through the glassine window; e)where the letters
      bear a send date between October 20, 2014 to the present";
      and

   2. designating Plaintiff Melissa Hartman as Class
      Representative, and authorizing Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. and
      Ari Marcus, Esq. of the firm Marcus & Zelman, LLC and Mark
      Moynihan, Esq. of the firm Moynihan Law, P.C. to serve as
      Class Counsel.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=69UeniaW


MUFG UNION: Harrold Sues over Collection of Overdraft Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
MAUREEN HARROLD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MUFG UNION BANK, N.A., the
Defendant, Case No. BC680214 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 19, 2017),
seeks to recover monetary damages, restitution and declaratory
relief from Union Bank, arising from the unfair and unconscionable
assessment and collection of "Overdraft Fees" on transactions that
were never actually overdrawn.

According to complaint, Union Bank charges OD Fees even when the
transaction has not overdrawn an account. For example, Plaintiff
was charged OD Fees on April l9, 2016, but she was charged
overdraft fees on transactions that did not overdraft the account.
Since there were always funds to "cover" those transactions -- yet
Union Bank assessed an OD Fee on it anyway.

MUFG Union Bank is an American full-service bank with 398 branches
in California, Washington and Oregon which is wholly owned by The
Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEl LLP
          1828 L Street, N.W., Suite 1000
          Washington, D.C. 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973 0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973 0950
          E-mail: jkaliel@tzlegal.com

              - and -

          Jeff M. Ostrow, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW
          FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
          One West Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525 4100
          Facsimile: (954) 525 4300
          E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
                  streisfeld@kolawyers.com


NATIONAL ENTERTAINMENT: De Angelis Seeks to Certify Dancers Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled STEPHANIE DE ANGELIS, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
NATIONAL ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, LLC, d/b/a VANITY, the Defendant,
Case No. 2:17-cv-00924-GCS-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the
Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying this case as a collective action
      with respect to a collective class of:

      "all of Defendant's current and former dancers who are or
      were employed with Defendant during the three years before
      this Complaint was filed up to the present";

   2. directing expedited discovery of the names, all known
      addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, and dates of
      employment of Collective Action Members employed during the
      specified time period; and

   3. directing issuance of notice to prospective Collective
      Action Members via ordinary mail and email.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven C. Babin, Jr., Esq.
          Lance Chapin, Esq.
          CHAPIN LEGAL GROUP, LLC
          580 South High Street, Suite 330
          Columbus, Ohio 43215
          Telephone: (614) 221 9100
          Facsimile: (614) 221 9272
          E-mail: sbabin@chapinlegal.com
                  lchapin@chapinlegal.com


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Certification of Borrowers Class Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ANTHONY D. LONG, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NATIONSTAR
MORTGAGE LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-01202 (S.D. W.Va),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a plaintiff class defined
as:

   "all natural persons with a residential mortgage loan on
   property in West Virginia which was, is, or will be serviced
   by Nationstar on or after July 2, 2011 ("borrowers") IF:

      (i) on or after that date, Nationstar posted any sum for or
          characterized by Nationstar as attorney fees, or legal
          fees, or a non-itemized sum including attorney fees or
          legal fees, as a debit owed on that Nationstar mortgage
          loan account; and/or

     (ii) Nationstar's records relating to a borrower's account
          document that on or after that date Nationstar informed
          the borrower that the borrower must pay, or is
          obligated to pay, or will be charged any sum for or
          characterized by Nationstar as attorney fees, or legal
          fees, or a non-itemized sum including attorney fees or
          legal fees, at any time before completion of a
          trustee's sale of the property securing that account;
          and/or

    (iii) Nationstar's records relating to a borrower's account
          document that on or after that date, Nationstar applied
          any funds received from the borrower to payment of any
          sum for or characterized by Nationstar as attorney
          fees, or legal fees, or a non-itemized sum including
          attorney fees or legal fees at any time before
          completion of a trustee's sale of the property securing
          that account; and/or

     (iv) Nationstar's records relating to a borrower's account
          document that on or after that date, the borrower
          otherwise paid or was required to pay any sum for or
          characterized by Nationstar as attorney fees, or legal
          fees, or a non-itemized sum including attorney fees or
          legal fees, at any time before completion of a
          trustee's sale of the property securing that account -

   Provided that the class does not include any person who:

      (i) received a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge before the
          date of this motion, or

     (ii) had a Chapter 13 plan confirmed in bankruptcy before
          the date of this motion, or

    (iii) had the last scheduled payment on the mortgage
          serviced by Nationstar due on a date prior to March 27,
          2014 (unless a claimed deficiency remains unpaid), or

     (iv) who paid off the mortgage serviced by Nationstar in
          full on a date prior to March 27, 2014.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary M. Smith, Esq.
          Sarah K. Brown, Esq.
          Loree Stark, Esq.
          MOUNTAIN STATE JUSTICE, INC.
          1031 Quarrier St, Suite 200
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 344 3144
          Facsimile: (304) 344 3145
          E-mail: gary@msjlaw.org


NOLAN ENTERPRISES: De Angelis Seeks to Certify Dancers Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled STEPHANIE DE ANGELIS, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
NOLAN ENTERPRISES, INC., d/b/a CENTERFOLD CLUB, the Defendant,
Case No. 2:17-cv-00926-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the
Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying this case as a collective action
      with  respect to a collective class of:

      "all of Defendant's current and former dancers who are or
      were employed with Defendant during the three years before
      this Complaint was filed up to the present";

   2. directing expedited discovery of the names, all known
      addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, and dates of
      employment of Collective Action Members employed during the
      specified time period; and

   3. directing issuance of notice to prospective Collective
      Action Members via ordinary mail and email.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven C. Babin, Jr., Esq.
          Lance Chapin, Esq.
          CHAPIN LEGAL GROUP, LLC
          580 South High Street, Suite 330
          Columbus, Ohio 43215
          Telephone: (614) 221 9100
          Facsimile: (614) 221 9272
          E-mail: sbabin@chapinlegal.com
                  lchapin@chapinlegal.com


NORTHWEST MEDICAL: Torres Sues over Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------
JACQUELYN TORRES, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NORTHWEST MEDICAL CENTER,
INC., the Defendant, Case No. CACE-17-019496 (Cir. Ct. of the 17th
Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Fla., Oct. 24, 2017),
seeks to recover damages for Defendant's violations of the Florida
Consumer Collection Practices Act.

The Defendant owns, operates and maintains a full service, acute
care hospital that was and is a Florida corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jay Cohen, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JAY COHEN, P.A.
          Fort Lauderdale Office
          One Financial Plaza, Suite 1100
          100 Southeast Third Avenue
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
          Telephone: (954) 449 8700
          Facsimile: (954) 763 6093


NUMEREX CORP: "Franchi" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Sierra Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY FRANCHI, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. NUMEREX CORP., STRATTON J.
NICOLAIDES, TONY HOLCOMBE, SHERRIE G. MCAVOY, JERRY A. ROSE,
ANDREW RYAN, ERIC SINGER, BRIAN R. IGOE, SIERRA WIRELESS, INC.,
and WIRELESS ACQUISITION SUB, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-
cv-03957-CAP (N.D. Ga., Oct. 9, 2017), seeks to enjoin Defendants
and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with,
consummating, or closing a proposed merger transaction, and in the
event Defendants consummate the Proposed Transaction, to rescind
and set it aside or to award rescissory damages.

This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on August
2, 2017, pursuant to which Numerex Corp. will be acquired by
Sierra Wireless, Inc. and Wireless Acquisition Sub, Inc. On August
2, Numerex's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into
an agreement and plan of merger with Sierra. Pursuant to the terms
of the Merger Agreement, if Numerex shareholders approve the
Proposed Transaction, they will be entitled to receive 0.1800
common shares of Sierra for each share of Class A common stock of
Numerex they own. On September 18, Defendants filed a Form F-4
Registration Statement with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction.
The Registration Statement omits material information with respect
to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Registration
Statement false and misleading. Accordingly, plaintiff alleges
that defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Numerex Corp. is a provider of managed machine-to-machine
enterprise solutions enabling the Internet of Things.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

     - and -

Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
WEISSLAW LLP
476 Hardendorf Ave. NE
Atlanta, GA 30307
Telephone: (212) 682 3025
Facsimile: (212) 682 3010
E-mail: mrogovin@weisslawllp.com

     - and -

RM LAW, P.C.
1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
Berwyn, PA 19312
Telephone: (484) 324 6800
Facsimile: (484) 631 1305


OLDENKAMP TRUCKING: Ventura Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------------
JAIME VENTURA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. OLDENKAMP TRUCKING, INC., a California
corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No.
BC681103 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 25, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid
wages and interest under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to timely pay
all earned wages; failed to pay employees for all hours worked at
the minimum wage; failed to provide legally compliant meal periods
and/or pay meal period premium wages; failed to provide legally
complaint rest breaks and/or pay rest break premium wages; failed
to provide accurate wage statements; and failed to timely pay
employee all earned and unpaid wages due upon separation of
employment.

Oldenkamp Trucking was founded in 1993. The company's line of
business includes provides trucking or transfer services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Andrea Rosenkranz, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Blvd. Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 432 0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432 0001
          E-mail: jlavi@Ielawflrm.com
                  arosenkranz@Iclawfirm.com


OMNICARE INC: "Esomonu" Suit Seeks to Certify 2 Classes
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled IJEOMA ESOMONU, on behalf of herself, all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. OMNICARE, INC., a
Delaware corporation and DOES 1-10 inclusive, the Defendants, Case
No. 4:15-cv-02003-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the
Court on January 11, 2018 for an order certifying the following
classes:

National Background Check Class:

   "all of Defendants' current, former and prospective applicants
   for employment in the United States for whom Defendants
   obtained a credit or background check at any time during the
   period beginning five years prior to the filing of this action
   and ending on the date of the order granting class
   certification"; and

California Background Check Class:

   "all of Defendants' current, former and prospective applicants
   for employment in California for whom Defendants obtained a
   credit or background check report at any time during the
   period beginning seven years prior to the filing of this
   action and ending on the date of the order granting class
   certification."

The Plaintiff further moves for an order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(g) appointing Setareh Law Group as class counsel.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fhlfp3jT

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ORANGE, CA: "Randall" Suit Seeks to Certify Damages Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled B.R., a minor, and all others similarly
situated, by and through his Guardian ad litem, JILL RANDALL, the
Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF ORANGE, a public entity; MYESHIA HAMMOND,
in her personal capacity, together with all others similarly
situated, the Defendants, Case No. 8:15-cv-00626-CJC-PJW (C.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on December 4, 2017 for
an order certifying a Damages Class of:

   "all natural persons, who, as minors, were seized from their
   parents or legal guardians' care and custody, without a
   removal warrant, by the County of Orange from April 20, 1994
   through the date of trial, and where the primary reason for
   removal in the CWS/CMS database is "neglect."

According to the complaint, the action "challenges the County of
Orange's constitutionally deficient custom, policy, and practice
of refusing to obtain judicial authorization before removing a
child from his or her parents' custody, under circumstances where
that child was not in immediate danger of suffering serious bodily
injury or death. This stage of the litigation asks whether or not
it is appropriate to evaluate that system-wide custom, policy, and
practice collectively, on a class-wide basis for thousands of
children. Based on clearly established federal law, the answer is
unequivocally yes."

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shawn A. McMillan, Esq.
          Stephen D. Daner, Esq.
          Adrian M. Paris, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF SHAWN A. MCMILLAN, APC
          4955 Via Lapiz
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Telephone: (858) 646 0069
          Facsimile: (858) 746 5283
          E-mail: attyshawn@netscape.net
                  steve.mcmillanlaw@gmail.com
                  adrian.mcmillanlaw@gmail.com

               - and -

          Mark Ankcorn, Esq.
          Ann Marie Hansen, Esq.
          ANKCORN LAW FIRM, PLLC
          1060 Woodcock Road, Suite 128
          Orlando, FL 32803
          Telephone: (321) 422 2333
          Facsimile: (619) 684 3541
          E-mail: mark@ankcornlaw.com
                  annmarie@ankcornlaw.com


ORBITAL ATK: Lickteig Challenges Northrop Grumman Merger
--------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES LICKTEIG, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ORBITAL ATK, INC., KEVIN P.
CHILTON, ROXANNE J. DECYK, LENNARD A. FISK, RONALD R. FOGLEMAN,
RONALD T. KADISH, TIG H. KREKEL, DOUGLAS L. MAINE, ROMAN MARTINEZ
IV, JANICE I. OBUCHOWSKI, JAMES G. ROCHE, HARRISON H. SCHMITT,
DAVID W. THOMPSON, SCOTT L. WEBSTER, NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION,
and NEPTUNE MERGER, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01139-
CMH-TCB (E.D. Va., Oct. 11, 2017), seeks to recover damages
resulting from the Defendants' violations of the Securities
Exchange Act.

On September 18, 2017, Orbital and Northrop Grumman announced that
they had entered into a definitive merger agreement pursuant to
which Northrop Grumman will acquire all of the outstanding shares
of common stock of Orbital for $134.50 per share in cash. The
deal, including the net debt of Orbital, is valued at around $9.2
billion. The Proposed Transaction is expected to close in the
first half of 2018. Defendants have violated the Exchange Act by
causing a materially incomplete and misleading preliminary proxy
statement to be filed with the SEC on October 2. The Proxy
recommends that Orbital shareholders vote in favor of a proposed
transaction whereby Orbital will merge with Merger Sub and become
a wholly-owned subsidiary of Northrop Grumman. Yet the Proxy fails
to include critical information, such as Orbital's prospects
should it continue as a standalone company. For example, Orbital
has a large backlog of projects to be completed, which indicates
long-term revenue growth and increased demand for the Company's
products. An increased budget for U.S. government defense spending
promises even more growth, as at least one-third of Orbital's
customers are part of the U.S. military.

In addition, the Proxy contains materially incomplete and
misleading information concerning the financial projections
prepared by Orbital's management, as well as the financial
analyses conducted by Citigroup. Without complete information
concerning the financial analyses and projections, stockholders
are unable to determine whether the Merger Consideration properly.
The Proxy also provides misleading information concerning the
sales process. It appears that the Board allowed itself to be
bulldozed by Northrop Grumman, capitulating to its demands and
failing to fight for an increased sale price, a decreased
termination fee, or even an auction process. Instead, the Board
allowed President and Chief Executive Officer David W. Thompson to
be in control of the process, with little oversight. To add insult
to injury, the Board allowed deal protection devices to be
included in the Merger Agreement, including a strict no
solicitation provision. There is little information provided in
the Proxy concerning the Board's basis for these actions, which is
troubling considering that the Board and executive officers stand
to receive more than $42 million in financial benefits from the
automatic vesting of restricted shares, performance shares,
deferred stock units, phantom stock units and stock options.
Defendants from taking any steps to consummate the Proposed
Transaction, including filing a definitive proxy statement with
the SEC or otherwise causing a Definitive Proxy to be disseminated
to Orbital's shareholders, unless and until the material
information discussed below is included in the Definitive Proxy or
otherwise disseminated to Orbital's shareholders. In the event the
Proposed Transaction is consummated without the material omissions
referenced below being remedied.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert O. Wilson, Esq.
          Rosalee B.C. Thomas, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
          3201 New Mexico Ave, NW, Suite 395
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 337 8000
          Facsimile: (202) 337 8090
          E-mail: rwilson@finkelsteinthompson.com
                  rbcthomas@finkelsteinthompson.com

               - and -

          Shane T. Rowley, Esq.
          Danielle Rowland Lindahl, Esq.
          ROWLEY LAW PLLC
          50 Main Street, Suite 1000
          White Plains, NY 10606
          Telephone: (914) 400 1920
          Facsimile: (914) 301 3514
          E-mail: srowley@rowleylawpllc.com
                  drl@rowleylawpllc.com


PACIFIC PROTECTION: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages, Madrigal Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ADOLPHO MADRIGAL, as an individual and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. PACIFIC PROTECTION SERVICES, INC., a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case
No. BC677791 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., September 28,
2017), accuses the Defendants of failing to provide meal and rest
periods, to pay minimum wages and to pay overtime wages.

Pacific Protection is a California corporation doing business in
the state of California.  The Defendants own and operate locations
in the state of California, including in Los Angeles County, and
employ several hundred non-exempt hourly security guards, such as
the Plaintiff.  The Plaintiff does not know the true names or
capacities of the Doe Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter M. Hart, Esq.
          Peter Choi, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PETER M. HART
          12121 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 725
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 207-2277
          Facsimile: (509) 561-6441
          E-mail: hartpeter@msn.com


PALMER & REIFLER: "Cook" Suit Seeks to Certify 3 Classes
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled THOMAS COOK and EMANUEL BERMUDEZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, PALMER, REIFLER & ASSOCIATES, and WAL-MART STORES,
INC., the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00673-BJD-JRK (M.D. Fla.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify the following three
classes of similarly situated persons:

Wrong-Number Class:

   "(1) all persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular
   telephone number (3) PRA placed or caused to be placed a non-
   emergency telephone call (4) on behalf of Wal-Mart (5) using
   an automatic telephone dialing system or artificial or
   prerecorded voice (6) within 4 years of the complaint (7)
   where PRA called the wrong number, such as where PRA listed
   that number on its Wrong Number List";

Call after Wrong-Number Notation Class:

   "(1) all persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular
   telephone number (3) PRA placed or caused to be placed a non-
   emergency telephone call (4) on behalf of Wal-Mart (5) using
   an automatic telephone dialing system or artificial or
   prerecorded voice (6) within 4 years of the complaint (7)
   where PRA called the wrong number after it was already
   informed it had the wrong number, such as where the number was
   previously added to PRA's Wrong-Number List";

DNC Class:

   "(1) All persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular
   telephone number (3) PRA placed or caused to be placed a non-
   emergency telephone call (4) on behalf of Wal-Mart (5) using
   an automatic telephone dialing system or artificial or
   prerecorded voice (6) within 4 years of the complaint (7)
   where PRA called after receiving a do not call request, such
   as where the number was previously added to PRA's Do Not Call
   List."

This case is about thousands of prerecorded robocalls that Palmer,
Reifler & Associates ("PRA") placed on behalf of Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc. ("Wal-Mart") to collect monies allegedly due to Wal-Mart as a
result of alleged shoplifting incidents. Class members such as
Plaintiff, who never shoplifted anything from Wal-Mart, had to
navigate PRA's menu-driven phone system and tell PRA they were the
wrong party, or to stop calling. This is not a case where the
person who answered the telephone flippantly stated PRA was
calling the wrong number, but instead the class is limited to
persons who were forced to reach out to PRA by working through the
automated menu, and who were then vetted by PRA before PRA added
them to its Wrong-Number or Do Not Call ("DNC") List.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
          Amy L. Wells, Esq.
          KEOGH LAW, LTD
          55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3390
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 726 1092
          Facsimile: (312) 726 1093
          E-mail: Keith@KeoghLaw.com
                  Awells@KeoghLaw.com

               - and -

          William Peerce Howard, Esq.
          Amanda J. Allen, Esq.
          The Consumer Protection Firm
          210-A South MacDill Ave.
          Tampa, FL 33609
          Telephone: (813) 500 1500
          E-mail: Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
                  Amanda@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com


PAPA JOHN'S: "Thomas" Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Derrick Thomas, On behalf of himself and
those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Papa John's
International, Inc., et al, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
00411-MRB (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an
Order conditionally certifying this action as a collective action
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and designating Plaintiff as
representative of the following Collective:

   "all non-owner, non-employer delivery drivers who worked for
   Defendants at any of the "It's Only" Papa John's restaurants
   in the Cincinnati, Ohio area from June 16, 2014 to present".

