CAR_Public/171116.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


          Thursday, November 16, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 227



                            Headlines

48 SOUTH FOURTH: Violates Spread of Hours Provisions, Wright Says
191 SEVENTH AVENUE: Parties in "Zayas" Suit Reach Accord
1-800-FLOWERS: Conference in "Lopez" Suit Moved to Dec. 11
A+ TRAFFIC: "Martinez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime and Wages
ADVANCED LOGISTICS: "Garcia" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT under FLSA

AIR CONDITIONING EXPERTS: "Rapier" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
ALASKA USA: "Hicks" Suit Sues over Collection of Membership Dues
ALLIANZ LIFE: Faces "Berthiaume" Consumer Fraud Suit in Minn.
AMAZON.COM: "Waithaka" Suit Moved to Massachusetts Federal Court
AMAZON.COM.DEDC: Case Management Report Due Nov. 28 in "Mathis"

APEX TERMITE: "Silva" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA
ARTISAN CONSTRUCTION: LePort Sues for Not Paying Subcontractors
BALDWIN PARK: "Weinberg" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
BDR INC: "Meza" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
BEACON CBHM: "Lopez" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under Labor Code

BEAR STATE: "Owens" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Merger with Arvest Bank
BIG LOTS: Stores Not Accessible to Disabled, "Brito" Suit Says
BOAR'S HEAD: Case Management Conference Set for Nov. 28
CARBONLITE INDUSTRIES: Improperly Paid Workers, "Gallegos" Says
CARNEGIE VALET: Conference in "Diaz" Suit Moved to Nov. 21

COLLEGE OF MOUNT SAINT VINCENT: Faces "Delacruz" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
COURAGE TEAM: Chen Dismissed Suit over Minimum Wage & OT Pay
CRM PROPERTY: Bianchi Files Class Suit over Rental Fees
CSC SERVICE: Faces Parkville Realty Suit Over Washers' Admin. Fee
CSC SERVICEWORKS: Summit Gardens Sues over Breach of Lease

CSX INTERMODAL: Plaintiffs Can Pursue Wage Claims Individually
DA DEFENSE: "Ignelzi" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
DESH BANGLA: "Alam" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT under Labor Law
DYNAMIC DISTRIBUTION: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage & OT, Lopez Says
EARTH ISLAND: Abarca Sues over Inaccurate Wage Statements

EDGE PROPERTY: Fails to Pay Wages, "Grabias" Suit Says
EMPIRE PHARMACY: Violates California Labor Laws, Hollander Says
EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Bailey" Suit in S.D. West Virginia
EQUIFAX INC: Probe Finds Execs' $1.8MM Stock Sales Legal
ETERNAL INK: Whitcomb & Dzikowski Seek Unpaid Wages Under FLSA

EXPRESS PIPE: "Mortley" Suit Moved to C.D. California
FARMERS SERVICES: Web Site Not Friendly to Blind, Suit Claims
FAT SAL'S: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Ho" Suit Says
FERGUSON ENTERPRISES: Violates Fair Credit Reporting Act
FOGO DE CHAO: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, "Safi" Suit Says

GEM RECOVERY: Faces "Clyburn" Suit in District of New Jersey
GENERAL MOTORS: "Wolfe" Suit Consolidated with Case 17-12786
GENOCEA BIOSCIENCES: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action Suit
GOSCH IMPORTS: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug Files Class Action Lawsuit
HENDREN PLASTICS: Sen. Hendren Files Defamation Suit

HENRY SCHEIN: TCPA Suit Stayed Pending Resolution of 8th Cir. Case
HOMEAWAY.COM: "Meyer" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of California
HOST INTERNATIONAL: "Smith" Suit Moved to E.D. California
IQ DATA: "Buchwald" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of Florida
JAMES SWARTWOUT: Faces "Masiello" Suit in N.D. Ohio