The Plaintiff further moves the Court for an order authorizing
Plaintiff to send notices of this lawsuit to putative Collective
members that will inform similarly situated individuals of their
rights and provide them with an opportunity to join the action.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Q3I3MHvW

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PARKING CONCEPTS: Illegally Calculated OT Pay, "Mena" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
DONALD MENA, an individual, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. PARKING CONCEPTS, INC., a California corporation;
PARKING CONCEPTS SHUTTLE SERVICES, INC., a California corporation;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC677727 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Los Angeles Cty., September 28, 2017), arises from alleged
unpaid wages earned and due, including unpaid and illegally
calculated overtime compensation.

Parking Concepts and Parking Concepts Shuttle Services are
California corporations organized and existing under the laws of
the state of California.  The true names and capacities of the Doe
Defendants are unknown to the Plaintiff.  The Defendants are joint
employers of the Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees.

Parking Concepts provides parking solutions.  The Company offers
parking services to hospitals, stadiums, special events, and
offices, as well as provides parking lot maintenance, shuttle and
transportation, parking enforcements, and valet services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          Tagore Subramaniam, Esq.
          Daniel J. Bass, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531-1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
          E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
                  tagore@maternlawgroup.com
                  dbass@maternlawgroup.com


PEARLCARE STAFFING: Rosado Sues over Hostile Work Environment
-------------------------------------------------------------
JASMINE ROSADO, the Plaintiff, v. PEARLCARE STAFFING SOLUTIONS,
LLC, EVAN POLLACK, individually and in his official capacity,
And ANGELISA CHURCH, individually and in her official capacity,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-07790-GBD (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 11,
2017), seeks damages to redress the injuries Plaintiff suffered as
a result of being exposed to race discrimination, hostile work
environment, retaliation, and unlawful termination.

The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, alleges that, as result of Defendants' continued
harassment of the Plaintiff, she suffered numerous injuries
including physical, economic, and emotional damages. The Plaintiff
has suffered and will continue to suffer the loss of income, the
loss of a salary, bonuses, benefits and other compensation which
such employment entails, and Plaintiff has also suffered future
pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss
of enjoyment of life, and other nonpecuniary losses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Derek T. Smith, Esq.
          DEREK T. SMITH LAW GROUP. P.C.
          30 Broad Street, 35th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212 587 0760)


PENN NATIONAL: "Wysincavage" Suit Wins Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JOHN WYSINCAVAGE, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
PENN NATIONAL GAMING, INC., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-
cv-01063-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Hon Judge Michael W. Watson
entered an order:

   1. granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification;

   2. granting motion to dismiss Plaintiffs Danschisen, Williams,
      and Dewire; and

   3. denying motion to file Instanter Sur-reply.

The Court accepts Plaintiffs' proposed modifications to the Class
Notice. The Court agrees that it is not appropriate for Plaintiffs
to incur the expense of a claims administrator at this point, and
it trusts that counsel for both parties will deal with any
personal information of the Putative Class with due care.

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


PHIA GROUP: "Weyant" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled JESSICA WEYANT, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. THE
PHIA GROUP, LLC and INDECS CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No.
656033/2017, was removed on Oct. 25, 2017 from the Supreme Court
of the State of New York, New York County, to the U.S. District
Court for Southern District of New York. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 7:17-cv-08230 to the proceeding.

Phia Group is an experienced provider of health care cost
containment techniques offering comprehensive consulting services
and legal expertise.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Thomas J. Luz. Esq.
          Ryan Woody, Esq.
          MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C.
          1111 E. Sumner Street
          P.O. Box 270670
          Hartford, WI 53027
          Telephone: (262) 673 7850
          Facsimile: (262) 673 3766
          E-mail: rwoody@mwl-law.com


PLATINUM CORRAL: "Johnson" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SCOTT JOHNSON, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PLATINUM CORRAL LLC
and PLATINUM CORRAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, the Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-00399-GCS-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court
for an enter an Order:

   1. conditionally certifying a proposed collective pursuant to
      29 U.S.C. section 216(b);

   2. directing Defendants to produce a computer-readable data
      file containing the names, last known mailing addresses,
      last known telephone numbers, last known personal and work
      e-mail addresses, Social Security numbers (for those
      notices returned undeliverable), and work locations for all
      Collective Members;

   3. authorizing the issuance of the Proposed Notice to all
      Collective Members by U.S. Mail and email, and a reminder
      notice during the opt-in period;

   4. authorizing the creation of a standalone website through
      which Opt-ins can electronically submit their claim forms;
      and

   5. providing for such other relief as the Court deems just and
      proper.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=bgQYRgr1

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Collective:

          Drew Legando, Esq.
          LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN LLC
          1360 West Ninth Street, Suite 200
          Cleveland, OH 44107
          Telephone: (216) 522 9000

               - and -

          Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
          Melissa L. Stewart, Esq.
          Christopher M. McNerney, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 245-1000

               - and -

          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          Michael Palitz, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          1515 S. Federal Highway
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 447-8888
          830 3rd Avenue, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (800) 616 4000


PLUMREWARD LLC: Reese Wants to Stop Unwanted & Unsolicited Texts
----------------------------------------------------------------
RENEE REESE, on behalf of herself and other persons similarly
situated v. PLUMREWARD LLC, BRADLEY J. DEROCHE, DEROCHE GRILLS OF
GRETNA, LLC AND MOE'S FRANCHISOR, LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-09786
(E.D. La., September 28, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendants'
alleged practice of making unwanted and unsolicited text message
calls to the cellular telephones of consumers nationwide and to
obtain redress for all persons injured by their conduct, which
violates the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

PlumReward LLC is a Windermere, Florida-based, for-profit
corporation.  PlumReward conducts business in Louisiana and
throughout the United States.

Deroche Grills of Gretna LLC is a Houma, Louisiana-based, for-
profit corporation.  Deroche Grills conducts business in
Louisiana.  Bradley J. Deroche is a citizen of the state of
Louisiana and a principal and agent of Deroche Grills.

Moe's Franchisor LLC is an Atlanta, Georgia-based, for-profit
corporation.  Moe's Franchisor conducts business in Louisiana and
throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
          William H. Beaumont, Esq.
          BEAUMONT COSTALES LAW OFFICE
          3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 534-5005
          Facsimile: (504) 272-2956
          E-mail: rlc@beaumontcostales.com
                  whb@beaumontcostales.com


POLYPEPTIDE LAB: Huynh Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------
CAM TU TI HUYNH, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. POLYPEPTIDE LABORATORIES,
INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, the
Defendant, Case No. BC680872 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 24, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid wages and penalties under California
Business & Professions Code, the Industrial Welfare Commission
Wage Order, and California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff often worked in excess
of eight hours per workday and/or forty hours per work week, but
did not receive proper overtime compensation equal to one and one-
half times her regular rate of pay for all overtime hours worked.
Specifically, Defendants paid Plaintiff a "production bonus,"
and/or other forms of pay not properly excludable as a matter of
law when calculating Plaintiff's regular rate of pay. Despite
Defendants' payment of Incentive Pay to Plaintiff, Defendants
failed to properly calculate Plaintiffs regular rate of pay,
thereby causing Plaintiff to be underpaid all of her required
overtime wages.

PolyPeptide manufactures polypeptide, custom peptide synthesis,
peptide synthesis and generic peptide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          Tuvia Korobkin, Esq.
          Daniel J. Brown, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          2274 East Maple Avenue
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292 2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292 2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
                  tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com
                  dbrown@haineslawgroup.com


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Harmening-Marl Suit Moved to M.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Lynn A. Harmening-Marl, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Quest Diagnostics, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 16-2017-CA-
005793, was removed on Oct. 25, 2017 from the Fourth Judicial
Circuit, Duval County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida (Jacksonville). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-01197-BJD-JRK to the proceeding.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Brian J. Davis.

Quest Diagnostics Incorporated is a Fortune 500 American company
providing clinical laboratory services with headquarters in
Secaucus, New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Austin James Griffin, Esq.
          STOREY LAW GROUP, PA
          328 2nd Avenue North, Suite 100
          Jacksonville Beach, FL 32250
          Telephone: (904) 372 4109
          E-mail: austin@storylawgroup.com

               - and -

          Max Story, Esq.
          MAX H. STORY
          328 2nd Avenue North, Suite 100
          Jacksonville Beach, FL 32250
          Telephone: (904) 372 4109
          Facsimile: (904) 758-5333
          E-mail: max@storylawgroup.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Mark B. Blocker, Esq.
          Scott D. Stein, Esq.
          Suzanne Brindise Notton, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          One S Dearborn St
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 853 7000

               - and -

          Michael T. Fackler, Esq.
          Peter E. Nicandri, Esq.
          MILAM, HOWARD, NICANDRI, GILLAM & RENNER, PA
          14 E Bay St
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: (904) 357 3660
          Facsimile: (904) 357 3662
          E-mail: mfackler@milamhoward.com
                  pnicandri@milamhoward.com


R & L CARRIERS: "Hood" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Premium under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
ERYK HOOD, Individually and on Behalf of All Those Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. R & L CARRIERS SHARED SERVICES, LLC,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-04050-SCJ (N.D. Ga., Oct. 11,
2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime premium pay, liquidated
damages, and attorney's fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

During his employment with R&L Carriers, LLC, the Plaintiff worked
in the Ellenwood office. The Plaintiff works for R&L Carriers as a
forklift operator and truck unloader. The Plaintiff would unload
large volumes of cargo for Defendant on its premises, and use a
forklift to transport the cargo from one location to another, on
these same premises. Plaintiff never worked outside of Defendant's
premises, and was never operating any vehicle in interstate
commerce. The Plaintiff was paid straight-time for 40 hours
worked, and continues to be paid straight-time for all hours
worked, despite working in excess of 40 hours per week throughout
his employment.

R&L Carriers operates a multi-state freight shipping company. R&L
Carriers ships globally, and maintains its headquarters in
Wilmington, Ohio. R&L Carriers has a local office in Ellenwood,
Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon A. Thomas, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF BRANDON A. THOMAS, PC
          1800 Peachtree Street, N.W., Suite 300
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 343 2441
          Facsimile: (404) 352 5636
          E-mail: brandon@brandonthomaslaw.com


RAYMOURS FURNITURE: Accused by "Manopla" Suit of Invading Privacy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EVELYN MANOPLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RAYMOURS FURNITURE COMPANY, INC. d/b/a RAYMOUR &
FLANIGAN, Case No. 3:17-cv-07649 (D.N.J., September 29, 2017), is
brought to secure redress because the Defendant allegedly violated
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and invaded the Plaintiff's
privacy by causing unsolicited text messages to be made to her and
other class members' cellular telephones through the use of an
auto-dialer.

Raymour is a corporation organized under the laws of New York with
its corporate office located in Liverpool, New York.  Raymour
operates a retail furniture company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


READY SECURITY: "Lewis" Action to Recover Minimum, Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Lewis, Individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ready Security, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 158861/2017 (N.Y. Sup., October 4, 2017), seeks unpaid
minimum wages, unpaid overtime, and unpaid spread of hours due,
liquidated damages, as well as an award of reasonable attorney's
fees under New York Labor Law and the New York Minimum Wage Act.

Defendant was engaged in the business of providing security
services where Plaintiff was employed as a security guard.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
     215-28 Hillside Avenue
     Queens Village, NY 11427
     Tel: (718) 740-1000
     Fax: (718) 355-9668
     Email: abdul@abdulhassan.com


RETRIEVAL-MASTERS: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ROBERT HOFFMAN, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. RETIEVAL-
MASTERS CREDITORS BUREAU, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-
01484-PP (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an
order certifying classes in this case, appointing the Plaintiff as
class representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as
Class Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court
may deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties
relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and
requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents
in support of this motion.

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=S4rLbh2W

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          Ademi & O'Reilly LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482 8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482 8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com


RJW TRANSPORT: Faces "McGee" Suit over Biometric Information
------------------------------------------------------------
RAY MCGEE, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals, the Plaintiff, v. RJW TRANSPORT, INC., a Delaware
corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 2017CH4077 (Circuit Court Of
Cook County, Ill., Oct. 20, 2017), seeks to stop Defendant's
capture, collection, use, and storage of individuals' biometric
identifiers and/or biometric information in violation of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, and to obtain redress
for all persons injured by their conduct.

This case is about a logistics and transportation corporation
capturing, collecting, storing, and using Plaintiffs and other
workers' biometric identifiers and/or biometric information
without regard to Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) and the
concrete privacy rights and pecuniary interests Illinois' BIPA
protects.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Myles McGuire, Esq.
          William P. Kingston, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th FL
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893 7002
          Facsimile: (312) 275 7895
          E-mail: mmcguire@mcgpc.com
                  wkingston@mcgpc.com


RTG FURNITURE: "Arevalo" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
GUILLERMO AREVALO, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. RTG FURNITURE CORPORATION, RTG
FURNITURE CORPORATION OF GEORGIA, RTG FURNITURE CORPORATION OF
TEXAS, ROOMS TO GO LOUISIANA CORPORATION, ROOMS TO GO MISSISSIPPI
CORPORATION, ROOMS TO GO ALABAMA CORPORATION, ROOMS TO GO NORTH
CAROLINA CORPORATION, ROOMS TO GO TENNESSEE CORPORATION, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04035-ELR (N.D. Ga., Oct. 11, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, litigation costs, attorneys' fees, and other
relief deemed appropriate by the Court under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

RTG Furniture Corporation is a Florida Corporation that owns and
operates "Rooms to Go" furniture stores in Georgia, Florida,
Alabama, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and Puerto Rico.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Regan Keebaugh, Esq.
          RADFORD & KEEBAUGH, LLC
          315 W. Ponce de Leon Ave., Suite 1080
          Decatur, GA 30030
          Telephone: (678) 271 0300
          Facsimile: (678) 271 0311
          E-mail: regan@decaturlegal.com


RUBICON COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Buechler" Suit in Texas
------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER M. BUECHLER, Individually, and Derivatively on Behalf
of Nominal Defendant ELECTRIC SHEEP FENCING, LLC, the Plaintiff,
v. JAMES W. THOMPSON, JAMIE L. THOMPSON, and RUBICON
COMMUNICATIONS, LLC D/B/A NETGATE, the Defendants, Case No. D-1-
GN-17-005884 (in the District Court of Travis County, Texas, Oct.
20, 2017), seeks to recover damages to remedy Defendants' breach
of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty,
breach of contract, civil conspiracy, corporate waste, conversion
of company property, defamation, fraud, violations of the Theft
Liability Act, and oppressive conduct.

Rubicon Communications, LLC was founded in 2004. The company's
line of business includes the retail sale of computers, computer
peripheral equipment, and software.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lanch A. Hentzy, Esq.
          Stephen A. Aguilar, Esq.
          RESSLER + WYNNE RESSLER, P.C.
          620 Congress Avenue, Suite 320
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 320 0601
          Facsimile: (512) 320 0695
          E-mail: lance@rwrlegal.com
                  stcphen@rwrlcgal.com


S & S DONUTS: Donuts Contain Margarine, Not Butter, Walsh Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
LOREN WALSH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. S & S Donuts, LLC, the Defendant, Case
No. 17-3059 (Mass. Super. Ct., Oct. 20, 2017), seeks to recover
damages as a result of Defendant's violation of Massachusetts
Laws.

The Plaintiff alleges that S & S Donuts, LLC has engaged in a
scheme whereby S & S Donuts,  through its Dunkin' Donuts locations
in the Commonwealth, knowingly and habitually deceives its
customers by providing margarine ( or a butter substitute) when
customers specifically request butter and are charged for butter
on their bagels or other baked good products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John R. Yash, Esq.
          Matthew T. LaMothe, Esq.
          FORREST, LAMOTHE, MAZOW,
          MCCULLOUGH, YASI & YASI, P.C.
          Salem Green, Suite 2
          Salem, MA O1970
          Telephone: (617) 231 7829
          E-mail: jyasi@forrestlamothe.com


SAFE HARBOR: Violates Landlord and Tenant Ordinance, Morris Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JUDITH MORRIS, Individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. SAFE HARBOR REALTY, LLC and
UNDISCLOSED OWNER(S) OF THE PREMISES LOCATED AT 58 E. 50TH,
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, the Defendants, Case No. 2017-CH-14038 (Circuit
Court of Cook County, Ill., Oct. 19, 2017), seeks to recover
damages under the Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance.

The case is a class action against Defendants for violating the
City of Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance,
Municipal Code Title 5, Chapter 12, et seq. ("RLTO"). Defendants
allegedly failed to (i) give Plaintiff and the class a security
deposit receipt in the manner provided by Section 5- l 2-080(b) of
the RLTO; provide Plaintiff and the class with interest on their
security deposits in the manner required by Section 5- l 2-080(c)
of the RLTO; and (iii) provide Plaintiffs and the class with a
copy of the then-current separate summary describing the
respective rights, obligations and remedies of landlords and
tenants with respect to security deposits that was prepared by the
Chicago commissioner of the department of housing and made
available for inspection and copying at the beginning of each
year, as explicitly required by Section 5-12-170 of the RLTO.

Safe Harbor Realty is a full service real estate firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrev S. Sobek, Esq.
          JS LAW
          29 E. Madison Street, Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone (312) 756 1330
          E-mail: jeffs@jsslawoffices.com


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Lane" Suit Moved to W. Dist. Oklahoma
-----------------------------------------------------------
Diane Lane, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
Plaintiff, v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung
Electronics Co., Ltd, The Home Depot, Inc., Lowe's Home Centers,
Llc, Best Buy Co., Inc., Sears Holding Corporation, Defendants.,
Case No. 17-cv-00371 (D. Del., April 7, 2017), is transferred to
the Western District of Oklahoma on October 4, 2017 under Case No.
17-cv-01056.

Lane seeks injunctive relief by requiring Samsung to issue
corrective actions including notification, recall, service
bulletins and fully-covered replacement parts and labor or
replacement, damages associated with the replacement of the
defective products and parts, attorneys' fees and costs resulting
from fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of implied and express
warranty, negligence, in violation of the Magnuson-Moss Act and
violation of state consumer protection laws.