LG ELECTRONICS: Smart TVs Lose Access to YouTube, Conn Claims
LOWE'S HOME: Violates Wage & Hour Laws, "Saenz" Suit Says
LUXOTTICA RETAIL: "Infante" Moved to Eastern District of New York
MARKHAM, IL: Class Takes on Chicago Suburb's Red-Light Cameras
MAXMAHAN COMPANY: "Cole" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA

MUNICIPAL WATER SAVINGS: Tuttle Sues over Savings Products
MZL ISLAND: "Lutfieva" Suit Seeks Wages under Labor Law
NATIONAL GENERAL: "Miller" Suit Goes to C.D. California
NAVIENT CORPORATION: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action
NEVADA: ACLU Accuses State of Denying Rural Defendants Due Process

NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: "Falk" Suit Goes to Mediation
NOBLE DISTRIBUTION: "Miller" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT & Minimum Wages
NOBLE HOUSE: "Holt" Suit Moved to Southern District of California
NOVAN INC: Jan. 2 Deadline to File Lead Plaintiff Bid
NOVAN INC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action Suit

ORBITAL ATK: "Cramer" Suit Balks at Merger Deal
P.S.C. INC: "Miller" Suit Moved to W.D. Washington
PEACHTREE ORTHOPEDIC: Hanover Insurance Sues over Data Breach
PG&E CORP: Woman Sues After Losing Napa Condo in Wildfire
PHILIPS AND PIONEER: Judge Signs Off $55.5MM Settlement

PROFESSIONAL PRODUCE: Fails to Pay Wages & OT, Franco Says
PSF TRUCKING: Faces "Pearson" Suit in California State Court
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: "Bennett" Suit Remains Stayed in New Jersey
RESIDENCE RESOURCE: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Suit Says
ROCKET FARMS: "Moreno" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code

SAVE-A-LOT INC: Sued by Wallace for Improperly Charging Drink Tax
SCOTIABANK PR: Maura et al. Sue over Foreclosures
SIXT RENT A CAR: Underpays Fleet Planners, "Russell" Suit Claims
SELENE FINANCE: "Werner" Suit Moved to S.D. New York
SJS ENTERPRISES: Bautista Seeks Minimum Wage, OT under Labor Code

SKECHERS USA: Dec. 22 Deadline to File Lead Plaintiff Bid
SOCAL REPRODUCTIVE CENTER: Faces "Thompson" Suit
SOUTH COAST TRANS: Fails to Pay Earned Wages, "Yoo" Suit Says
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS: Cost of 2015 Leak at $841MM and Counting
SPANISH BROADCASTING: Sends Spam Text Messages, Bugbee Claims

SUBWAY: Plaintiffs Abandon Footlong Sandwich Litigation
SUPAROSSA RESTAURANT: Heckl Sues over Biometric Data Collection
SYKES ENTERPRISES: "Rake" Suit Moved to Middle Dist. of Florida
TD BANK: "Lay" Suit Moved to Southern District of Florida
TERMINIX INT'L: "Renteria" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages

TESLA INC: Dec. 11 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
TEZOS ICO: CA Lawsuit Now Official, Tim Draper on Defensive
THERAPY SOURCE: Fails to Pay Full Commission to Sales Reps
TIM SCHAEFFER: Faces "Warid" Suit over Building Code Violation
TOYO INK: "Polino" Suit Goes to Mediation

TRINITY MANAGEMENT: Spiro & Kaplan Sue over Water Service Fees
TRINITY PRESS: "Mamary" Suit Claims Sexual Harassment
UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Grizzlies Owner Faces Questions Over Quick Rise
UNITED PRODUCTION: Orozco Seeks Minimum Wages under Labor Code
UNITED STATES: Civil Rights Groups Sue for Cambodian Refugees

UNITED STATES: Dingler Sue Appellate Court Judges
UNITED STATES: Judge Urged to Free Iraqi Detainees
UNITED STATES: Trump Rollback Spurs Suit by Princeton, Microsoft
VACO TECHNOLOGY: Misclassifies Employees, "Bush" Suit Says
VANTAGE SOURCING: Walker Sues over Debt Collection Practices