On November 4, 2016, Samsung announced a recall involving 34
models of Samsung top-load washing machines with mid-controls or
rear-controls. The washing machine top unexpectedly detaches from
the washing machine chassis during use, posing a risk of injury
from impact.

Lane purchased a washing machine (model number WA40J3000SW/A2)
from Lowe's Home Center. Lane began experiencing loud excessive
vibration from the said washing machine despite numerous repairs
attempts.

Samsung is a major designer, manufacturer, marketer, and seller of
consumer appliances, including washing machines, which it
distributes throughout the United States. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
      COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
      The Brandywine Building
      1000 West Street, 10th Floor
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Tel: (302) 984-3800


SCIAME CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Triumph" Suit over Prompt Payment Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TRIUMPH CONSTRUCTION CORP., individually, and as representative of
all trust beneficiaries similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
SCIAME CONSTRUCTION, LLC, ROBERT E. DAROS, JR., "John Doe One"
through "John Doe Ten," and other Lien Holders unknown, the
Defendants, Case No. 656514/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Oct. 24, 2017),
seeks to recover funds due of at least $215,544.79 and related
relief under the New York General Business Law.

In February 2013, Sciame contracted with Triumph for the
performance of construction work at the Project, including, but
not limited to, water, sewer and trench drain work, among other
items of work. Triumph's Work included change orders and
additional work performed at Sciame's insistence and request.
Despite Triumph's performance of all Work in a quality and
workmanlike manner, Sciame has continually failed and refused to
pay for the Work. Although Sciame paid Triumph a portion of the
funds due, a balance of at least $215,544.79 remains due and owing
to date, and has remained outstanding since at least August 2016.
Triumph has duly demanded, invoiced and requisitioned the
Outstanding Balance; however, Sciame has neglected, failed, and/or
refused to make payment, without any justification or excuse
whatsoever. Because this matter falls within the scope of Article
35-E of the New York General Business Law (Prompt Payment Act),
and Sciame has improperly and without justification delayed
payment to Triumph beyond the deadline for same, Triumph is
entitled to interest at the rate of 1% per month on the
Outstanding Balance or a higher rate consistent with the
construction contract.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian Gardner, Esq.
          COLE SCHOTZ P.C.
          1325 Avenue of the Americas, 19th Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 752 8000


SEPHORA USA: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled LACEY HERNANDEZ; and BRENDA MORALES, the
Plaintiffs, v. SEPHORA USA, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES
1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-05392-
WHO (N.D. Cal.), Lacey Hernandez and Brenda Morales on November
29, 2017 will move the Court for an order conditionally certifying
an "Opt-In" Class Action, under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Lacey Hernandez and Brenda Morales are
similarly situated to all individuals employed by Defendant as
"Cashiers," "Cash Wrap Coordinators," "Personal Beauty Advisors,"
and/or "Product Consultants" paid on an hourly basis from June 20,
2014 to present. This is an action to recover back overtime wages
pursuant to the FLSA. The Named Plaintiffs are seeking to recover
overtime wages they were not paid during their employment for time
spent on the required application and maintenance of makeup.
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees were frequently
required to work in excess of 40 hours a week without overtime
compensation in violation of FLSA Section 207(a)(1).

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=dj5w1D76

Attorneys for Individual and Representative Plaintiffs:

          Matthew F. Archbold, Esq.
          David D. Deason, Esq.
          DEASON & ARCHBOLD
          17011 Beach Blvd., Suite 900
          Huntington Beach, CA 92647
          Telephone: (949) 794 9560
          E-mail: matthew@yourlaborlawyers.com
                  david@yourlaborlawyers.com

               - and -

          John Matthew Norton, Esq.
          MATTHEW NORTON & ASSOCIATES
          4105 E. Broadway, Ste.190
          Long Beach, CA 90803
          Telephone: 562/433-3208
          E-mail: Matt@Matthew-Norton.com


SHIPMAN FAMILY: "Rhodes" Suit Seeks Exact Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
PRISCILLA RHODES, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. SHIPMAN FAMILY HOME CARE INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00950 (M.D.N.C., Oct. 11, 2017), seeks
to recover overtime wages, liquidated damages, and reasonable
attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff worked for Defendant without
being paid the correct overtime premium rate and one-half her
regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours
within a work week. Specifically, the Defendant paid overtime
hours in excess of 40 hours within a work week calculated from a
decreased regular rate of pay for all hours as an attempt to do an
end run-around of the FLSA's requirements. The Plaintiff worked as
a "home health aide" for Defendant and performed related
activities in and around Beaufort County, North Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Smith, Esq.
          RIDDLE & BRANTLEY, LLP
          P.O, Box 11050
          Goldsboro, NC 27532 1050
          Telephone: (919) 432 1516
          Facsimile: (919) 432 1751
          E-mail: aas@justicecounts.com


SMITH TRANSPORT: Ratliff's Motion for Class Certification Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Jerome Ratliff Jr., the Plaintiff, v. Smith
Transport Inc., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-07199
(N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Charles R. Norgle Sr. entered an order
granting the motion to stay the request for class certification.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on October 19,
2017, the motion to stay the class certification request is
granted. The parties were not required to appear before the court
on October 20.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3KtwxpEn

The Defendants have asked the Court to grant their unopposed
motion to stay the class certification deadline until a time after
Defendants have filed their respective responsive pleading and the
parties have appeared for their initial status conference with the
Court.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=24gIUygq

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Aschenbrener, Esq.
          Adam C. York, Esq.
          KAMBER LAW LLC
          220 North Green Street
          Chicago, IL 60607
          E-mail: masch@kamberlaw.com
                  ayork@kamberlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Andrew J. Butcher, Esq.
          SCOPELIGHTS, GARVIN, LIGHT,
          HANSON & FEARY, P.C.
          30 West Monroe Street, Suite 600
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 255 7200
          E-mail: abutcher@scopelitis.com


STATE SECURITY: "Lipscomb" Action to Recover Minimum, OT Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Rasheen Lipscomb, Individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. State Security Agency, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 713746/2017 (N.Y. Sup., October 4, 2017),
seeks unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime, and unpaid spread of
hours due, liquidated damages, as well as an award of reasonable
attorney's fees under New York Labor Law and the New York Minimum
Wage Act.

Defendant was engaged in the business of providing security
services where Plaintiff was employed as a security guard.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
     215-28 Hillside Avenue
     Queens Village, NY 11427
     Tel: (718) 740-1000
     Fax: (718) 355-9668
     Email: abdul@abdulhassan.com


STEVEN STOLPER: Konings Files Placeholder Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ERIC KONINGS, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. STEVEN STOLPER,
the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01485 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order certifying classes in this case,
appointing the Plaintiff as class representatives, and appointing
Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such other and
further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties
relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and
requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents
in support of this motion.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          Ademi & O'Reilly LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482 8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482 8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com


SUMMITT TRUCKING: Class Certification Bid Continued to Nov. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Jerome Ratliff Jr., the Plaintiff, v.
Summitt Trucking, LLC, et al., the Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-07208, the Hon. Judge Jorge L. Alonso entered an order to
continue Plaintiff's motion for class certification to Nov. 30,
2017 at 9:30 a.m.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on October 23,
2017, Defendants' unopposed motion to stay Plaintiff's motion for
class certification is granted. Plaintiff's motion for class
certification is entered and continued to Nov. 30, 2017 at 9:30
a.m. Motion hearing date of Oct. 24, 2017 is stricken. Initial
status hearing set for Nov. 30, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=AGiY12rd

The Defendants had asked the Court to grant their unopposed motion
to stay class certification deadline until a time after Defendants
have filed their responsive pleading and the parties have appeared
for their initial status conference in Court.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=joMyoZW5

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Aschenbrener, Esq.
          Adam C. York, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW, LLC
          220 North Green Street
          E-mail: masch@kamberlaw.com
                  ayork@kamberlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Andrew J. Butcher, Esq.
          SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT,
          HANSON, & FEARY, P.C.
          30 West Monroe Street, Suite 600
          Chicago, Illinois 60603
          Telephone: (312) 255 7172
          E-mail: abutcher@scopelitis.com


SUNSHINE BANCORP: Bushansky Seeks to Enjoin CenterState Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN BUSHANSKY, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. SUNSHINE BANCORP, INC., RAY H.
ROLLYSON, JR., D. WILLIAM MORROW, JOE E. NEWSOME, WILL
WEATHERFORD, WILLIAM E. POMMERENING, MARION M. SMITH, W.D.
MCGINNES, JR., GEORGE PARMER, KENNETH H. COMPTON, MALCOLM ROBERT
KIRSCHENBAUM, JAMES T. SWANN, SAL A. NUNZIATA, JOHN C. REICH,
ANDREW S. SAMUEL, DANA S. KILBORNE, and CENTERSTATE BANK
CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 62598532 (Circuit Court of
the 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Fla.,
Oct. 9, 2017), seeks to preliminarily and permanently enjoin
defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from
proceeding with, consummating, or closing a proposed merger
transaction unless and until the Company provides all material
information to Sunshine's stockholders to allow them to make a
fully informed voting decision with respect to the Proposed
Transaction and, adopts and implements a procedure or process to
obtain a merger agreement providing the best available terms for
the Company's stockholders.

This case is a stockholder class action brought by Plaintiff on
behalf of himself and all other public stockholders of Sunshine
Bancorp, Inc. against Sunshine and the members of Sunshine's Board
of Directors and CenterState Bank Corporation. This action arises
out of Defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties or aiding
and abetting thereof in connection with the proposed acquisition
of the Company by CenterState.

On August 14, 2017, CenterState issued a press release announcing
Sunshine and CenterState had entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger dated August 12, to sell Sunshine to CenterState. Pursuant
to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Sunshine stockholders will
receive 0.89 shares of CenterState common stock for each share of
Sunshine common stock they own, valued at approximately $21.30 per
share based on the closing price of CenterState common shares on
August 11, the last trading day before the public announcement of
the Merger Agreement. The Proposed Transaction is valued at
approximately $176.8 million. Simultaneously with the announcement
of the Proposed Transaction, CenterState announced its acquisition
of HCBF Holding Company Inc. ("HCBF") and its subsidiary Harbor
Community Bank, with its $2.2 billion in assets, in a cash and
stock transaction valued at approximately $416.7 million.
Following the acquisitions, CenterState will become the second-
largest retail bank based in Florida with $10.1 billion in assets.
Both the value to Sunshine stockholders contemplated in the
Proposed Transaction and the process by which defendants propose
to consummate the Proposed Transaction are fundamentally unfair to
Plaintiff and the other public stockholders of the Company. The
Individual Defendants' conduct constitutes a breach of their
fiduciary duties owed to Sunshine stockholders, and a violation of
applicable legal standards governing the Individual Defendants'
conduct.

Notably, the Merger Consideration falls significantly below the
Company's intrinsic value. The inadequacy of the Merger
Consideration is evidenced by the fact that (i) as recently as
July 28, 2017, an analyst at Hovde Group, LLC ("Hovde"), the
Company's own financial advisor in connection with the Proposed
Transaction that opined that the Merger Consideration was "fai",
set a $26.00 per share price target for the Company, $4.79 above
the $21.70 implied value of the Merger Consideration; and (ii)
prior to the announcement of the Proposed Transaction, the
Company's stock consistently traded above the implied value of the
Merger Consideration, trading as high as $23.46 per share as
recently as May 12, 2017. Indeed, the Company's stock closed at
$22.68 per share on August 11, 2017, the last trading day before
the announcement of the Proposed Transaction.

Sunshine is the holding company for Sunshine Bank. Sunshine Bank,
which has assets of approximately $956 million, provides financial
services to individuals, families, and business customers from 18
branch locations from the East Coast to the West Coast of
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Katherine Earle Yanes, Esq.
James E. Felman, Esq.
KYNES, MARKMAN & FELMAN, PA
100 S. Ashley Drive, Suite 1300
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 229 1118
Facsimile: (813) 221 6750
E-mail: JFelman@kmf-law.com
        KYanes@kmf-law.com

     - and -

Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
Kelly C. Keenan, Esq.
Alexandra E. Eisig, Esq.
WEISSLAW LLP
1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 682 3025


TCC WIRELESS: Garcia Sues over Biometric Information Privacy Laws
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EDGAR GARCIA, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. TCC WIRELESS, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 2017-CH-l4l07 (Circuit Court of Cook County,
Ill., Oct. 23, 2017), seeks to recover commensurate temporary,
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief for Plaintiff and the
Class from Defendant's violation of Biometric Information Privacy
Act.

TCC Wireless, LLC is an Illinois limited liability company, which
owns and/or operates over 100 T-Mobile retail stores across the
country, including over 30 retail stores in Illinois. TCC
employees have been required to clock "in" and "out" of their work
shifts by scanning their fingerprints, and Defendant's biometric
computer systems then verify the employee and clock the employee
"in" or "out." BIPA expressly obligates Defendant to obtain an
executed, written release from an individual, as a condition of
employment, in order to capture, collect and store an individual's
biometric identifiers, especially a fingerprint, and biometric
information derived from it.  BIPA further obligates Defendant to
inform its employees in writing that a biometric identifier or
biometric information is being collected or stored; to tell its
employees in writing for how long it will store their biometric
information and any purposes for which biometric information is
being captured, collected, and used; and to make available a
written policy disclosing when it will permanently destroy such
information.  BIPA makes all of these requirements a precondition
to the collection or recording of fingerprints and associated
biometric information. Under BIPA, no biometric identifiers or
information may be captured, stored or recorded if these pre-
capture, pre-collection requirements are not met.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Fank Castiglione, Esq.
          Kasif Khowaja, Esq.
          KHOWAJA LAW FIRM, LLC
          70 East Lake Street, Suite 1220
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 356 3200
          Facsimile: (312) 386 5800
          E-mail: fcastiglione@khowajalaw.com
                  kasif@khowajalaw.com

               - and -

          James X. Bonnes, Esq.
          Catherine P. Sons, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C.
          South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 201 0575
          Facsimile: (312) 332 0600
          E-mail: jxbonnes@bormeslaw.com
                  cpsons@bonneslaw.com


TIDEWATER FINANCE: Ryan Seeks Redress for Noncompliant Notices
--------------------------------------------------------------
SIMONE RYAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TIDEWATER FINANCE COMPANY, Case No. 170903529 (Penn.
Ct. of Common Pleas, Philadelphia Cty., September 28, 2017), is a
consumer protection class action seeking monetary relief to
redress the Defendant's alleged pattern and practice of failing to
provide statutorily compliant, commercially reasonable, notices
when repossessing and reselling a financed vehicle.

Tidewater Finance Company has its principal place of business in
Virginia Beach, Virginia.  Tidewater regularly and systemically
conducts business in Philadelphia County and throughout
Pennsylvania.

At all relevant times, Tidewater was (or is) the assignee, holder,
and/or servicing agent of loans secured by the Plaintiff and
putative class members' vehicles when each of the subject
statutory notices were sent (or caused to be sent).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard Shenkan, Esq.
          SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS, LLC
          6550 Lakeshore St.
          West Bloomfield, MI 48323
          Telephone: (248) 562-1320
          Facsimile: (888) 769-1774
          E-mail: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com


TNJ ENTERPRISES: $225,000 Accord in "Gomez" Has Preliminary OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Luiny Gomez, Edickson Garcia, Julian
Vasquez, and Ramon Hidalgo, on behalf of themselves and all other
persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. TNJ Enerprises Inc.
d/b/a Domino's Pizza, Frank Lazauskus, and John Does No.
1-10, the Defendants, Case No.16-CV-4824-SDW-LDW (D.N.J.), the
Hon. Judge Leda Dunnettre grants Plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary approval of class and collective action settlement on
behalf of:

   "all current and former Delivery Drivers who worked for TNJ
   Enterprises Inc. and related entities at any time from August
   8, 2014 through the date of Preliminary Approval of the
   Settlement Agreement."

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Defendants agree to pay to a
Maximum Settlement Amount of $225,000 to resolve claims of New
Jersey Class Members (including a minimum payment of $25.00) and
FLSA Class Members who submit valid claim forms, plus amounts
ordered by the Court for Attorneys' Fees (requested in the amount
of $74,999.00), Service Awards (not to exceed total of
$15,000.00), and Class Settlement Claims Administrator expenses
(not to exceed $15,000.00). Defendants will fund the Qualified
Settlement Fund maintained by a Settlement Administrator within 20
days of the final Effective Date of Settlement.

The Court set the final fairness hearing for March 28, 2018.

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


TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled GUNTHER WELL AND PUMP SERVICE, LLC, a New
Jersey limited liability company, and MICHAEL GUNTHER,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-
situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. TRANSAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-08475-FLW-DEA (D.N.J.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court certify a class, appoint Plaintiffs
as the class representatives, and appoint Plaintiffs' attorneys as
class counsel.

The Plaintiffs propose the following class definitions:

   "all persons to whom a fax advertisement was sent on or about
   March 22, 2013 stating: LOOKING TO LOWER YOUR LIFE INSURANCE
   PREMIUMS? FAX THIS FORM TO 908-526-0440 If you are in good
   health and require life insurance coverage of $100000.00 or
   more, you may qualify for a Trendsetter Super 10 term life
   insurance policy issued by Transamerica Life Insurance
   Company, with initial premiums guaranteed level for 10 years. .
.
   If you would like a quick telephone quote, please complete the
   form below and return by fax. . ."; and

   "all New Jersey residents to whom a fax advertisement was sent
   on or about March 22, 2013 stating: LOOKING TO LOWER YOUR LIFE
   INSURANCE PREMIUMS? FAX THIS FORM TO 908-526-0440 If you are
   in good health and require life insurance coverage of
   $100000.00 or more, you may qualify for a Trendsetter Super 10
   term life insurance policy issued by Transamerica Life
   Insurance Company, with initial premiums guaranteed level for
   10 years. . . If you would like a quick telephone quote,
   please complete the form below and return by fax. . ."

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew N. Fiorovanti, Esq.
          Michael J. Canning, Esq.
          GIORDANO, HALLERAN & CIESLA
          125 Half Mile Road, Suite 300
          Red Bank, NJ 07701-6777
          Telephone: 732 741 3900
          Facsimile: 732 224 6599
          E-mail: mcanning@ghclaw.com
                  mfiorovanti@ghclaw.com

               - and -

          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368 1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368 1501
          E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com


TRANSCO LINES: Bid to Certify Class Terminated without Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Jerome Ratliff Jr., the Plaintiff, v.
Transco Lines, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07211 (N.D.
Ill.), the Hon. Judge Edmond E. Chang terminated Plaintiff's
motion to certify class without prejudice.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on October 23,
2017, Plaintiff's motion to certify class is terminated without
prejudice.  The Court says discovery is required before briefing
the motion, so the motion to certify is premature.  The Court says
the defense motion to stay is denied as unnecessary.