VEHI-SHIP LLC: "Mackey" Suit Seeks OT Pay under FLSA
WAL-MART STORES: "Beckman" Suit Moved to S.D. California
WHOLE FOODS: Sued by Thomas for Not Providing Seats to Checkers
YANKEE CANDLE: Faces "Davis" Suit in C.D. California
ZUFFA LLC: Has Until Dec. 15 to Respond to "Ferrandini" Suit






                            *********


48 SOUTH FOURTH: Violates Spread of Hours Provisions, Wright Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA WRIGHT, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. 48 SOUTH FOURTH STREET CORP. and DAVID ROSEN, Case No.
158805/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., October 3, 2017),
accuses the Defendants of violating the spread of hours provisions
of the New York Labor Law, the New York Codes, Rules and
Regulations and the Wage Theft Prevention Act.

48 South Fourth is a domestic business corporation, duly organized
and existing in the state of New York, with its principal place of
business located in Brooklyn, New York.  David Rosen is the owner
and operator of 48 South Fourth.  The Defendants are engaged in
the business of operating a bar known as The Woods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Blit, Esq.
          Justin S. Clark, Esq.
          LEVINE & BLIT, PLLC
          350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4020
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: (212) 967-3000
          E-mail: mblit@levineblit.com
                  jclark@levineblit.com


191 SEVENTH AVENUE: Parties in "Zayas" Suit Reach Accord
--------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the case titled as Edwin Zayas, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. 191
Seventh Avenue Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-06461-
AT, (S.D.N.Y., August 27, 2017), have advised the Court that all
claims asserted have been settled in principle.  Accordingly,
Judge Analisa Torres on Nov. 2 ordered that the action is
dismissed and discontinued without costs, and without prejudice to
the right to reopen the action within 30 days of the date of this
Order if the settlement is not consummated. Any pending motions
are moot. All conferences are vacated.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

James E. Bahamonde, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JAMES E. BAHAMONDE, PC
2501 Jody Court
North Bellmore, NY 11710
Telephone: (516) 783-9662
Facsimile: (646) 435-4376
Email: James@CivilRightsNY.com


1-800-FLOWERS: Conference in "Lopez" Suit Moved to Dec. 11
----------------------------------------------------------
Due to a change in the Court's calendar, the conference originally
scheduled before Judge Sandra Feuerstein on Nov. 20 is rescheduled
for Dec. 11 at 11:15 a.m., according to an Oct. 19 notice in the
case, Sheenny Lopez, on behalf of herself individually and on
behalf of all others similarly-situated, the Plaintiff, v. 1-800-
FLOWERS.COM, Inc. and 1-800-FLOWERS TEAM SERVICES, INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-05110-SJF-GRB, (E.D.N.Y., August 30,
2017).

On Sept. 29, an Answer to Complaint was filed by 1-800-Flowers
Team Services, Inc., and 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc.

The lawsuit seeks to recover from the defendants the unpaid
overtime compensation and liquidated damages.  The plaintiff
worked for defendants as an analyst from April 8, 2013 until
August 8, 2017.  The primary job duties of the plaintiff never
entailed decision-making as such were handled by defendants'
senior management. The plaintiff was hired as a salaried exempt
employee and paid an annual salary and was not eligible to receive
an overtime pay due to the misclassification.  Throughout the
plaintiff's employment she did not receive an overtime pay for
hours worked in excess of forty hours per week.  Further, 1-800-
Flowers did not provide the plaintiff with a wage notice at the
time of her hire that accurately contained the regular and
overtime rates of pay.

1-800-Flowers is a floral and gourmet foods retailer and
distribution company that primarily provides services in the
florist industry by selling floral arrangements and food items
throughout the United States.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


A+ TRAFFIC: "Martinez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime and Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Justin Martinez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated and as representative of other aggrieved
employees, the Plaintiff, v. A+ Traffic Management, Inc.; AAA
Traffic Management, LLC and Does 1 through 250, the Defendants,
Case No. BC679219, (Sup. Ct. Cal., October 11, 2017), alleges that
the defendants failed to compensate its staff for all overtime
hours worked in excess of eight hours per day or 40 hours per week
as required by the state's Labor Code.  The Defendant also failed
to maintain accurate payroll records as required by California
Labor Code as well as the Industrial Wage Orders; and required the
employees to use their personal cellular phones in carrying out
their duties for the employer but failed to reimburse or indemnify
the employees for necessary expenditures and losses.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

Gary R. Carlin, Esq.
Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq.
Laurel N. Haag, Esq.
Jean P. Buchanan, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM LLP
555 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 818
Long Beach, CA 90802
Telephone: (562) 432-8933
Facsimile: (562)435-1656
Email: gary@carlinbuchsbaum.com
Email: brent@carlinbuchsbaum.com
Email: laurel@carlinbuchsbaum.com
Email: jean@carlinbuchsbaum.com


ADVANCED LOGISTICS: "Garcia" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
RAFAEL GARCIA, on behalf of herself and similarly situated
employees, the Plaintiff, v. ADVANCED LOGISTICS MANAGEMENT INC.,
and BRIAN D. McGARY, the Defendants, Case No. CACE-17-020130 (Fla.
Cir. Ct., Nov. 3, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was and is a resident of
the State of Florida and was employed by Defendants. On many
occasions throughout his employment with Defendants, Garcia worked
in excess of 40 hours per week and was not paid overtime. During
the time that Garcia has been employed at Advanced he had been
improperly characterized as an independent contractor rather than
an employee so that Advanced could attempt to avoid complying with
Federal and state laws including, but not limited to the failure
to pay Federal payroll taxes and state unemployment taxes. During
Garcia's employment, he complained to her employer about the
illegal actions including the improper classification of his
employment.

Advanced Logistics provides real time integrated logistics
management information.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott M. Behren, Esq.
          Behren Law Firm
          2893 Executive Park Drive, Suite 110
          Weston, FL 33331
          Telephone: (954) 636 3802
          Facsimile: (772) 252 3365


AIR CONDITIONING EXPERTS: "Rapier" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
RANDALL RAPIER, on behalf of himself and others similarly-
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. AIR CONDITIONING EXPERTS, INC.,
CHRISTOPHER D. ALLEN, and HEATHER JANE PRESTON, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-04326-CAP (N.D. Ga., Oct 30, 2017), seeks to
recover unpaid wages and overtime under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Mr. Rapier files this complaint as a collective action pursuant to
29 U.S.C. section 216(b) on behalf of himself and other similarly-
situated individuals. Mr. Rapier's Consent to join form is filed
contemporaneously with this complaint. During each of the three
years preceding the filing of this complaint, ACE's gross annual
sales were greater than $500,000.  During each of the three years
preceding the filing of this complaint, ACE employed one or more
individuals who engaged in interstate commerce. The ACE employed
Mr. Rapier as a repair technician at its location in Tucker.

The Defendant is a Georgia corporation that provides residential
air conditioning repair and installation services throughout the
southeastern United States, including within the State of
Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALASKA USA: "Hicks" Suit Sues over Collection of Membership Dues
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER T. HICKS, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Alaska USA
Federal Credit Union; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. (S.D. Fla., Oct. 27, 2017), seeks damages, punitive
damages, restitution, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief
against Defendants for their unlawful practices of collecting
membership dues from individuals who never agreed to become
members of their Credit Union.

According to the complaint, Mr. Hicks purchased a vehicle from
South Bay Hyundai on July 10, 2017, for a total sale price of
$25,283.40. According to the sales contract's Federal Truth-In-
Lending Disclosures, $21,900.53 was financed at a 3.24% Annual
Percentage Rate, and Mr. Hicks will have paid a total of
$23,783.40, in addition to his down payment of $1,500.00. On July
17, 2017, Alaska USA purchased the loan from South Bay Hyundai.
Mr. Hicks did not have the opportunity to decline, negotiate, or
otherwise intervene in this transfer.