A copy of the Notice of Docket entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=LodF3HN2

The Defendant had asked the Court to grant their unopposed motion
to stay class certification deadline until a time after Defendants
have filed their responsive pleading and the parties have appeared
for their initial status conference in Court.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=2DGRiSFh

          Michael Aschenbrener, Esq.
          Adam C. York, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW, LLC
          220 North Green Street
          E-mail: masch@kamberlaw.com
                  ayork@kamberlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Andrew J. Butcher, Esq.
          SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT,
          HANSON, & FEARY, P.C.
          30 West Monroe Street, Suite 600
          Chicago, Illinois 60603
          Telephone: (312) 255 7172
          E-mail: abutcher@scopelitis.com


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled KIM MORGAN and ADEL AL, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01420-
DEJ (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
certifying classes in the case, appointing the Plaintiffs as class
representatives, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class
Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
deem appropriate.

The Plaintiffs further request that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties
relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and
requirement that Plaintiffs file a brief and supporting documents
in support of this motion.

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482 8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482 8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com


TAISHAN GYPSUM: "Peoples" Product Suit Transferred to E.D. La.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Debra Peoples, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Taishan Gypsum Co.
Ltd., formerly known as Shandong Taihe Dongxin Co., Ltd., Tai'an
Taishan Plasterboard Co., Ltd., Beijing New Building Materials
Public Limited Co., Beijing New Building Materials (Group) Co.,
Ltd., China National Building Material Co., Ltd., Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-00217 (N.D. Ga., August 1, 2017), was transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (New
Orleans) on October 4, 2017 under Case No. 17-cv-08285.

Plaintiffs allege that the Chinese manufactured drywall designed,
manufactured, imported, exported, distributed, delivered,
supplied, inspected, marketed, sold and/or installed by the
Defendants contains toxic sulfide compounds deeming it unfit for
residential purposes.

Taishan Gypsum Company, Ltd. is a foreign corporation doing
business in several States. It manufactured, sold, distributed and
marketed the gypsum drywall. Plaintiffs allege that it reacts,
breaks down, and releases sulfur compounds and other noxious gases
including hydrogen sulfide, carbonyl sulfide and carbon disulfide.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrea S. Hirsch, Esq.
      HERMAN GEREL, LLP
      230 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2260
      Atlanta, GA 30303
      Tel: (404) 880-9500
      Email: ahirsch@hermangerel.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Drivers Sue over Black Car Fund Fee
------------------------------------------------------
According to the complaint, GUSTAVO CAMILO, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. UBER
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., UBER LOGISTIK, LLC, UBER USA LLC, ACHT-NY,
LLC, ACHTZEHN-NY, LLC, DANACH-NY, LLC, DREIST-NY, LLC, DREIZEHN-
NY, LLC, DRINNEN-NY, LLC, EINS-NY, LLC, ELF-NY, LLC,
EINUNDZWANZIG- NY, LLC, FUNF-NY, LLC, FUNFZEHN-NY LLC, GRUN, LLC,
HINTER, LLC, NEUN-NY, LLC, NEUNZEHN-NY, LLC, SCHMECKEN, LLC,
SECHS-NY, LLC, SIEBEN-NY, LLC, SIEBZEHN-NY, LLC, UNTER, LLC, VIER-
NY, LLC, VIERZEHN-NY, LLC, WEITER, LLC, ZEHN-NY, ZWANZIG-NY LLC,
ZWEI-NY, LLC, ZWOLF-NY, LLC, jointly and severally, the
Defendants, Case No. 159368/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Oct. 20, 2017),
as a Black Car Fund registered based providers, Defendants are
required to collect a fee from every passenger (only from the
passenger) in the amount of 2.5% of fare. Defendants are not
allowed to collect the 2.5% fee from their drivers but solely from
their passengers.  This fee would in turn allow their drivers to
be afforded workers compensation in the event of an injury
resulting as a work related accident.

However, the Defendants charged a 2.5% Black Car Fund Fee from
passengers instantly upon payment of their fare through their
credit cards, and then also charged each driver the same 2.5% fee.
As a result, Defendants double charged every driver.  Defendants
further added all fees and taxes together and took up to 28% of
gross earnings before Defendants take further deductions for sale
tax and Black Car Fund Fees.  The Black Car Fee would in essence
take more from the driver since the fee was not excluded from the
Defendants' calculation of earn wages for Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as Taxi Drivers, and
bring suit both on their own behalf, and on behalf of a class that
consists of all Taxi Drivers employed and contracted by Defendants
at any time between January 2014, and the date when judgment is
entered in this action.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Luigi Izzo, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH A. ROMANO, P.C.
          Ml 6 Eastchester Road, No. 210
          Bronx, NY 10461
          Telephone: (914) 339 2605
          Facsimile: (845) 213 4291


ULTIMATE SERVICES: Teshabaeva Seeks Minimum Wages under Labor Law
-----------------------------------------------------------------
IKE SERVIL and MAKTUMMA TESHABAEVA, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated who were employed by ULTIMATE
SERVICES FOR YOU, INC., the Plaintiffs, v. ULTIMATE SERVICES FOR
YOU, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 159458/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
Oct. 24, 2017), seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime
compensation, "spread of hours" compensation, and damages arising
from Defendant's breach of contract, which they were deprived of,
plus interest, attorneys' fees, and costs under the New York Labor
Law.

This action is brought on behalf of the Named Plaintiffs and a
putative class of individuals who are citizens of the State of New
York and are presently or were formerly employed by the Defendant
to provide personal care, assistance, health-related tasks and
other home care services to Defendant's clients within the State
of New York. Beginning in October 2011, continuing through the
present, the Defendant has maintained a policy and practice of
requiring Plaintiffs to regularly work in excess of ten hours per
day, without providing the proper hourly compensation for all
hours worked, overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess
of 40 hours in any given week, and "spread of hours"
compensation.[BN]

Ultimate Services is in the home health care services business.

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class:

          Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
          LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq.
          Milana Dostanitch, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943 9080
          Facsimile: (212) 943 9082
          E-mail: llusher@vandallp.com

               - and -

          Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq.
          NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1517 Voohies Ave, 2nd Fl
          Brooklyn, NY 11235
          Telephone: (212) 808 2224
          Facsimile: (866) 261 5478
          E-mail: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com


US HEALTHWORKS: Rodriguez Sues over Consumer Credit Reporting
-------------------------------------------------------------
CATRINA R. RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of herself all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. U.S. HEALTHWORKS, INC. PROF GROUP, a
Delaware corporation; U.S. HEALTHWORKS MEDICAL GROUP HOLDING
COMPANY, business form entity unknown; and POES 1 through l00, the
Defendants, Case No. RG17879760 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 24, 2017),
seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages due to
Defendants' alleged systematic and willful violations of the
California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act and the
California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants routinely acquire consumer,
investigative consumer and/or consumer credit reports to conduct
background checks on Plaintiff and other prospective, current and
former employees and use information credit and background reports
in connection with their hiring process without providing proper
disclosures and obtaining proper authorization in compliance with
the law.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VENGROFF WILLIAMS: "Healy" Suit Moved to E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Raymond Healy, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Vengroff Williams, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 610253/2017, was
removed on Oct. 25, 2017 from the Supreme Court of the State of
New York, Suffolk County, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York (Central Islip). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-06229 to the proceeding.

Vengroff, Williams & Associates, Inc. provides receivables
management and business process outsourcing services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq.
          775 Park Avenue, Ste. 255
          Huntington, NY 11743
          Telephone: (631) 335 1107
          E-mail: mpash@verizon.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          Richard J. Perr, Esq.
          FINEMAN KREKSTEIN & HARRIS, P.C.
          Ten Penn Center, Suite 1100
          1801 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 893 9300
          Facsimile: (215) 893 8719
          E-mail: rperr@finemanlawfirm.com


VOLKSWAGEN AG: "Summer" Suit Moved to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Steven Summer, Michael Vigorito,
and Victor Vilaplana, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Volkswagen A.G., Volkswagen
Group of America Inc., Bentley Motors Limited, Audi AG
Audi of America Inc., Audi of America LLC, Dr. Ing h.c.F Porsche
AG, Porsche Cars of North America, Inc., Daimler AG, Mercedes-Benz
U.S.A., LLC, Mercedes-Benz Vans, LLC, Mercedes-Benz U.S.
International, Inc., BMW AG, and BMW North America, LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-05740, was transferred on Oct. 23,
2017 from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey,
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
(San Francisco). The California Northern District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-06040-CRB to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Charles R. Breyer.

Volkswagen AG, known internationally as Volkswagen Group, is a
German multinational automotive manufacturing company
headquartered in Wolfsburg, Lower Saxony, Germany.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          550 Broad Street, Suite 920
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 639 9100
          Facsimile: (973) 639 9393
          E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com

Attorneys for Porsche Cars of North America, Inc.:

          Israel Dahan, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          1185 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 556 2114
          Facsimile: (212) 556 2222
          E-mail: idahan@kslaw.com

Attorneys for BMW North America, LLC:

          Christopher J. Dalton, Esq.
          BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY, PC
          550 Broad Street, Suite 810
          Newark, NJ 07102-4599
          Telephone: (973) 273 9800
          Facsimile: (973) 273 9430
          E-mail: christopher.dalton@bipc.com


VOX MEDIA: Bradley, et al. Seek to Certify FLSA Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled CHERYL C. BRADLEY, et al., for themselves
and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs,
v. VOX MEDIA, INC., d/b/a SB NATION, the Defendant, Case No 1:17-
cv-01791-RMC (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs Cheryl C. Bradley, John M.
Wakefield and Maija Lisa Varda on behalf of themselves and other
similarly-situated past and current Site Managers and Managing
Editors employed by Vox Media, Inc., ask the Court to enter an
order:

   1. conditionally certifying a class of:

      "all persons who are working or have performed work for Vox
      in the United States as a Site Manager or Managing Editor
      within Vox's SB Nation business division at any time since
      October 23, 2014 (collectively "Site Managers" or the "FLSA
      Class");

   2. directing Defendant to produce to Plaintiffs' counsel the
      names, last known addresses, telephone numbers, and email
      addresses of all potential members of the FLSA Class within
      10 days of the date of Order;

   3. permitting Plaintiffs to issue notice to all potential
      members of the FLSA Class by first-class mail and
      electronic mail, informing them of their right to opt in to
      this case;

   4. scheduling an opt-in period of 90 days, beginning from the
      date of Plaintiffs' first issuance of notice;

   5. allowing Plaintiffs to send reminder notices by first-class
      mail and electronic mail to all potential members of the
      FLSA Class who have not yet responded to notice within 45
      days of the first issuance of notice; and

   6. approving Plaintiffs' proposed form of notice, and
      Plaintiffs' proposed Opt-In Consent Form, to be included in
      the issuance of notice.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Tg4hiB99

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the FLSA Class:

          James E. Goodley, Esq.
          Judith Sznyter, Esq.
          Stephen J. Holroyd, Esq.
          Marc. L. Gelman, Esq.
          JENNINGS SIGMOND, P.C.
          1835 Market Street, Suite 2800
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 351 0613
          E-mail: jgoodley@jslex.com
                  jsznyter@jslex.com
                  sholroyd@jslex.com
                  mgelman@jslex.com


WALMART STORES: Court Denies Stephens' Class Certification Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled GERARD STEPHENS, the Plaintiff, v. WALMART
STORES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 0:16-cv-62723-KMM (S.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Judge Kevin Michael Moore entered an order:

   1. granting Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject
      matter jurisdiction; and

   2. denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification; and

   3. dismissing Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice.

The Court said, "For a district court to certify a class action,
the named plaintiffs must have standing. Vega v. T-Mobile USA,
INC., 564 F.3d 1256, 1265 (11th Cir. 2009). Because Stephens is
the only named plaintiff, the Court's conclusion that Stephens
lacks standing is fatal to his Motion for Class Certification."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ArWqPJz5


WASHINGTON AND JANE: Faces "Dixon" Suit Arising From Termination
----------------------------------------------------------------
CYNTHIA DIXON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE WASHINGTON AND JANE SMITH COMMUNITY - BEVERLY, an
Illinois Not-For-Profit Corporation d/b/a SMITH SENIOR LIVING,
SMITH CROSSING, and SMITH VILLAGE, KEVIN McGEE, MARTI JATIS, and
KRONOS, INC., Case No. 2017-CH-13051 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.,
September 28, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for
allegedly terminating the Plaintiff in direct response to her
challenge to Smith's classification of her as "exempt" under state
and federal wage law.

The Washington and Jane Smith Home operates three life plan
communities doing business as, Smith Senior Living, Smith
Crossing, and Smith Village, in Cook County, Illinois.  Smith is a
not-for-profit corporation registered to do business in Illinois
and operates life plan communities for persons over the age of 62
in Cook County.  Kevin McGee was the Chief Executive Officer of
Smith.  Marti Jatis was the Executive Director of Smith Village.

Kronos, Inc., is a Massachusetts corporation registered to do
business in Illinois.  Kronos provides biometric timekeeping
devices to Smith and its life plan communities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 233-1550
          Facsimile: (312) 233-1560
          E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                  aficzko@stephanzouras.com


WEBCOLLEX LLC: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MANDY CERVENY, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. WEBCOLLEX LLC
d/b/a CKS FINANCIAL and VELOCITY INVESTMENTS LLC, the Defendants,
Case No. 2:17-cv-01486 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order certifying classes in this case, appointing the
Plaintiff as class representative, and appointing Ademi &
O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such other and further
relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties
relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and
requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents
in support of this motion.

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=16rpurPx

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          Ademi & O'Reilly LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482 8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482 8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com


WELLS FARGO: "Torres" Suit Seeks Payment Wages under Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------------
JAIME TORRES, ATA ROUHI and ELIZABETH ROMERO, individual(s) and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. WELLS
FARGO BANK, GEORGE SARKIS, RAUL VASQUEZ and DOES 1 through 50
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC680959 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Oct. 25, 2017), seeks to recover payment wages under the
California Labor Code.

The Plaintiffs were employed in California as a Branch Manager and
have worked for Defendants within four years prior to the filing
of this complaint. The Plaintiffs brings this action against
Defendants for engaging in a uniform policy and systematic scheme
of wage abuse against their salary paid employees in California.
This scheme involved, inter alia, misclassifying the Branch
Managers as "exempt" managerial/executive employees for purposes
of the payment of overtime compensation when, in fact, they were
"nonexempt"
non-managerial employees according to California law. Further,
Defendants denied the Branch Managers mandated meal and rest
breaks under California law. As a result of Defendant's systematic
and clandestine scheme the salaried branch managers throughout
California were not paid all wages owed and were deprived of
mandated meal periods and rest breaks.

Wells Fargo is an American international banking and financial
services holding company headquartered in San Francisco,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew Righetti, Esq.
          John Glugoski, Esq.
          RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, P.C.
          456 Montgomery Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 983 0900
          Facsimile: (415) 397 9005


WELLS FARGO: Wallace Balks at Overdraft Fees
--------------------------------------------
LARRY WALLACE on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO & CO. and WELLS FARGO
BANK, N.A., the Defendants, Case No. 17CV317775 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Oct. 19, 2017), seeks to recover injunctive relief and damages and
other relief arising from Wells Fargo's practices that are in
violation of its contract with accountholders.

According to the complaint, Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
promises its customers who do not opt into Wells Fargo's Overdraft
Service that it will not authorize or charge overdraft fees on
non-recurring, every day debit card transactions. But Wells Fargo
does both, causing consumers to incur overdraft fees they
otherwise would not have. Specifically, Wells Fargo authorizes and
charges overdraft fees on Uber and Lyft and other one-time
transactions that it knows or should know are not recurring. Wells
Fargo charged Plaintiff Larry Wallace more overdraft fees than it
should have because it knowingly authorized a one-time Uber
transaction that should have been declined due to insufficient
funds. Plaintiff seeks an injunction on behalf of the general
public to prevent Wells Fargo from continuing to engage in its
illegal and deceptive practices. Additionally, Plaintiff Wallace
seeks to recoup the excess overdraft fees he paid and to represent
all individuals in the State of California who were charged
similar overdraft fees on or as a result of one-time debit card
transactions that were authorized in violation of their Deposit
Agreements.

Wells Fargo is an American international banking and financial
services holding company headquartered in San Francisco,
California, with "hubquarters" throughout the country.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street, N.W., Suite 1000
          Washington, D.C. 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973 0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973 0950
          E-mail: jkaliel@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Jeff M. Ostrow, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
          One West Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525-4100
          Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
          E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
                  streisfeld@kolawyers.com


WESTERN EXPRESS: Class Certification Hearing Continued to Nov. 27
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Jerome Ratliff Jr., the Plaintiff, v.
Western Express, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07215 (N.D.
Ill.), the Hon. Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman entered an order
continuing Plaintiff's motion to certify class.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on October 24,
2017, Plaintiff's motion to certify class is entered and
continued.  Status hearing is set for Nov. 27 at 9:00 a.m.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6MN8nmxK


WILLIAMS-SONOMA INC: Avetisyan Sues over Phony Discounts
--------------------------------------------------------
ARMINE AVETISYAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. WILLIAMS-SONOMA, INC., a corporation;
and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC680714
(Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 24, 2017), seeks to recover punitive
damages against Defendant for violations of the California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff purchased the Rory
Nightstand based on the fact that the advertisement of "Original
Price $349" led her to believe she was obtaining substantial s on
a costly piece of furniture. All sales made at Pottery Bam Outlets
are final, which is also printed on customers' receipts.
Defendant's advertisement of "Original Price $349" was false and
misleading. In reality, the original price for the Rory Nightstand
was $299. The $299 original price for the exact same Rory
Nightstand is found in the June 2017 Pottery Bam Catalog at page
93. The $299 original price for the Rory Nightstand is also found
on Defendant's website. Accordingly, the "Original Price"
advertised by Defendant at its Pottery Barn Outlet was falsely
inflated by $50. After learning that she was deceived by the
inflated "Original Price," Plaintiff returned to Defendant's
Pottery Bam Outlet in West Covina and took pictures of other
advertisements to determine if this was just an isolated error.
Plaintiff learned that Defendant's false and misleading
advertisement is not an isolated incident and applies to virtually
all "Original Price" advertisements at Defendant's Pottery Bam
Outlet Stores.

Defendant owns and operates three Pottery Bam Outlet stores in the
state of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          George S. Azadian, Esq.
          Ani Azadian, Esq.
          Edrik Mehrabi, Esq.
          AZADIAN LAW GROUP, PC
          790 E. Colorado Blvd., 9th Floor
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 449 4944
          Facsimile: (626) 628 1722
          E-mail: George@azadianlawgroup.com


WORLD CLASS: "Maldonado" Suit Seeks Wages & OT under Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------------
RUBEN MALDONADO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. WORLD CLASS DISTRIBUTION
INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
the Defendants, Case No. BC680208 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 19,
2017), seeks to recover unpaid compensation arising from
Defendants' failure to provide employees meal and rest periods as
required, unpaid minimum and overtime wages, and unreimbursed
business expenses under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, Defendants allegedly failed to pay
overtime premiums, failed to provide rest and meal periods, failed
to properly maintain records, failed to provide accurate itemized
statements for each pay period, and failed to properly compensate
Plaintiff and class members for necessary.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          Launa Adolph, Esq.
          Deanna S. Leifer, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531 1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531 1901


YRC INC: Alvarez & Shroeder Seek Certification of 9 Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the two lawsuits against YRC Worldwide, Inc., the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to certify the following classes:

2nd Meal Class:

   "all current and former hourly employees employed by Defendant
   at any time between December 14, 2007, through the date of a
   signed order certifying the class that worked any shift of
   over 10 work hours";

Auto-Deduct Class:

   all current and former hourly employees employed by Defendant
   at any time between December 14, 2007, through the date of a
   signed order certifying the class excluding employees during
   the time they were subject to a bell system that worked any
   shift more than 5 hours and whose time records show no meal
   period was taken or less than a thirty-minute meal period was
   taken";

Untimely Meal Class:

   "all current and former hourly employees employed by Defendant
   as non-drivers at any time between December 14, 2007, through
   the date of a signed order certifying the class that worked
   any shift more than 5 hours and whose time records show the
   1st meal period was taken after end of the fifth hour worked";

Driver Meal Class:

   "all current and former hourly drivers employed by Defendant
   at any time between December 14, 2007, through the date of a
   signed order certifying the class that worked any shift more
   than 5 hours";

Driver Rest Class:

   "all current and former hourly drivers employed by Defendant
   at any time between December 14, 2007, through the date of a
   signed order certifying the class that worked any shift more
   than 3.5 hours";

On-Call Driver Class:

   "all current and former hourly drivers employed by Defendant
   at any time between December 14, 2007, through the date of a
   signed order certifying the class that worked any shift more
   than 5 hours";

3rd Rest Class:

   "all current and former hourly employees employed by Defendant
   at any time between December 14, 2007, through the date of a
   signed order certifying the class that worked any shift more
   than 10 hours";

Wage Statement Class:

   "all current and former hourly employees employed by Defendant
   at any time between December 14, 2010, and the date the court
   signs an order certifying a class"; and

Final Wage Class:

   "all former hourly employees employed by Defendant at any time
   between December 14, 2008 through the date of a signed order
   certifying the class who 1) worked more than 10 hours in a
   workday, 2) worked as non-driver and worked any shift more
   than 5 hours and whose time records show no 1st meal period
   was taken before end of fifth hour worked, 3) worked as a
   driver and worked any shift more than 5 hours, or 4) worked as
   a driver and worked any shift more than 3.5 hours.

In addition, Plaintiffs ask the Court to appoint them as Class
Representatives. The Plaintiffs also ask that the Court appoint
their counsel, Joseph Lavi and Jordan D. Bello of Lavi &
Ebrahimian, LLP and William Turley, David Mara, and Jill Vecchi of
The Turley & Mara Law Firm, APLC as Class Counsel.

The two lawsuits are captioned as:

   "FELIPE ALVAREZ on behalf of himself and others similarly
   situated, PLAINTIFF, v. YRC, INC.; YRC WORLDWIDE, INC.; YELLOW
   ROADWAY CORPORATION; and DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive, the
   DEFENDANTS, Case No. 12-cv-01374-TJH-E (N.D. Cal.)"

   - and -

   "JERALD SHROEDER on behalf of himself and others similarly
   situated, the Plaintiff, v. YRC INC.; YRC WORLDWIDE, INC.;
   and DOES 1-100, the Defendants. Case No. 16-cv-6173-TJH-E
   (N.D. Cal)"

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

Attorneys for PLAINTIFFS FELIPE ALVAREZ, JERALD
SCHROEDER, and others similarly situated:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Jordan D. Bello, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone (310) 432-0000
          Facsimile (310) 432-0001
          E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
          Jbello@lelawfirm.com

               - and -

          William Turley, Esq.
          David Mara, Esq.
          Jill Vecchi, Esq.
          THE TURLEY LAW FIRM, APLC
          7428 Trade Street
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (619) 234 2833
          Facsimile: (619) 234 4048
          E-mail: bturley@turleylawfirm.com
                  dmara@turleylawfirm.com
                  jvecchi@turleylawfirm.com


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Group Had $200,000 Loss at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------
Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd., has $0.2 million losses
and loss adjustment expenses for asbestos exposure, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

The Company states, "Losses and loss adjustment expenses for the
three months ended June 30, 2017 was the result of net unfavorable
loss reserve development on prior accident years of $1.3 million
for the run-off risk management lines, $0.2 million for our
asbestos exposure and $0.2 million for the run-off property
catastrophe lines. Loss expense for the Run-off Lines segment for
the three months ended June 30, 2016 included unfavorable
development of $3.4 million for our asbestos exposure due to the
final settlement agreement with a primary insured, $1.0 million
development in our risk management lines and $0.4 million in our
other run-off lines.

"Losses and loss adjustment expenses for the six months ended June
30, 2017 and 2016 included net unfavorable prior accident year
loss reserve development in our run-off workers compensation and
asbestos liability lines partially offset by net favorable reserve
development in our run-off reinsurance lines."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/T6hgC2

Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd. is an underwriter of
specialty insurance and reinsurance products in the property and
casualty market.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners Unit Has 55 Claims at June 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
A unit of Steel Partners Holdings L.P. has 55 pending asbestos
claims as of June 30, 2017, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

The Company states, "BNS Sub has been named as a defendant in
approximately 1,371 alleged asbestos-related toxic-tort claims as
of June 30, 2017. The claims were filed over a period beginning in
1994 through June 30, 2017. In many cases these claims involved
more than 100 defendants. Of the claims filed, approximately 1,316
were dismissed, settled or granted summary judgment and closed as
of June 30, 2017. Of the claims settled, the average settlement
was less than $3. There remained 55 pending asbestos claims as of
June 30, 2017. There can be no assurance that the number of future
claims and the related costs of defense, settlements or judgments
will be consistent with the experience to date of existing claims.

"BNS Sub has insurance policies covering asbestos-related claims
for years beginning 1974 through 1988 with estimated aggregate
coverage limits of $183,000, with $1,543 at both June 30, 2017 and
December 31, 2016 in estimated remaining self-insurance retention
(deductible). There is secondary evidence of coverage from 1970 to
1973, although there is no assurance that the insurers will
recognize that the coverage was in place. Policies issued for BNS
Sub beginning in 1989 contained exclusions related to asbestos.
Under certain circumstances, some of the settled claims may be
reopened. Also, there may be a significant delay in receipt of
notification by BNS Sub of the entry of a dismissal or settlement
of a claim or the filing of a new claim. BNS Sub believes it has
significant defenses to any liability for toxic-tort claims on the
merits. None of these toxic-tort claims has gone to trial and,
therefore, there can be no assurance that these defenses will
prevail.

"BNS Sub annually receives retroactive billings or credits from
its insurance carriers for any increase or decrease in claims
accruals as claims are filed, settled or dismissed, or as
estimates of the ultimate settlement and defense costs for the
then-existing claims are revised. As of both June 30, 2017 and
December 31, 2016, BNS Sub has accrued $1,349 relating to the open
and active claims against BNS Sub. This accrual represents the
Company's best estimate of the likely costs to defend against or
settle these claims by BNS Sub beyond the amounts accrued by the
insurance carriers and previously funded, through the retroactive
billings by BNS Sub.

"There can be no assurance that the number of future claims and
the related costs of defense, settlements or judgments will be
consistent with the experience to date of existing claims and that
BNS Sub will not need to increase significantly its estimated
liability for the costs to settle these claims to an amount that
could have a material effect on the consolidated financial
statements."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/T2R1Fb

Steel Partners Holdings L.P. (SPH) is a global diversified holding
Company.  The Company is engaged in multiple businesses, including
diversified industrial products, energy, defense, supply chain
management and logistics, banking, food products and services,
oilfield services, sports, training, education and the
entertainment, and lifestyle industries.  The Company operates
business through four segments, which include diversified
industrial, energy, financial services, and corporate and other.
SPLP's energy segment consists of its consolidated subsidiaries
Steel Excel, which provides drilling and production services to
the oil and gas industry.  The Company's financial services
segment consists of its consolidated and wholly-owned subsidiary,
WebFinancial Holding Corporation.  The diversified industrial
segment consists of Handy & Harman Ltd.  The corporate and other
segment consists of several consolidated subsidiaries, as well as
various investments, and cash and cash equivalents.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt plc Has 11,600 Cases at June 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt public limited company faces approximately 11,600
asbestos-related cases as of June 30, 2017, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

The Company states, "Beginning with lawsuits brought in July 1976,
the Company is named as a defendant in personal injury lawsuits
based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials.  A
majority of the cases involve product liability claims based
principally on allegations of past distribution of products
containing asbestos. A limited number of the cases allege premises
liability based on claims that individuals were exposed to
asbestos while on the Company's property. Each case typically
names dozens of corporate defendants in addition to the Company.
The complaints generally seek monetary damages for personal injury
or bodily injury resulting from alleged exposure to products
containing asbestos. The Company's involvement in asbestos cases
has been limited because it did not mine or produce asbestos.
Furthermore, in the Company's experience, a large percentage of
these claims have never been substantiated and have been dismissed
by the courts. The Company has not suffered an adverse verdict in
a trial court proceeding related to asbestos claims and intends to
continue to vigorously defend itself in these matters. When
appropriate, the Company settles claims; however, amounts paid to
settle and defend all asbestos claims have been immaterial. As of
June 30, 2017, there were approximately 11,600 asbestos-related
cases pending against the Company.

"The Company estimates pending asbestos claims and claims that
were incurred but not reported and related insurance recoveries,
which are recorded on a gross basis in the unaudited condensed
consolidated balance sheets. The Company's estimate of its
liability for pending and future claims is based on claims
experience over the past five years and covers claims either
currently filed or expected to be filed over the next seven years.
The Company believes that it has adequate amounts recorded related
to these matters. While it is not possible at this time to
determine with certainty the ultimate outcome of these asbestos-
related proceedings, the Company believes, given the information
currently available, that the ultimate resolutions of all known
and anticipated future claims, after taking into account amounts
already accrued, along with recoveries from insurance, will not
have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results
of operations and cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/UqoXA3

Mallinckrodt public limited company develops, manufactures,
markets, and distributes branded and generic specialty
pharmaceutical products and therapies in the United States,
Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and internationally.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: James Hardie Victim Gets Payout Cut
----------------------------------------------------
Sarah Hancock, writing for ABC News, reported that a record
compensation payout of more than $1 million for a man who
developed the incurable asbestos cancer, mesothelioma, has been
reduced by $195,826 by the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The legal battle involved 70-year-old Anthony Latz, a retired
surveyor from Stonyfell who was exposed to asbestos fibres in the
1970s when he used products from former asbestos manufacturer
James Hardie.

In May this year, the terminally ill South Australian was awarded
a record compensation payout of $1.06 million after the Adelaide
District Court made an Australian-first ruling and forced the
company to pay exemplary damages.

But the judgement was appealed by James Hardie and Mr. Latz cross-
appealed that judgement.

The Supreme Court amended the original judgment.

Mr Latz's solicitor Anna Hoffman said while the Supreme Court
upheld most areas of Mr. Latz claim, it challenged the District
Court's decision to award Mr Latz's family compensation for lost
pension entitlements that would have been received if his life
expectancy had not been drastically cut short.

"This component of the judgment, which reduced the overall
compensation to Mr Latz and his family to $864,174, is deeply
concerning and we are examining the legal avenues available to Mr
Latz," she said.

Mr Latz's lawyer was, however, celebrating the increase to the
exemplary damages component, which is a record in itself.

The initial exemplary damages were set at $30,000 but the court
ordered the amount to be increased to $250,000, making it the
largest ever exemplary damages payout in South Australian history.

Mr. Latz had been building a fence beside his newly built home in
Glenalta and used James Hardie asbestos cement sheet for the
construction.

Ms. Hoffman said he was diagnosed with the incurable lung cancer
mesothelioma last October as a result of the exposure.

She believed the decision to substantially increase the award of
exemplary damages would likely have a significant impact on cases
of other asbestos victims in the state.

Future asbestos victims to benefit from decision

Asbestos Victims Association SA president Kat Burge welcomed the
precedent-setting ruling and said the decision was likely to
benefit future victims.

"This case isn't just about Mr. Latz and James Hardie," she said.

"It is significant for every business in South Australia that
still has asbestos in their workplaces and to every community
member who may be exposed to asbestos in future.
She said the full court of the SA Supreme Court had drawn a line
in the sand.

"They have said that the courts will simply not accept safety
coming second to profits, and they have warned every business in
the state to do the right thing or face substantial penalties," Ms
Burge said.

"Thousands of Australians have died because companies like James
Hardie chose to continue manufacturing and selling a product that
they knew was killing people.

"Mr Latz and his family are just the latest to suffer the
consequence of this corporate greed."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leeds Widower Seeks Info on Wife's Cancer
----------------------------------------------------------
Georgina Morris, writing for Yorkshire Evening Post, reported that
Rosalie Plunkett would clean labourer John's 'dusty and dirty'
work clothes, which sometimes went unwashed for weeks if he was
working away.

It was only years later when John was diagnosed with pleural
thickening -- a debilitating lung disease caused by asbestos
exposure -- that the couple realised the danger they had
unwittingly put themselves in.

Rosalie was diagnosed with the asbestos-related cancer
mesothelioma in March 2016 and died within six months.

John, who lives in Seacroft, said his life had been 'in turmoil'
since he lost his childhood sweetheart and wife of almost 60
years.

"Rosalie was the heart of the family and it feels like that heart
has been ripped out," the 77-year-old said.

John Plunkett, now 77, hopes to find some answers about how his
wife came to develop asbestos-related cancer.

"It's devastating to think the dust I was bringing into the house
was the stuff that killed her -- but at the time we had no idea."

The couple had been trying to come to terms with the recent death
of their eldest son, Stephen, when Rosalie fell ill.

"It was horrendous, particularly those last few weeks. She was in
terrible pain," John said. "We have 11 grandchildren and six
great-grandchildren and she was absolutely engrossed in them, but
by the end she didn't have the energy to do anything with them at
all.

"We'd only just lost Stephen and to lose Rosalie as well, my life
has been in turmoil ever since."

Rosalie, who was 76 when she died, could not remember coming into
contact with asbestos in her jobs as an office and shop worker.

However, John believes that he was exposed to asbestos during his
time as a labourer.

Now law firm Slater and Gordon is appealing for anyone who
remembers working with John to come forward.

He relined old boilers and repaired furnaces while working for W T
Pearsons in Leeds between 1956 and 1960/61.

Stints followed between 1970 and 1971 at British Ceramic Service
Company Limited in Ireland and Refractory Services, known as
Blacks Refractories. While at Blacks, he lagged pipes and boilers
at Blackburn Meadows, Thorpe Marsh and Drax power stations.

Emma Newman, an industrial disease specialist at Slater and
Gordon, said: "Sadly, John is not alone in his experience.
Employers were aware of the dangers of asbestos, but many did
little or nothing to protect workers.

"We know this was a long time ago and that's why it's so important
we speak to John's former colleagues who could be vital in helping
us piece together when and where this exposure took place."

Email emma.newman@slatergordon.co.uk or call Emma Newman on 0161
383 3474 with any information.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Fines Taterocks Pty for Asbestos Dump
----------------------------------------------------------
Rochelle Kirkham, writing for The Courier, reported that the
Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) has fined a Daylesford
company for dumping piles of asbestos contaminated material in
town.

Construction company Taterocks Pty Ltd was fined almost $8000 for
dumping piles of rubble which contained a small amount of asbestos
at Leitches Creek Road in Daylesford.

EPA north west region manager Scott Pigdon said EPA officers
visited the site after receiving a report from a member of the
public that construction and demolition waste was being dumped
there.

"EPA officers observed several piles of waste, including a 10
metre square stack of concrete standing approximately six metres
high," Dr. Pigdon said.   "A nearby pile of mixed waste included
bricks, metal, timber, cement sheeting, foam, mattresses, tiles
and gyprock . . . The site was not licensed to accept construction
and demolition waste."

EPA investigators took samples of fibrous cement sheeting from the
site.

Chemical analysis revealed asbestos was present in the samples.
The asbestos has been removed and disposal of the remaining waste
is underway.

Taterocks Pty Ltd was issued with a legally enforceable notice
requiring it to remove all industrial waste from the site.

Under the Environment Protection Act 1970 and the Infringements
Act 2008, Taterocks Pty Ltd has the right to have the decision to
issue the infringement notice reviewed or alternatively to have
the matter heard and determined by a court.

Dr. Pigdon said members of the public played an important role in
protecting the environment by reporting pollution to the EPA to
respond to environmental harm.

"The fine is a reminder that everyone needs to be aware of their
environmental obligations and to ensure waste is correctly
classified and disposed of legally to a facility licensed to
receive it," Dr. Pigdon said.

Pollution can be reported to the 24-hour EPA pollution hotline on
1300 372 842 (1300 EPA VIC).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Released in Nieuwegein Fire
-----------------------------------------------------
Janene Pieters, writing for NL Times, reported that asbestos was
released during a large fire on industrial terrain Liesbosch in
Nieuwegein on October 29.  The following day, a number of roads
around the terrain, including the N408 in both directions, are
closed to the public, as the authorities investigate how far the
asbestos spread.

The fire started in a warehouse on Ravenswade, which used to be a
distribution center for supermarket chain Albert Heijn, according
to news wire ANP. Firefighters had the fire under control around
1:00 a.m. The cause of the fire is still being investigated.

Men and women in orange clothing are redirecting traffic around
the industrial terrain, AD reports. Nobody is allowed into the
terrain, including work traffic and trucks carrying cargo.

"Everything is quiet now", a business manager for Haco
Lichtreclame BV, located across the street from the affected
warehouse, said to AD. "Normally everything is already in
production by seven o'clock."

The specialized company found asbestos on the N408, according to
the newspaper. The asbestos investigation is expected to take
several hours.

The Laagravenseweg is closed in both directions between the
Hooggraven traffic circle and Houtenseweg. De Koppelijk is closed
to all traffic near Utrechtseweg. The Seychellenpad is closed and
the Koppelbrug and the Liesboschpad is closed at the A12. Bike
paths on Waijensedijk are also closed near Fortweg.

Traffic can reach Liesbosch via Winthontlaan in a limited way.
Traffic to and from Houten can use Limesbaan or De Staart.

Residents of Nieuwegein are asked to avoid Plettenburgerbaan and
Laagravenseweg. Residents of Houten are advised to avoid
Utrechtseweg and Laagravenseweg. Residents of both towns are
advised to keep their windows and doors closed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Phoenix Jury Finds Co. Liable for Asbestos
-----------------------------------------------------------
Heather van Blokland, writing for KJZZ.org, reported that a
federal jury in Phoenix found an industrial products company
liable for asbestos contamination. Through September of this year,
the company has resolved, by settlement or dismissal,
approximately 130,000 claims. The case has implications and
findings nationwide.