On July 21, 2017, Alaska USA sent Mr. Hicks a statement indicating
a loan balance of $21,905.53. On the statement was a $5.00 charge
identified as a "membership fee". This $5.00 was added to the
principle balance of Mr. Hicks' loan without his authorization or
even notification. Mr. Hicks did not apply for membership at
Alaska USA, did not consent to become a member of the credit
union, and per Alaska USA's membership web page, is not even
eligible for membership. Alaska USA regularly purchases loans from
originators and attaches membership fees to the principle balances
without the consent of debt holders Alaska USA.

Federal Credit Union is a federally chartered credit union
headquartered in Anchorage, Alaska that provides banking and
financial services and products, including loan servicing, to
consumers and businesses throughout the country, including in
California.[BN]

Attorneys for Christopher T. Hicks and the Putative Class:

          Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
          Katherine J. Odenbreit, Esq.
          Derek R. Guizado, Esq.
          MAHONEY LAW GROUP
          249 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone No.: (562) 590 5550
          Facsimile No.: (562) 590 8400
          E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
                  kodenbreit@mahoney-law.net
                  dguizado@mahoney-law.net


ALLIANZ LIFE: Faces "Berthiaume" Consumer Fraud Suit in Minn.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bonnie Berthiaume, Robert Berthiaume, Doris Burnham, Richard
Burnham, Nancy MayerGosz, Fletcher Lewis, and Carole Lewis v.
Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America and Imeriti, Inc.
d/b/a Imeriti Financial Network, Case No. 27-CV-17-15118 (Minn.
Dist. Ct., Hennepin Cty., October 3, 2017), is action filed over
consumer fraud, false statements in advertising, deceptive trade
practices, negligence, and aiding and abetting brought on behalf
of a class of similarly-situated policyholders, who purchased one
or more Allianz annuities through Allianz's and Imeriti's agent,
Sean M. Meadows.

Sean M. Meadows, a former financial adviser who stole over $10
million from his retirement-age clients, is now serving 25 years
in federal prison.  He was affiliated with Allianz and Imeriti,
which both had actual knowledge of Meadows' illegal and unethical
sales practices, failed to supervise him, willfully and
deliberately ignored numerous red flags, failed to warn their
customers of these red flags and sales practices, and assisted
Meadows by providing an aura of legitimacy for his actions, the
Plaintiffs contend.

Allianz is a Minnesota corporation with its executive offices
located in Minneapolis, Hennepin County, Minnesota.  Founded in
1969, Allianz sells fixed index, variable, and index variable
annuities, in addition to life insurance products in Minnesota and
across the United States.

Imeriti is a Minnesota corporation with its principal place of
business located in Monticello, Wright County, Minnesota.  Imeriti
is an Allianz independent marketing organization.  As an IMO,
Imeriti agreed to meet compliance and quality standards
established by Allianz.  Because Imeriti is an IMO, agents
associated with Imeriti receive higher commission percentages when
they sell Allianz products than they would without Imeriti.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Amy S. Conners, Esq.
          Jennifer L. Olson, Esq.
          Thomas B. Heffelfinger, Esq.
          BEST & FLANAGAN LLP
          60 South Sixth Street, Suite 2700
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 339-7121
          Facsimile: (612) 339-5897
          E-mail: theffelfinger@bestlaw.com
                  aconners@bestlaw.com
                  jolson@bestlaw.com


AMAZON.COM: "Waithaka" Suit Moved to Massachusetts Federal Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled BERNARD WAITHAKA; on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
AMAZON.COM, INC., AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
17-____, was removed on Oct. 27, 2017 from the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, Worcester County, to the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 4:17-cv-40141-TSH to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover all damages due to the Plaintiff
and other class members because of their misclassification as
independent contractors and related wage law violations, including
unpaid wages and unreimbursed business expenses, statutory
trebling of damages, attorneys' fees and costs and injunctive
relief for claims allegedly arising from Defendants' purported
misclassification of putative class members under the
Massachusetts Independent Contractor Law, Mass. Gen.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          Adelaide Pagano, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone (617) 994 5800