Crane Company, based in Connecticut, was found directly liable for
$1.8 million and awarded $5 million in punitive damages in an
Arizona case in 2016. Crane's appeals say that the work was done
for the U.S. Navy as part of government contracts, which required
government-specific parts that contained asbestos.

Matt Mauney is with the Mesothelioma Center. He says damage from
exposure can take years, " . . . typically decades . . . as many
as twenty to fifty years between someone's first exposure and the
onset of symptoms from asbestos related illnesses, namely
mesothelioma, which is a rare cancer related, overwhelmingly
related, to asbestos."

The Arizona appeal is now with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court.
According to its quarterly financial filing, Crane remains a
defendant in over 30,000 claims alleging exposure to asbestos.
Costs incurred by the company and its insurance carriers now total
approximately $530 million.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bega Valley Shire Pipeline Has Asbestos Cement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alasdair McDonald, writing for Bega District News, reported that
council has revealed almost 20 per cent of the shire's pipelines
contain asbestos cement.

Manager of water and sewerage services Jim Collins said the weight
of evidence indicates ingested asbestos is not hazardous to
people's health, but there is a potential danger from dust when
the pipes are disturbed.

"The Australian Drinking Water Guidelines 2011 indicate there are
insufficient data to set a guideline value for asbestos in
drinking water," he said.  "It is unlikely, however, that the
numbers of asbestos fibres present in most drinking water supplies
would be a health concern."

Of the 621 kilometres of water pipelines in the shire, installed
between the 1940s and the mid-1980s, 117 kilometres consists of
asbestos cement, or AC.

According to the federal government's Asbestos Safety and
Eradication Agency, while the "risk of contracting an
asbestos-related disease from ingesting asbestos is considered
low", the "bigger risk remains from the degrading pipes being
excavated from the ground and disposed of at another site".

The Water Services Association of Australia says there is "no
elevated" risk of asbestos-related diseases from drinking or using
water from asbestos cement pipes.

"Over the past four years WSAA and our members have also been
involved with research carried out in Canada and the US designed
to ensure that guideline levels around asbestos cement pipes are
appropriate," the association states.

The federal government's Australian Drinking Water Quality
Guidelines states there is no evidence of cancer from ingested
asbestos.

The guidelines do say it is "not clear whether asbestos fibres
ingested in drinking water can pass through the walls of the
gastrointestinal tract in sufficient numbers to cause adverse
effects", and animal studies "on the carcinogenic effects of
ingested asbestos have been inconclusive".

"The guideline should be reviewed as soon as more toxicological
data are available," it reads.

Mr. Collins said the pipes are being replaced with alternative
materials, and council takes the safety of its staff around
asbestos seriously.

"AC pipe is renewed and replaced with alternative materials such
as unplasticised polyvinyl chloride (uPVC) in accordance with our
Water Asset Management Plan 2015," he said.  "The Water
Directorate publication Cutting, Handling and Disposal of Asbestos
Cement Pipe Guidelines 2014 is followed for repairs, renewals and
disposals involving AC pipe."

According to council's water management plan, the majority of the
water supply network was "constructed by developers and from
government grants, often provided and accepted without
consideration of ongoing operations, maintenance and replacement
needs".

As many of the assets require replacing, "services from the assets
are decreasing and maintenance costs are increasing", and a
"funding shortfall" is preventing a needed upgrade of the system.

The ageing pipelines have been blamed for causing the discoloured
water seen in the water supply in recent years.

Bega Valley Shire Residents and Ratepayers Association secretary
John Richardson said "basic infrastructure such as that necessary
to provide quality drinking water cannot be ignored".

"As long as the provision of basic infrastructure is ignored by
council and the state government, residents, ratepayers and
visitors to the Bega Valley Shire will be entitled to believe that
they are regarded by government as second class citizens," he
said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suits vs. Pillsbury Site Owners Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Tim Landis, writing for The State Journal-Register, reported that
the nine-month, $1.8 million cleanup at the former Pillsbury Mills
plant in Springfield -- including tons of asbestos-contaminated
debris -- should be completed with removal of barrels containing
waste oil and other chemicals.

Federal and state court cases, meanwhile, are pending against the
site owners.

"We're getting rid of the final containers of used oil and various
containers of other materials stockpiled on the site," Kevin
Turner, site cleanup coordinator for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency said.

Turner said crews are scheduled to complete the removal. Since the
cleanup began in February, crews in hazardous-material suits have
removed 2,200 tons of asbestos-contaminated debris, 1,160 cubic
yards of bulk asbestos and approximately 3,700 mercury-
contaminated light bulbs. The asbestos, primarily from boiler and
pipe insulation, has been taken to landfills.

Other toxic chemicals have been taken to special processing
facilities. Crews had to work through more than two-dozen
buildings at the site, which has been vacant since the mill shut
down in 2001.

Turner said the site has returned to the jurisdiction of the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency and the Illinois Attorney
General's Office. The attorney's general's office filed a civil
suit in Sangamon County Circuit Court in August 2015 accusing site
owner P. Mills LLC of improper asbestos cleanup at the site. The
federal EPA stepped in after owners failed to comply with court
orders for a proper cleanup.

Circuit Judge John Madonia reinstated an injunction ordering P.
Mills partners to work with the state EPA on securing the site,
according to court records. A status hearing is scheduled for Jan.
22.

One of the partners in the P. Mills, Joseph Chernis IV, is
scheduled for sentencing Dec. 11 on federal charges of improper
asbestos cleanup and making false statements about the cleanup in
the state civil case.

Pillsbury Mills Neighborhood Association president John Keller
said he hopes security will be maintained now that federal EPA
crews are moving on. Trespassing and illegal salvage operations
were persistent complaints prior to the start of the cleanup.

"It's been pretty quiet, though you always have neighborhood kids
trying to get in there," said Keller.

Hazardous waste and court cases have made it difficult to draw
interest to the Pillsbury site, said Keller, though reuse of the
site is among major long-term goals for the city of Springfield.

"It's cleaned up, and we're grateful for that," said Keller.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Family Awarded $5MM in Mesothelioma Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Terri Oppenheimer, writing for Mesothelioma.net, reported that
Willard "Bill" Krumwiede was 81 years old when he died of
malignant mesothelioma. He had worked for decades as a window
glazier, cutting, installing and removing lass from commercial
buildings in and around his home in Illinois, as well as in
neighboring Indiana, in the years between the 1950s right up until
the 1990s. During that time, he had no idea that the supplies that
he was using to perform his job were making him sick, but that is
exactly what took place: both the tape that he used to secure the
windows and the caulking that he used to seal them contained
asbestos, a carcinogenic material that he ended up taking into his
body. The asbestos fibers caused cell mutations that developed
into the mesothelioma tumors that killed him: an Illinois jury
decided that his family was owed more than $5 million in
compensation.

The mesothelioma trial that was heard by a McClean County,
Illinois jury went on for two weeks, and during that time a jury
of Illinois residents heard that the man, who had lived in
Clinton, Illinois for most of his life, had been a union employee.
He had worked with tape manufactured by a company called Tremco
and caulking manufactured by a company called Mono as he installed
glass every day. The jury was presented with evidence showing that
Tremco was aware that its product contained asbestos and that it
had been aware of asbestos' dangers, yet had done nothing to warn
those who might use the product of the hazard it presented to
their health. In fact, the company "failed to even identify
asbestos as an ingredient in its products."

Asbestos has been widely known to be the source of malignant
mesothelioma ever since the mid-1970s when the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency made the information public, and many companies
that used asbestos in their products were aware of its
carcinogenic nature long before that time but chose to keep the
information quiet in order to continue using it.  The jury's
decision to provide Mr. Krumwiede's widow and children with
damages of $5,063,324 was a recognition of the wrong that had been
done to him by the company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Georgia-Pacific Says Mill Fire Has No Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tyler Smith, writing for KNOE 8 News, reported that Georgia-
Pacific says the fire that destroyed their plywood plant in
Crossett did not contain asbestos.

Authorities warned people to stay inside during the fire because
of the possible toxic smoke. They say the building had a history
of asbestos.

Georgia-Pacific says all material including paint, aerosol cans,
asbestos, etc. were removed from the building prior to demolition.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oxford Library Asbestos May Have Killed Prof.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Swann, writing for Oxford Mail, reported that a 93-year-old
Oxford University professor may have been killed by asbestos at
the Bodleian Library where he was 'Keeper of the Books', an
inquest has heard.

Science academic Dennis Shaw wrote a personal statement to his
family in his dying days, explaining the various places where he
had worked and could have contracted cancer.

A coroner heard he was working at the Bodleian Library when major
refurbishment and underground building work was taking place in
the 1970s and may have breathed in asbestos fibres causing his
mesothelioma cancer.

In the personal statement, Dr. Shaw specifically mentioned the
Bodleian Library where he achieved fame as Keeper of Scientific
Books from 1976 to 1991.

Before taking on the role he had been a regular user of the
library as an academic in physics and science at Oxford
University's Keble College.

The professor, who served the college for more than three decades,
was diagnosed with lung cancer in early December 2016, and told
the illness had been caused by hazards in his workplace.

In the final days of his life, he wrote a statement to his family
discussing a list of projects that could have contributed to his
illness, including the extension to the Bodleian library where he
spent an hour-and-a half supervising its construction nearly every
day in the early 1970s.

Assistant coroner for Oxford Rosamund Rhodes-Kemp said: "Dr Shaw
sadly died on July 20 this year of mesothelioma, which possibly
had work-related causes. He died suddenly in the night.

"Mesothelioma is a disease that comes about due to someone's
exposure to asbestos. He was not aware of any exposure but it is
difficult to know when you're clearing large amounts of dust
during any building project.

"I would suggest the conclusion here is one of industrial
disease."

Addressing his daughter, Deborah Shaw, she added: "At some point
during this extensive and impressive career it is clear that Dr
Shaw was exposed to asbestos and it was as a consequence of that
he developed mesothelioma.

"We do have world class treatment here but unfortunately it was
never going to save his life. You and your family have my deepest
condolences."

Speaking after the inquest, the 58-year-old daughter added: "His
family is very proud of him. We miss him very much. The last 18
months of his life were marred by such a horrible disease."

A spokesman for the Bodleian Library said: "Dr Shaw was a valued
colleague and is a much missed member of staff.

"Contributing significantly to the development of library services
in Oxford, he became Keeper at a time of expansion."

The library would not comment on the claim that asbestos fibres
could have been present during the construction of the expansion.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: DIY Renovations Expose Thousands to Asbestos
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tory Shepherd, writing for The Advertiser, reported that more than
100 South Australians fear contracting deadly diseases after
suspected exposure to asbestos in the past year.

The Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency has published the
latest figures, which show a continuing increase.

Nationally, 1770 people were added to their exposure register last
financial year.  The vast majority are men who are exposed in the
workplace, although the Asbestos Victims Association (SA) warns
that cases from DIY renovations are on the rise.

Of the 122 cases in SA, 103 were men and the rest women. The
numbers have crept up from 108 last year and 79 the year before
that. In 2013-2014, there were 100 cases.

The agency says better awareness of the issues is fuelling the
increase.

Asbestos exposure can case a range of cancers including
mesothelioma and asbestosis, for which there is no cure.

The Agency say pleural plaques, a sort of scarring of the lungs,
are the most reported disease.

In its annual report it noted that there was a growing concern
about exposure outside workplaces.

"This . . . reflects growing awareness amongst members of the
public that there are risks in the residential setting of asbestos
fibres becoming airborne and posing a risk to the community."

AVA (SA) President Kat Burge said television renovation shows were
part of the problem.

"(The cases are) leaning more towards the home renovations and
there's a lot of people that have washed their husbands' clothes,
and they've been affected," she said.

"There are still quite a few in the workplace but that'll start
waning off and then it will come more to home renovations.

"This is a bugbear of ours. On TV when you're doing home
renovation shows you see a big hammer belting into a wall . . .
they don't say 'please check first if there's asbestos'."

The Agency is also tackling the importation of material containing
asbestos.

It highlights cases such as children's crayons that were found to
contain trace amounts of asbestos. There were also illegally
imported Vespa parts and quad bike parts.

In August, asbestos was found in plant equipment sent from China
to be installed at the Port Pirie smelter.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Damages Awarded to Exposed Japanese Workers
------------------------------------------------------------
Japan Today reported that a high court ordered the state and four
building material makers to pay 370 million yen in damages to 62
former construction workers and their bereaved families for
illnesses the workers developed due to exposure to asbestos at
work sites, in a turnaround from the initial ruling.

The Tokyo High Court ruled the state should have obligated
construction workers to wear protective dust masks by 1981 at the
latest, saying the state should have known the health risks posed
by asbestos by around 1980.

After the ruling, the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare's
department in charge of asbestos issues said it was a "harsh"
decision. The ministry will decide how to respond after consulting
with relevant ministries, it said.

The high court reversed the ruling by the Yokohama District Court,
which dismissed the plaintiffs' demand in 2012, saying the
government's regulations on asbestos cannot be said to have been
unreasonable from the standpoint of knowledge at the time.

Of 14 damages suits filed nationwide related to asbestos exposure
at building sites, the ruling on the appeal to the high court
marks the third which places responsibility on building supply
makers. Two district courts in Kyoto and Yokohama made similar
rulings in 2016 and earlier in October, respectively.

A total of 89 plaintiffs, including former carpenters who
developed lung cancer and mesothelioma after working at
construction sites for decades since around 1960, had sought 2.9
billion yen in damages from the state and 43 companies which
manufactured and sold building materials containing asbestos.

The high court ordered the government and just four of the 43
building materials makers -- A&A Material Corp in Yokohama,
Nichias Corp and MMK Corp in Tokyo, and Konoshima Co in Osaka --
to pay compensation.

The building material makers have denied responsibility, saying it
cannot be known which of their products specifically caused
illness to each plaintiff.

The government has insisted that the risk of asbestos was not
known in the past and that the state took proper steps based on
the available information.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tokyo Ruling Should Lead to Better Relief Fund
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Asahi Shimbun reported that the first high court ruling on an
asbestos lawsuit in Japan contained both good news and bad news
for people suffering from health problems caused by exposure to
the toxic material.

Some aspects of the Tokyo High Court's ruling, handed down on Oct.
27 amid much public attention, represent a step toward better
relief for asbestos victims. But other aspects constitute a slight
step backward.

The high court ruled that the government and four construction
materials makers are responsible for the lung ailments, such as
mesothelioma and cancer, of construction workers exposed to
asbestos included in construction materials. The workers and
bereaved family members who filed the lawsuit were awarded 370
million yen ($3.25 million) in total.

A series of district court rulings have effectively established
the view that the government is legally liable for failing to take
appropriate regulatory measures to restrict the use of asbestos.

The high court upheld the view but significantly shortened the
period of liability from those acknowledged by some district
courts.

The high court's decision is controversial. Many would argue that
it should have come down harder on the government, which started
restricting asbestos use through labor regulations long after
other major countries responded to the health hazard posed by the
material.

On the other hand, the court took a more activist stance
concerning the liability of the companies.

Since many construction workers move from site to site over a long
period of time, it is generally difficult to identify the makers
of the construction materials that have caused their health
problems.

The Tokyo High Court, however, argued that it is possible to
estimate individual companies' shares of liability by using such
information as the periods in which the companies manufactured the
products in question and the market shares of their products. In
line with this argument, the court held the construction materials
makers liable to pay compensation to the victims.

The court decision also gave new hope to free-lance, self-employed
construction workers who are regarded as sole proprietors and not
eligible for protection under labor laws.

The court proposed a way to provide legal relief to such workers
based on the realities of their work. This is another notable
point of the ruling.

The legal case came as a fresh reminder of the seriousness of the
problem.

Japan imported huge amounts of asbestos from the 1970s to the
1990s. The mineral was used widely as a spraying material and a
roof material during the years of strong economic growth.

Many people who were exposed to asbestos while working at
construction sites during the period are now suffering from
serious diseases and dying agonizing deaths.

Since asbestos-linked diseases develop gradually over decades, the
number of victims is expected to grow in the coming years.

A system was created more than a decade ago to provide financial
relief to asbestos victims. But it is not based on the assumption
that the government is legally liable for health damage caused by
asbestos and is stingy with compensation payments.

Both the government and the companies involved should take
seriously their responsibility for the problem acknowledged by the
high court and start taking effective action to offer sufficient
relief to asbestos victims.

Patients suffering from asbestos-related illness are demanding a
new compensation fund financed by the government and companies
that made profits from the use of substance.

The fund could be modeled on an existing compensation system for
victims of pollution that requires companies that have emitted
pollutants to shoulder the financial burden.

The new relief system for asbestos victims should be designed to
cover a wide range of sufferers, including self-employed
construction workers.

Due to the characteristics of asbestos-related illnesses, many
people suffering health problems stemming from asbestos exposure
are not aware of the cause of their ailments.

This is another issue that needs to be addressed through
cooperation with medical institutions to ensure that such patients
are treated properly and receive due compensation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: OneBeacon Not Required to Produce Communications
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that OneBeacon Insurance Co. is
not required to produce otherwise privileged communications that
it shared with third parties, including Berkshire Reinsurance
Group, an Ohio federal magistrate judge has ruled in an asbestos
coverage action initiated by The William Powell Co.

Upon OneBeacon's motion for reconsideration of a previous
discovery ruling, Magistrate Judge Karen Litkovitz of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio held on Sept. 28
that the third parties to whom the documents were shared "fall
into one or more protected relationships."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Montana Not Enforcing Strict Asbestos Laws
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tim Povtak, writing for Asbestos.com, reported that a prominent,
family-run asbestos-disposal company is suing the Montana
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) for failing to enforce
the state's strict asbestos-waste laws.

Doug Ingraham, corporate secretary at Ingraham Environmental Inc.,
believes the DEQ has been delinquent in its duty to protect
citizens from unnecessary asbestos exposure.

"It's a simple case of the government maintaining the status quo
and the public feeling protected, when actually, the government is
failing them," Ingraham told Asbestos.com.

Ingraham said the DEQ has failed to apply the laws regarding
asbestos abatement and disposal, allowing too much unregulated
dumping at landfills across the state.

Exposure to asbestos can lead to a number of serious health
issues, including asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma.

Dump-Site Workers at Risk for Exposure

The legal filings by Ingraham are designed to push the DEQ toward
tougher enforcement of the current laws. The lawsuit was filed in
the district court of Butte-Silver Bow County and assigned to
Judge Brad Newman.

"Asbestos waste is regularly being dumped in open air in our
landfills, endangering landfill workers, transporters and anyone
who breathes air in the area of these dumps," notes Ingraham's
legal petition.

The DEQ countered with its own petition that says the
responsibility for compliance is on the landfill operators and the
owners of the buildings being demolished or abated. The agency
also says it is not legally required to do more.

The Ingraham family has been in the asbestos abatement business
since the 1980s. Its first written request to the DEQ --
requesting increased compliance efforts -- came in 2006.

Asbestos laws in Montana are stricter than in most states,
partially stemming from the long-running environmental disaster in
Libby, Montana, the largest asbestos cleanup project in American
history.

The Libby Influence

Health officials estimate more than 400 Libby residents have died
and thousands more have been sickened from asbestos-related
diseases stemming from 70 years of mining nearby.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has spent
almost $600 million cleaning up commercial and residential
properties in Libby and surrounding areas. Federal laws regarding
asbestos disposal are less restrictive than the state laws
Ingraham wants enforced.

"There is a presumption that we are safe from asbestos when we go
into restaurants, bars, hotels being renovated," Ingraham said.
"We've got these great laws that are regulating the asbestos
community, but what's falling between the cracks is people who
aren't having inspections done, taking material without
inspection, and disposing it at the landfill under the assumption
that it's not asbestos."

A Long-Standing Battle

The lawsuit also stems from years of frustration on the part of
many asbestos-industry members in Montana who have been critical
of loopholes being used to avoid inspections and endanger innocent
people.

"We're not asking for new rules," Ingraham said. "We're just
asking that DEQ assume responsibility for rules already in place."

Landfills typically charge more for the disposal of asbestos
materials. Asbestos abatement also can be costly for small
business owners.

"It's a little flabbergasting, to be honest," Ingraham said. "My
attorney, who has become very educated about asbestos, says if the
DEQ doesn't want to enforce these laws, then who is responsible
for doing it?"


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found at Old Darwin Hospital Site
-----------------------------------------------------------
Georgia Hitch, writing for ABC News, reported that asbestos has
been found at the old Darwin Hospital site by contractors in the
same area as the Northern Territory Government's proposed new $50
million museum.

Senior director at the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and
Logistics Graeme Finch said the asbestos was discovered on a small
area by workers.

"We've been in the process of clearing coffee bush out of the far
corner of the old Darwin Hospital site closest to Cullen Bay at
the request of some residents," he said.

"In that process we've identified that there are bits of asbestos
scattered through what looks like some soil material that's been
dumped there over time.

"We've locked the site down and [we're] engaging with NT Worksafe
and the NT EPA just in regards to an asbestos management plan so
that we can first make it safe and second go through the process
of what to do with that portion of the site."

Mr. Finch said the asbestos that was found was a mixture of pieces
ranging from the size of a 50-cent piece to intact piece of pipe.

He also said the asbestos-ridden area had been closed off to the
public, but the rest of the area would remain open and was deemed
safe.

"It's not huge quantities of it, we have had air monitors up and
weren't able to detect any fibres and so it's more of a case that
it's there and we know about it and it's now just a case of
addressing it," Mr. Finch said.

Coffee bush potentially protected toxic material

He said it appeared the asbestos had been kept shaded and intact
by the coffee bushes.

"The fragments of asbestos appear to be in quite good condition,"
he said.  "We think that because it's been under coffee bush for
all these years that it hasn't been releasing fibres so provided
we keep it wet and we deal with it we don't believe it's anything
to get concerned over."

It was not clear, however, how the asbestos material ended up at
the site.

"We're not sure where it's from, some of the pieces seem to be
quite old, could be Cyclone Tracy, could be the demolition of the
old Darwin Hospital, it could be illegal dumping over time," Mr.
Finch said.  "It's very hard to tell where it's come from, the
main issue is it's there and we just need to deal with it."

As for the construction of the Northern Territory Government's
proposed new $50 million museum on the site, Mr. Finch said the
department was looking into how to remediate the area but did not
think it would affect overall construction.

"At the end of the day it's a very small part of the site, it is
very contained, we're able to easily identify where it is and the
possibilities are very strong we will deal with it well before
2019," he said.

But Mr. Finch said he did not know how long the remediation works
would take and the department was considering leaving the asbestos
in place for the wet season.

"It's likely that we'll just contain it for this wet season and
just stabilise the slope and make sure it doesn't spread anywhere
else."

It comes a little over a month after the pathology building at
Alice Springs Hospital was closed after tests revealed an asbestos
contamination.

In May, local residents in Yuendumu, 300 kilometres north-west of
Alice Springs, told the ABC they were worried about the health
impacts of asbestos that sits loose on the ground on the outskirts
of the remote town.

And at the beginning of the year, residents in Tennant Creek
called on the NT and federal governments to offer their children
health checks, after they unknowingly played in a vandalised
building containing asbestos purchased by the town's largest
Aboriginal corporation with Commonwealth money.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colgate-Palmolive Asks Court to Toss Talc Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Max Mitchell, writing for Law.com, reported that a defendant
facing the first asbestos-related talc case in Philadelphia has
asked a judge to reconsider dismissing the case in the wake of a
recent ruling rejecting the testimony of two key experts for the
plaintiffs.

Colgate-Palmolive filed a motion for reconsideration recently in
Brandt v. Colgate-Palmolive, arguing that, because Philadelphia
Court of Common Pleas Judge Idee Fox has barred the plaintiffs'
experts from testifying about some significant causation issues,
there are no remaining questions of fact allowing the case to
proceed past summary judgment.

"Put simply, plaintiffs' claim that Ms. Brandt's rare disease was
caused by her use of cosmetic talcum powder -- a product used
safely and effectively by millions upon millions of people for
over a century -- are grounded in junk science that this court has
properly determined cannot reach a jury under Pennsylvania law,"
Kent & McBride attorney Theresa Mullaney said in Colgate-
Palmolive's nine-page motion.

Brandt is being handled in Philadelphia's asbestos program, and
stems from claims that talcum powder plaintiff Sally Brandt used
between 1954 and 1970 contained asbestos, which caused her to
develop mesothelioma.

Late in September, Fox agreed with the defendants that the
plaintiffs' pathology expert, Dr. Ronald Gordon, and their geology
and microscopy expert, Sean Fitzgerald, used experimental, and in
one case "inherently unscientific," methods when testing for the
presence of asbestos in the talcum powder at issue. Fox determined
that both experts did not pass muster under the Frye test, and
granted the defendants motions to preclude their testimony.

According to Colgate-Palmolive, the plaintiffs had relied on that
testimony to overcome summary judgment initially. Specifically,
the plaintiffs used the testimony to argue that, since the product
had not been originally designed to contain asbestos, the talcum
powder Brandt used had been contaminated with asbestos, Colgate-
Palmolive said.

Fitzgerald's testimony was offered to show that Brandt had been
exposed to asbestos at levels significantly higher than normal
background levels, and Gordon's testimony dealt with whether
Colgate-Palmolive's talc product was a substantial factor in
causing Brandt's mesothelioma.

According to Fox, the two may have used some generally accepted
methodologies for developing their opinions, but they improperly
modified those standards in ways that led to questionable results.

Fitzgerald, for example, used a "mishmash" of methodologies, but
admitted that if he used talc testing methods accepted by the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration he probably would not have found
asbestos, Fox said. Also, when performing the research to develop
his opinion on causation, Gordon used smaller than usual tissue
samples, a smaller than typical control population, and
extrapolated his findings, according to Fox.

In footnotes, Colgate-Palmolive further argued that the rejected
testimony formed the basis for testimony of the plaintiffs'
industrial hygiene expert and expert pathologist.

"The court's recent rulings thus warrant reconsideration of
Colgate's motion for summary judgment, and require that judgment
as a matter of law be entered for Colgate on all claims," Colgate-
Palmolive said.

Mullaney and Patrick Wigle of Water Kraus & Paul, who is
representing Brandt, both did not return a call seeking comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: $7.2MM Reinsurance Coverage Judgment Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirms the judgment entered by
the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on April 26, 2016,
in an action seeking reinsurance coverage for defense expenses.

Following a non-jury trial, the court entered judgment against
OneBeacon Insurance Company, F/K/A CGU Insurance Company F/K/A
General Accident Insurance Company of America, and in favor of
Century Indemnity Company, as successor to CCI Insurance Company,
as successor to Insurance Company of North America, in the amount
of $4,772,520.44, plus prejudgment interest, and in favor of
Pacific Employers Insurance Company ("PEIC"), in the amount of
$2,426,478.42, plus prejudgment interest.

In 1983, Century's predecessor issued an Excess Blanket
Catastrophe Liability Policy to a subsidiary of Formosa Plastics
Corporation that provided $25,000,000 in umbrella liability for
covered losses. During the same period, PEIC issued a similar
policy to Gould Pumps, Inc. Both of the underlying policies
included a "second obligation to provide coverage for defense
costs."

Thereafter, Century's predecessor and PEIC both obtained
facultative certificates from OneBeacon's predecessor to reinsure
a certain layer of the Formosa and Gould policies. Both the
policies and the facultative certificates were renewed the
following year; Century's certificate was renewed via an
endorsement, and PEIC was issued a new certificate.

Both Century and PEIC paid significant amounts in losses to their
insureds for asbestos-related claims pursuant to the 1983 and 1984
underlying policies. When OneBeacon failed to promptly pay
Century/PEIC under the facultative certificates, the companies
jointly filed a breach of contract and declaratory judgment action
against OneBeacon on July 23, 2012. While the action was pending,
OneBeacon paid Century/PEIC the limits listed in the "Reinsurance
Accepted" section of the facultative certificates, but refused to
pay any amount above that limit for defense expenses. The case
proceeded through discovery.

On January 20, 2015, OneBeacon filed a motion for summary
judgment, arguing that it had already paid Century/PEIC "$11
million, a sum equal to the total dollar amounts stated as the
'Reinsurance Accepted' in the facultative reinsurance certificates
at issue in this case," and that under authoritative case law, and
the unambiguous language of the certificates at issue, it was not
obligated to pay defense expenses "in excess of the stated
Reinsurance Accepted amount."

OneBeacon further argued: (1) Century/PEIC were collaterally
estopped from seeking defense costs in excess of the Reinsurance
Accepted limits as a result of "prior adverse decisions" rendered
against them, and (2) it owed no interest to Century/PEIC on the
$11 million previously submitted because it "had no duty to pay
either [company] prior to the respective dates of OneBeacon's
actual payments."

On January 21, 2015, Century/PEIC filed a motion for partial
summary judgment on the issue of prejudgment interest. The trial
court entered two orders disposing of the motions on March 27,
2015: (1) denying OneBeacon's motion for summary judgment, and (2)
granting Century/PEIC's motion for partial summary judgment. With
regard to OneBeacon's motion, the trial court determined: (1) the
certificates were ambiguous, and, consequently, Century/PEIC could
present extrinsic evidence at trial, and (2) Century/PEIC were not
collaterally estopped from asserting their claims based on prior
decisions.

The trial court granted Century/PEIC's motion for partial summary
judgment, concluding OneBeacon had a duty to pay Century/PEIC
promptly following receipt of proof of loss. Accordingly, the
court found both Century and PEIC were entitled to prejudgment
interest, Century in the amount of $275,760.45 and PEIC in the
amount of $152,071.35. Judgment was entered on these amounts in
favor of Century/PEIC and against OneBeacon on April 9, 2015.

On appeal, OneBeacon challenges the ruling of the trial court that
the reinsurance facultative certificates at issue provided
coverage for defense expenses in excess of the liability cap, and
that Century/PEIC were entitled to interest on certain proofs of
loss issued prior to early 2013.

OneBeacon's argument focuses on an interpretation of the parties'
contract -- the facultative certificates. OneBeacon argues that
the language of the facultative certificates unambiguously limits
its liability, for both losses and expenses, to the "Reinsurance
Accepted" amount in Section IV.

First, OneBeacon contends that the "Reinsurance Accepted" section
does not distinguish between losses and expenses; therefore, it
caps both. Second, OneBeacon claims that while General Condition
(3) lists the two components of the reinsurance -- losses and
expenses -- it does not "in any way differentiate between 'loss'
and 'expenses' with respect to application of the Reinsurance
Accepted amount." Third, OneBeacon emphasizes the language in
General Condition (1) -- the "following form" clause -- which
provides "the liability of [OneBeacon] specified in Section IV
shall follow that of [Century/PEIC.]"

Because the Condition does not state that "the liability...
specified in Section IV" applies only to losses, OneBeacon
maintains it must apply to expenses as well. Moreover, while
General Condition (1) further states the reinsurance is "subject
in all respects" to the underlying policy's terms -- which
supports concurrency between the reinsurance and the underlying
policy -- OneBeacon stresses that the language is precipitated by
the clause "expect as otherwise specifically provided herein."
OneBeacon argues "because the 'Reinsurance Accepted' amount is
'specifically provided' in Section IV... it constitutes an
exception to the general condition that the certificate is subject
to the terms and conditions of the [underlying] policy."

Conversely, Century/PEIC maintain that the certificate language is
ambiguous, particularly in light of the presumption of concurrency
in the reinsurance industry, which is necessary so that the
"reinsurer, which typically agrees to accept a portion of the
policy risk in exchange for the same portion of the policy
premium, is actually taking on risk proportional to its premium
share." Therefore, the "following form" language in General
Condition (1) ensures that where the underlying policy covers
defenses expenses above the liability limits, so does the
reinsurance policy.

The Court finds that the Certificate contains a "subject to"
clause, which states that the reinsurance is "subject to the
general conditions set forth on the reverse side" -- it does not
expressly provide that all of the coverage is subject to the
"Reinsurance Accepted" limit. Furthermore, Century/PEIC's
"underlying policies provide coverage for expenses in addition to
the limits." Therefore, because the reinsurance certificate
"follows" that of the underlying policy, the Court maintains that
it would cover expenses above the liability limit. Accordingly,
absent language providing the entire certificate is "subject to"
the "Reinsurance Accepted" amount, the Court points out that a
reasonable interpretation of the language is that where the
underlying policy covers expenses in addition to liability limits,
the reinsurance certificate provides the same coverage.

Therefore, the Court determines that OneBeacon's certificate does
not expressly provide that all of the coverage (including
expenses) is subject to the "Reinsurance Accepted" limit.
Consequently, the Court concludes that the materially different
language in the certificates herein precludes the operation of
collateral estoppel.

OneBeacon further asserts that the trial court erred in (1)
awarding damages to Century because its evidence did not support
the award, and (2) granting Century/PEIC's motion for partial
summary judgment on the issue of prejudgment interest. OneBeacon
maintains that Century failed to prove its damages because "the
amounts shown on [its] summary [trial] exhibit for periods prior
to August 23, 2013 bear no relationship to the aggregate billings
actually issued to OneBeacon."

The Court notes that its review of the voluminous certified record
in this case has failed to uncover the summary trial exhibit of
which OneBeacon complains, and reminds OneBeacon that "it is an
appellant's duty to insure that the certified record contains all
documents necessary for appellate review," and when a necessary
document is not included in the certified record, the Court may
find the issue waived on appeal.

OneBeacon complains the billing information included on the
summary trial exhibit "bore no relationship to the aggregate
billings actually issued to OneBeacon." Moreover, it argues
Century's Vice President, Head of Reinsurance, Christine Russell,
"could not explain this discrepancy." However, the record belies
OneBeacon's claim.

Russell testified that Century changed its billing in August 2013.
Prior to that date, Century billed on a "combined product and non-
product basis." In August of 2013, Century began to separately
bill for products only. Russell explained the discrepancy between
the earlier billings and the summary trial exhibit was due to this
billing change. Therefore, the Court concludes that Century did
provide an explanation for the discrepancy in the amounts due as
reflected on the exhibit, compared with the actual billings.

Furthermore, in determining Century's damage award, the trial
court considered all of the proofs of loss supplied by Century in
support of the total amount due listed on the summary trial
exhibit. Accordingly, the Court finds that Century met its burden
of proving damages.

OneBeacon also claims the trial court erred when it granted
partial summary judgment to both Century and PEIC on the issue of
prejudgment interest. It contends Century is not entitled to
interest on proofs of loss issued prior to August 23, 2013,
because OneBeacon could not ascertain the correct amount due
before that date as a result of Century's improper billings.

OneBeacon claims that Century was awarded interest on the $6
million dollar payment it made in 2013 based upon the summary
exhibit that demonstrated the $6 million became due between 2011
and January of 2013. OneBeacon maintains that the proofs of loss,
which were issued prior to the corrected billing, included both
product and non-product losses and it was "impossible for
OneBeacon to ascertain the amount of 'products' losses and
expenses that were actually due." OneBeacon also claims that
Century "conceded" this point, referring to the deposition
testimony of Century/PEIC's designated corporate representative,
Stefanie Walterick.

The Court notes, however, that Century did not concede that it was
impossible for OneBeacon to determine its proportionate share of
product losses until Century changed its billing in August of
2013. While Walterick acknowledged that it was "impossible to
break out" the products only billings if OneBeacon "just looked at
the proofs of loss in a vacuum and never looked at anything else,"
she explained that the proofs of loss were accompanied by billing
letters that provided the requisite detailed information.

The Court finds no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial
court in granting Century's motion for partial summary judgment,
where the trial court opined: "The parties have supported their
arguments with a substantial amount of evidence, including the
copies of the billings themselves and depositions of individuals
involved with the claims. Based on the record, [OneBeacon] had
sufficient information to calculate within a reasonable degree the
amount owed under the Century certificates, and therefore is
required to pay Century prejudgment interest for late payments
under the certificates."

The Court finds, however, OneBeacon's argument consisting of
parsing out excerpts from the testimony of Century's witnesses in
an attempt to demonstrate Century knew its billings were
incomprehensible. The trial court, however, reviewed the actual
proofs of loss and accompanying billing letters before concluding
OneBeacon could ascertain "within a reasonable degree" the amount
due under the facultative certificates.

Moreover, with regard to PEIC, OneBeacon asserts PEIC failed to
provide requested information regarding its billing until May 14,
2013. Because it was contractually obligated to make the
information available, OneBeacon contends PEIC is not entitled to
interest accruing prior to July 13, 2013, in other words, 60 days
after PEIC provided the requested information.

The Court finds no error or abuse of the trial court's discretion
in its conclusion that the General Condition (4) explicitly
required OneBeacon to promptly pay PEIC following receipt of
proofs of loss, and was not dependent upon PEIC's duty under
General Condition (1) to make records available for inspection. As
PEIC points out in its brief, OneBeacon did not contend "that the
PEIC proofs of loss left it unable to calculate how much it owed
under the Gould certificates."

The appeals case is CENTURY INDEMNITY COMPANY, AS SUCCESSOR TO CCI
INSURANCE COMPANY, AS SUCCESSOR TO INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH
AMERICA AND PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee, v.
ONEBEACON INSURANCE COMPANY F/K/A CGU INSURANCE COMPANY F/K/A
GENERAL ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Appellant, No. 1280
EDA 2016, (Pa. Super.).

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated October 17, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/9vAsAo from Leagle.com.

Joseph M. Donley, Clark Hill PLC, for Appellant, OneBeacon
Insurance Company f/k/a CGU Insurance Company f/k/a General
Accident Ins. Co. of America.