The Defendants are represented by:

          Douglas T. Schwarz, Esq.
          Elizabeth M. Bresnahan, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          One Federal Street
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 951 8000
          E-mail: douglas.schwarz@morganlewis.com
                  elizabeth.bresnahan@morganlewis.com


AMAZON.COM.DEDC: Case Management Report Due Nov. 28 in "Mathis"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James S. Moody, Jr. on Nov. 13 granted a Joint Motion for
Extension of Time for Parties to File Case Management Report in
the case, Michael A. Mathis, on behalf of himself and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Amazon.Com.DEDC,
LLC and Accurate Backgroud, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-
01991-JSM-AEP, (M.D. Fla., August 22, 2017).

The deadline to file the Case Management Report is extended to
Nov. 28.

The lawsuit seeks damages against the defendant for violations of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act.  The plaintiff alleges that he
applied for a seasonal position with Amazon using an online
application system.  Amazon offered plaintiff a position but was
contingent on a background check.  Amazon ordered a background
check on plaintiff from Accurate which the latter improperly
reported that the plaintiff had a pending possession of cocaine
charge.  Amazon informed the plaintiff about the misreported
criminal history and notified the plaintiff that the job offer was
rescinded.  The FCRA regulates the conduct of any person who uses
a consumer report to take any adverse action against any employees
or prospective employees.  Amazon routinely uses consumer reports
prepared by Accurate to make hiring decision and fails to provide
copies of consumer reports to job applicants against whom it takes
an adverse action based in whole or part on consumer reports
before taking an adverse action as required by the FCRA.

Amazon is an online commerce and cloud computing company that
markets its services throughout the United States.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

Steven G. Wenzel, Esq.
Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
Tampa, Florida 33602
Telephone: (813) 224-0431
Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
Email: swenzel@wfclaw.com
Email: bhill@wfclaw.com
Email: triciaw@wfclaw.com

     - and -

Craig C. Marchiando, Esq.
Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
Elizabeth W. Hanes, Esq.
CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Ste. 1-A
Newport News, VA 23601
Telephone: (757) 930-3660
Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
Email: lenbennett@clalegal.com
Email: craig@clalegal.com
Email: elizabeth@clalegal.com


APEX TERMITE: "Silva" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALFREDO JOSE CANIZARES SILVA, and other similarly situated
technicians, the Plaintiff, v. APEX TERMITE & PEST MANAGEMENT,
INC., a Florida Profit Corporation and LIEN ZAMORA, Individually,
the Defendants, Case No. 63409265 (in the Circuit Court of the
11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami Dade County, Florida, Oct.
27, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, an additional
equal amount as liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff performed approximately
18 hours of overtime each week for which Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiff at 1-1/2 times his regular rate of pay. The Plaintiff
was paid at approximately $11 an hour. The Defendants had or
should have had full knowledge of all hours worked by Plaintiff,
including those hours worked by Plaintiff in excess of 40 in a
given week. The Plaintiff's overtime rate is $16. The Plaintiff
seeks this rate for each of Plaintiffs approximate 18 hours of
overtime. As such Plaintiff is owed approximately $7,425.00 ($16.5
overtime rate x 18 hours of overtime x 25 weeks in un-liquidated
overtime wages). Therefore, Plaintiff is owed approximately
$7,425.00 in unpaid overtime wages, plus an additional equal
amount as liquidated damages, totaling $14,850.

Additionally, throughout Plaintiff's employment, Defendants
retained tips given to Plaintiff by customers for services
rendered. The Plaintiff seeks reimbursement of all unpaid tips.
The Plaintiff claims there are other similarly situated current
and former technicians working, or previously working, for
Defendants. The Plaintiff and other similarly-situated current and
former technicians performed similarly duties for Defendants and
were subject to similar policies as to compensation.

Apex Termite provides indoor and exterior treatments for both
residential and commercial customers designed to meet specific
pest control needs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason S. Remer, Esq.
          Brody M. Shulman, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416 5000
          Facsimile: (305) 4l6 5005
          E-mail: jremei-@rgpattorneys.com


ARTISAN CONSTRUCTION: LePort Sues for Not Paying Subcontractors
---------------------------------------------------------------
LEPORT BROOKLYN LLC v. ARTISAN CONSTRUCTION PARTNERS, LLC, JAMES
GALVIN, GARRET BRANAGH and JOHN DOES 1-10, being fictitious and
unknown persons, entities or parties, Case No. 519077/2017 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., October 3, 2017), is brought pursuant to the
Lien Law on behalf of the Plaintiff individually, and on behalf of
all other persons or entities, who are trust fund claimants by
reason of labor and materials furnished to Artisan in connection
with the LePort School Project and who have not been paid in full.

LePort Brooklyn LLC is a limited liability corporation in New York
and headquartered in Brooklyn, New York.  On December 8, 2014,
LePort, as owner, and Artisan, as general contractor, entered into
a contract whereby, in exchange for consideration to be paid to
Artisan by Leport, Artisan agreed to furnish labor and materials
to a project known as LePort School, located in Brooklyn.

Artisan is a New York limited liability corporation based in New
York City.  James Galvin was the President of Artisan and Garret
Branagh was the Chief Financial Officer.  In connection with the
LePort School Project, Artisan entered into subcontracts with
Aegis Mechanical Corp., Ground Effects Inc., Electrotech Services,
Inc., All Boro One Source and others.

Although Artisan received progress payments from LePort and
certified that all contractors and materialmen had been paid in
full for all labor and materials they supplied to the LePort
School Project, Artisan and its officers did not pay all laborers,
materialmen, subcontractors and vendors -- in breach of their
trust fund obligations, the Plaintiff alleges.  As a result,
LePort says, it had to pay the contract balances owed to Aegis,
Sound Effects, Electrotech and All Boro, as well as other
subcontractors, to ensure completion of the LePort School
Project.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert S. Moskow II, Esq.
          McELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP
          225 Liberty Street, 36th Floor
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 483-9490
          Facsimile: (212) 483-9129
          E-mail: rmoskow@mdmc-law.com


BALDWIN PARK: "Weinberg" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW WEINBERG, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BALDWIN PARK FITNESS, LLC,
an entity unknown; CHATSWORTH HEALTH FITNESS, LLC, an entity
unknown; and CHINO FITNESS, LLC, an entity unknown, the
Defendants, Case No. BC682204 (Cal. Super Ct., Nov. 2, 2017),
seeks to recover meal period and rest break wages, minimum and
overtime wages, unpaid commissions, and penalties, pursuant to the
California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants joint and severally acted
intentionally and with deliberate indifference and conscious
disregard to the rights of all employees in (failing to provide
meal periods and rest breaks, failing to pay all wages, including
minimum wages, overtime wages, and commissions, failing to provide
accurate wage statements, failing to pay all wages due and owing
upon termination of employment, and unfair business practices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth H. Yoon, Esq.
          Stephanie E. Yasuda, Esq.
          Brian G. Lee, Esq.
          YOON LAW, APC
          One Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2200
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 612 0988
          Facsimile: (213) 947 1211


BDR INC: "Meza" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
--------------------------------------------------------
JOSE MEZA, as an individual; SARIF VILLAGRANA, as an individual;
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
BDR, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1-99, Inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. BC 682415 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 3, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid wages under California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants systematically required
Plaintiffs and others similarly situated to work through meal
breaks without compensation. Defendants further failed to provide
second meal periods even when Plaintiffs worked in excess of ten
hours in a single day. The Defendants continually provided
Plaintiffs and others similarly situated with inaccurate itemized
time sheets. Time sheets Defendants provided to Plaintiffs did not
correctly reflect the hours Plaintiffs worked, including overtime
hours accrued.