Christopher J. Day, Clark Hill PLC, for Appellant, OneBeacon
Insurance Company f/k/a CGU Insurance Company f/k/a General
Accident Ins. Co. of America.

Ira J. Belcove, for Appellant, OneBeacon Insurance Company f/k/a
CGU Insurance Company f/k/a General Accident Ins. Co. of America.

Michael A. Stick, for Appellant, OneBeacon Insurance Company f/k/a
CGU Insurance Company f/k/a General Accident Ins. Co. of America.

William G. Frey, Esq. -- wfrey@gibbonslaw.com -- Gibbons P.C., for
Appellee, Century Indemnity Company, et al.

Jennifer Lynn Seme, Esq. -- jseme@gibbonslaw.com -- Gibbons P.C.,
for Appellee, Century Indemnity Company, et al.

Jonathan D. Hacker, Esq. -- jhacker@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers
LLP, for Appellee, Century Indemnity Company, et al.

Harry P. Cohen, for Appellee, Century Indemnity Company, et al.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Warner Fails to Establish Covestro Negligence
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Calvin L. Scott of the Superior Court of Delaware grants
Covestro LLC's motion for summary judgment in the case styled IN
RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION. JEFFREY A. WARNER, Plaintiff, v. COVESTRO
LLC f/k/a BAYER MATERIALSCIENCE LLC et al., Defendants, C.A. No.
N15C-02-060 ASB, (Del. Super.).

Covestro LLC f/k/a Bayer MaterialScience LLC was the premises
owner or successor in interest to one or more prior owners of
Mobay Chemical Plant when Jeffrey A. Warner worked at Mobay
between 1979 and 2014.

In 1979, Mr. Warner worked at Mobay for approximately six months
as a permit-hand iron worker employed by Dravo Corp., a third
party contractor. During this time period Mr. Warner claims he
removed insulation from old equipment and piping. He testified
that he received instruction from Dravo supervisors and Dravo
supplied the equipment and materials. Plaintiff claims that some
insulation contained asbestos, but he did not receive training in
distinguishing non-asbestos versus asbestos containing insulation
until the 1990s.

Mr. Warner also worked at Mobay in 1986 for two years as a
contract engineer for Midwest Tech. Mr. Warner stated that he
reported to two Mobay employees during this job, and he claims
that he removed insulation on adjacent lines in order to determine
valve capacity. He was hired by Mobay in 1988 as a fulltime
process Control Technician, and worked in this capacity through
November 2014.

Covestro argues that any claim for an injury after 1988 is barred
under West Virginia's worker-compensation statute. Additionally,
Covestro contends that Mr. Warner provided no credible or
admissible evidence that the insulation contained asbestos.

The parties stipulated that Covestro is entitled to summary
judgment on exposure after May 1988. In response, Mr. Warner
argues that at least eight bankrupt manufacturers of asbestos
containing products list the Mobay facility as a "conceded site"
for purposes of claims against their estate. Mr. Warner contends
that this fact shows that "clearly, a significant amount of
asbestos was present on site."

However, beyond Mr. Warner's belief that the products he worked on
contained asbestos, the Court finds that the record is void of
evidence that a jury could infer Mr. Warner worked with asbestos
insulation.

Mr. Warner argues that evidence of asbestos exposure alone creates
a genuine issue of fact as to a negligence claim against Covestro.

On the other hand, Covestro argues that even if the Court finds
that Mr. Warner presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine
issue of fact regarding asbestos exposure, Mr. Warner's claims are
barred under West Virginia law.

Under West Virginia law "the occupier of premises employing an
independent contractor has the duty of providing a reasonably safe
place to work," which includes "the duty to warn of latent defects
existing before the work is started that are known to the
employer, but are not readily observable by the employee."
Similarly, "the employer of an independent contractor will also be
liable to such contractor's employee if he retains some control or
supervision over the work which negligently injures the employee,"
or the injury was "caused by the negligence of the employer."

Covestro argues that there is no evidence in the record to show
that Covestro was negligent or otherwise in control over the work.

Under West Virginia law, "a property owner only has a duty to turn
over a reasonably safe workplace to an independent contractor; the
property owner generally cannot be held liable for any hazards
created by the independent contractor." When "determining whether
a workman is an employee or an independent contractor, the
controlling factor is whether the hiring party retains the right
to control and supervise the work to be done."

The Court finds that Mr. Warner worked for a third party at the
plant, and received instruction from third party. Based on the
evidence before the Court, there is no evidence that Covestro
engaged in negligent conduct to be held liable for Mr. Warner's
injuries.

A full-text copy of the Order, dated October 26, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/Ejs2dx from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Roper" Suit Dismissed Following Resolution
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Thomas S. Zilly of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington dismissed the case styled CAROL ROPER,
individually and as the personal representative of the Estate of
William Roper, deceased, Plaintiff, v. BORGWARNER MORSE TEC, INC.,
et al., Defendant, No. C16-1453 TSZ, (W.D. Wash.) with prejudice,
after having been advised by counsel that this matter has been
resolved, and finding that there are no issues remaining for the
Court's determination.

In the event settlement is not perfected, either party may move to
reopen and trial will be scheduled, provided such motion is filed
within 60 days of the date of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Order, dated October 26, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/4a28vM from Leagle.com.

Carol Roper, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher P. Gladd,
NAPOLI SHKOLNIK, PLLC, pro hac vice.

Carol Roper, Plaintiff, represented by Michael David Myers, MYERS
& COMPANY & Tammy C. Barcenilla, NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC, pro hac
vice.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Barry Neal Mesher,
SEDGWICK LLP, Brian D. Zeringer, SEDGWICK LLP & Christopher S.
Marks, SEDGWICK LLP.

Crane Co, Defendant, represented by G. William Shaw, K&L GATES LLP
& Ryan J. Groshong, K&L GATES LLP.

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant, represented by Barry
Neal Mesher, SEDGWICK LLP, Brian D. Zeringer, SEDGWICK LLP &
Christopher S. Marks, SEDGWICK LLP.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Barry Neal
Mesher, SEDGWICK LLP, Brian D. Zeringer, SEDGWICK LLP &
Christopher S. Marks, SEDGWICK LLP.

IMO Industries Inc, Defendant, represented by James Edward Horne,
GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL & Michael Edward Ricketts, GORDON THOMAS
HONEYWELL.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, represented by Mark B. Tuvim,
GORDON & REES & Kevin J. Craig, GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Richard G. Gawlowski, WILSON SMITH COCHRAN & DICKERSON.

Schneider Electric USA Inc, Defendant, represented by Alice Coles
Serko, SEDGWICK LLP, Barry Neal Mesher, SEDGWICK LLP & Rachel
Tallon Reynolds, BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. High Court to Hear Duty to Warn Arguments
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Petition for Certification of Question of Law submitted by the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in the case IN RE:
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (NO. VI). CRANE CO,
Appellant, No. 110 EM 2017, (E.D. Pa.), is granted. Accordingly,
the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania will consider the following
issues:

     (a) Whether, under Pennsylvania law, a manufacturer has a
duty to warn about the asbestos-related hazards of component parts
it has neither manufactured nor supplied?

     (b) If such a duty exists, what is the appropriate legal test
to determine whether the company is in fact liable for failing to
warn about the risks of asbestos?

Accordingly, the parties are directed to submit briefs limited to
these issues in accordance with the briefing schedule established
by the Prothontary. The matter will be listed for oral argument.

A full-text copy of the Order, dated October 26, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/frbrZz from Leagle.com.

Marcia Mary Waldron, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit,
for United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit,
Petitioner.

Patricia S. Dodszuweit, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit, for United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit,
Petitioner.

George D. Bruch, Jr., Esq. -- gdbruch@swartzcampbell.com -- Swartz
Campbell & Detweiler, for Crane Co., Respondent.

Charles Elwood Soechting, Jr., Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett,
P.C., for Lynn Dobrick, Personal Rep. of the Estate of Valent
Rabovsky, Deceased, Respondent.

Eric R. I. Cottle, Esq. -- eric.cottle@klgates.com -- K&L Gates
LLP, for Crane Co., Respondent.

Michael James Ross, Esq. -- michael.ross@klgates.com -- K&L Gates
LLP, for Crane Co., Respondent.

Nicholas P. Vari, Esq. -- nicholas.vari@klgates.com -- K&L Gates
LLP, for Crane Co., Respondent.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4th Cir. Dismisses Campbell-McCormick Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
dismissed the appealed case captioned CAMPBELL-McCORMICK, INC.,
and its remaining Director-Trustee, Robert I. McCormick, Defendant
and 3rd-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CLIFFORD OLIVER, Plaintiff-
Appellee, and JUNE R. STEARNS, Plaintiff-Appellee. THE WALTER E.
CAMPBELL COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellee. MCIC, INCORPORATED,
formerly known as McCormick Asbestos Co., Defendant and 3rd-Party
Plaintiff-Appellee. ATWOOD & MORRILL CO., INC.; MANVILLE TRUST
PERSONAL INJURY SETTLEMENT TRUST; AURORA PUMP; CRANE CO.; GENERAL
ELECTRIC COMPANY; INGERSOLL-RAND CO., INC.; JOHNSON CONTROLS,
INC.; MAROTTA CONTROLS, INC.; THE NASH ENGINEERING COMPANY; THE
WEIR GROUP; VELAN VALVES CORP.; VIKING PUMP; WARREN PUMPS, INC.,
Third Party Defendants-Appellees, No. 16-1895, (4th Cir.), for
lack of appellate jurisdiction, including jurisdiction, as claimed
by Campbell-McCormick, Inc. ("CMC"), under the collateral order
doctrine.

In December 2015, the Plaintiff Wayne Oliver filed his complaint
in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, alleging
asbestos exposure claims against Campbell-McCormick, Inc., the
Walter E. Campbell Company, Inc., and MCIC, Incorporated.

CMC then filed its third-party complaint against General Electric
Company ("GE") and twelve other third-party defendants, seeking
contribution pursuant to the Maryland Uniform Contribution Among
Joint Tort-Feasors Act ("UCATA"). In April 2016, GE removed the
litigation to federal district court, asserting the federal
contractor defense.

A little more than a month later, in May 2016, Oliver filed his
motion to sever and remand his claims. Specifically, Oliver
requested the district court to decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over his state law claims. By its Order of July 18,
2016, the district court granted Oliver's motion to sever and
remand his claims, but retained jurisdiction over and stayed CMC's
third-party claims.

As the district court explained in the Memorandum Opinion
accompanying the Order, its discretion to decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim is circumscribed
by section 1367(c), under which "a declination is permitted only
when," inter alia, "the claim 'substantially predominates over'
the claim [that accords] original or removal jurisdiction."
Importantly, the federal contractor defense is the only source of
federal jurisdiction herein, because CMC's third-party claims are
based entirely on Maryland state law, i.e., the UCATA. The court
emphasized that the federal contractor defense "would become
relevant only if the defendants are found to be liable for
Oliver's state law causes of action."

Likewise, the Opinion recognized that Maryland's highest court had
interpreted the UCATA as allowing a defendant to initiate a
contribution claim in a separate action even after a judgment is
entered in the main action. The Opinion reasoned that, if CMC
"could sue the third-party defendants after a judgment was entered
in the main action, then [CMC] and the third-party defendants
cannot argue that they will be prejudiced by this court's decision
to sever and remand all but the third-party claims." Consistent
with its Opinion, the court's Order administratively closed the
litigation in the District of Maryland, "subject to reopening as
warranted to pursue third-party claims."

CMC appeals from the Order, summarily asserting that the Fourth
Circuit possesses jurisdiction.

In its supplemental appellate brief, CMC contends that a remand
order based upon a district court's declination of supplemental
jurisdiction is considered to be a final, appealable decision
under 28 U.S.C. Section 1291 because it either ends the federal
litigation on the merits or qualifies for review under the
collateral order doctrine. CMC specifically relies on the
collateral order doctrine for the Fourth Circuit's jurisdiction in
this appeal from the district court's Order.

The Fourth Circuit explains that "a remand order based on Section
1367(c) is appealable as a final order pursuant to section 1291,"
is true only if the Order had dismissed CMC's third-party claims
in conjunction with remanding Oliver's claims, the Order would
constitute a final decision because there would be no claims left
to pursue in federal court. However, the Fourth Circuit points out
that in this case, the district court retained jurisdiction over
and stayed CMC's third-party claims, leaving those claims to be
resolved at a later time. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit
concludes that the Order does not constitute a final decision as
generally understood for purposes of section 1291.

The collateral order doctrine, however, provides another potential
avenue for the Fourth Circuit to possess Section 1291
jurisdiction. In assessing whether an appeal qualifies for review,
under the collateral order doctrine, "the importance of the right
asserted has always been a significant part" of the analysis.
Indeed, CMC's importance argument is merely that an adjudication
of Oliver's claims in federal court would enhance fairness and
judicial economy and prevent inconsistent verdicts.

The Fourth Circuit is not persuaded by CMC's argument to expand
the "narrow and selective" class of collaterally appealable
orders. The Fourth Circuit maintains that the right asserted by
CMC in this appeal -- the right to keep Oliver's state law claims
in federal court -- is insufficiently important for the Court's
immediate review. The Fourth Circuit further says that CMC is
unable to show how the Court's failure to review the Order
severing and remanding Oliver's claims would endanger "a
substantial public interest" or "some particular value of high
order."

A full-text copy of the Order, dated October 24, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/YWCuXQ from Leagle.com.

Appellant is represented by:

             Patrick C. Smith, Esq.
             John C. Ruff, Esq.
             Steven Joseph Parrott, Esq.
             DEHAY & ELLISTON, L.L.P.
             36 South Charles Street
             Suite 1400
             Baltimore , Maryland 21201
             Phone: 410.783.7002
             Fax: 410.783.7221
             Email: sparrott@dehay.com

Appellees are represented by:

             Ian Gill Thomas, Esq.
             BROWN GOULD KIELY LLP.
             7316 Wisconsin Ave. #200
             Bethesda, Maryland 20814
             Phone: 301-718-4548
             Fax: 301-718-8037
             Email: ithomas@bgklawfirm.com

             -- and --

             David Michael Sturm, Esq.
             TADDEOSTURM PLC
             3 West Cary Street
             Richmond, Virginia 23220
             Office: (804) 344-8543
             Cell: (804) 647-2818
             Fax: (804) 344-8541

Appellee Velan Valve Corp. is represented by:

             Anthony B. Taddeo, Jr., Esq.
             TADDEOSTURM PLC
             3 West Cary Street
             Richmond, Virginia 23220
             Office: (804) 344-8542
             Cell: (804) 543-5280
             Fax: (804) 344-8541

Appellees Clifford Oliver and June R. Stearns are represented by:

             Daniel A. Brown, Esq.
             Matthew E. Kiely, Esq.
             BROWN GOULD KIELY LLP
             7316 Wisconsin Ave. #200
             Bethesda, Maryland 20814
             Phone: 301-718-4548
             Fax: 301-718-8037
             Email: dbrown@bgklawfirm.com

Appellee Aurora Pump Company is represented by:

             F. Ford Loker, Esq.
             MILES & STOCKBRIDGE, P.C.
             100 Light Street
             Baltimore, Maryland 21202
             Phone: 410.727.6464
             Fax: 410.385.3700
             Email: floker@milesstockbridge.com

Appellee Ingersoll-Rand Company is represented by:

             Michael L. Haslup, Esq.
             Jonathan J. Huber, Esq.
             MILES & STOCKBRIDGE, P.C.
             100 Light Street
             Baltimore, Maryland 21202
             Phone: 410.727.6464
             Fax: 410.385.3700
             Email: mhaslup@milesstockbridge.com
                    thurley@milesstockbridge.com

Appellee Atwood & Morrill Company is represented by:

             Gerry H. Tostanoski, Esq.
             TYDINGS & ROSENBERG LLP
             One East Pratt Street, Suite 901
             Baltimore, Maryland 21202
             Phone: 410.752.9700
             Fax: 410.727.5460
             Email: gtostanoski@tydingslaw.com

Appellees Johnson Controls, Inc. and Viking Pump, Inc. are
represented by:

             Malcolm S. Brisker, Esq.
             GOODELL, DEVRIES, LEECH & DANN, LLP.
             One South Street, 20th Floor
             Baltimore, Maryland 21202
             Tel: 410-783-4000
             Fax: 410-783-4040
             Email: msb@gdldlaw.com

Appellee Marotta Controls, Inc. is represented by:

             Robert E. Scott, Jr., Esq.
             Richard J. Medoff, Esq.
             SEMMES, BOWEN & SEMMES
             25 S. Charles Street, Suite 1400
             Baltimore, Maryland 21201
             Phone: 410.539.5040
             Fax: 410.539.5223
             Email: rscott@semmes.com
                    rmedoff@semmes.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Cunningham" PI Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge George H. Wu of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District California dismissed the case styled JACK CUNNINGHAM and
BRENDA CUNNINGHAM, Plaintiffs, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. CV 16-6929-GW(JEMx),
(C.D. Cal.) with prejudice pursuant to a signed stipulation.

A full-text copy of the Order, dated October 24, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/9iBfLj from Leagle.com.

Jack J. Cunningham, Plaintiff, represented by Justin R. Heim,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik and Associates LLP.

Jack J. Cunningham, Plaintiff, represented by Patrick N. Haines,
Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, pro hac vice & Samuel J. Moorhead, Napoli
Shkolnik PLLC.

Brenda Cunningham, Plaintiff, represented by Justin R. Heim,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik and Associates LLP, Patrick N. Haines,
Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, pro hac vice & Samuel J. Moorhead, Napoli
Shkolnik PLLC.

Elliott Company, Defendant, represented by Taylor C. Day, Morgan
Lewis and Bockius LLP & Joseph Duffy, Morgan Lewis and Bockius
LLP.

Air and Liquid Systems Corporation, Defendant, represented by
James G. Scadden, Gordon and Rees LLP, Michael J. Pietrykowski,
Gordon and Rees LLP & Glen R. Powell, Gordon and Rees LLP.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Francis D. Pond, Pond
North LLP, Gavin D. Whitis, Pond North LLP, Justin F. Cronin, Pond
North LLP & Kevin D. Jamison, Pond North LLP.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Francis D.
Pond, Pond North LLP, Gavin D. Whitis, Pond North LLP, Justin F.
Cronin, Pond North LLP & Kevin D. Jamison, Pond North LLP.

Honeywell International, Inc, Defendant, represented by Jessica
Thomas, McDermott Will and Emery LLP & Vandad Khosravirad,
McDermott Will and Emery LLP.

IMO Industries Co., Defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae Bailey,
Leader and Berkon LLP, Amy Zumsteg, Leader and Berkon LLP & Ketul
D. Patel, Leader and Berkon LLP.

Kelly Moore Paint Company, Defendant, represented by Barry R.
Schirm, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young LLP, Kimberly Erin
Marks Solomon, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young LLP & Bartek R.
Rejch, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young LLP.




                             *********


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. Agravante, 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  * * *