BDR is a full-service construction management company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan J. Romero, Esq.
          ROMERO LAW, APC
          80 S. Lake Avenue, Suite 880
          Pasadena, CA 91101-2672
          Telephone: (626) 396 9900
          Facsimile: (626) 270 4045
          E-mail: firm@xomerolaw.com


BEACON CBHM: "Lopez" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under Labor Code
-------------------------------------------------------------
GRISELDA LOPEZ individually, and as a representative of other
aggrieved employees, the Plaintiff, v. BEACON CBHM LLC dba BEACON
HEALTH Corporation; and DOES 1 through 250, Inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. 30-2017-00953353 CIJ-OE-CJCC (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Nov. 2, 2017), seeks to recover overtime pay under California
Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other employees were
required to work for periods longer than five hours without an
uninterrupted meal period of not less than thirty minutes.  The
Plaintiff was not authorized or permitted lawful meal periods, and
was not provided with one hour's wages in lieu thereof in
violation of, among others, Labor Code. The Defendants willfully
required Plaintiff and other employees to work during meal periods
and failed to compensate Plaintiff and other employees for work
performed during meal periods.

Beacon Cbhm is in the management services business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary R. Carlin, Esq.
          Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq.
          Laurel N. Haag, Esq.
          Heather K. Cox, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM LLP
          555 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 818
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 432 8933
          Facsimile: (562) 435 1656
          E-mail: gctry@carlinbuchsbaum.com
                  brent@carlinbuchsbaum.com
                  laurel@carlinbuchsbaum.com
                  heather@carlinbuchsbaum.com


BEAR STATE: "Owens" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Merger with Arvest Bank
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES OWENS, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly
Situated v. RICHARD N. MASSEY, J. MATTHEW MACHEN, W. DABBS CA VIN,
WILLIAM CHANGOSE, K. AARON CLARK, FRANK CONNER, SCOTT T. FORD, G.
BROCK GEARHART, JOHN J. GHIRARDELLI, OMON FITZGERALD HILL, DANIEL
C. HORTON, IAN R. VAUGHAN, and BEAR STATE FINANCIAL HOLDINGS, LLC,
the Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00714-SWW (in the Circuit of
Pulaski County, Ark., Nov. 1, 2017), seeks to enjoin the
consummation of a proposed merger transaction or, in the event the
proposed transaction is consummated, to recover damages resulting
from the Defendants' violations of their fiduciary duties of
loyalty, good faith and due care.

The Plaintiff brings the action individually and on behalf of
similarly situated holders of the common stock of Bear State
Financial, Inc., against the directors and certain officers of
Bear State for breaching their fiduciary duties in connection with
a proposed merger transaction by which Arvest Bank, through its
wholly owned subsidiary Arvest Acquisition Sub, Inc., will acquire
all of the outstanding stock of Bear State for inadequate
consideration.

The Plaintiff also asserts a claim against Richard N. Massey, Bear
State's Chairman of the Board, and his affiliated entity Bear
State Financial Holdings, LLC, for breaching their fiduciary
duties in their capacities as controlling shareholders of the
Company.

On August 22, 2017, Bear State and Arvest jointly issued a press
release announcing that they had entered into a definitive
Agreement and Plan of Reorganization pursuant to which Arvest will
acquire Bear State in a transaction valued at approximately $391
million in the aggregate. On August 25, Bear State filed a Form 8-
K with the SEC wherein it disclosed the terms of the Merger
Agreement. Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will merge
with and into Bear State, with Bear State surviving the merger as
a wholly owned subsidiary of Arvest. According to Bear State's
Form 8-K, at the effective time of the merger, each share of Bear
State common stock will be converted into the right to receive
$10.28 in cash per share.

The Complaint notes that, like many financial institutions, Bear
State has been making steady progress in recovering from the
financial crisis of 2008, before which its stock was trading at
more than $50 per share. By 2014, Bear State had improved its
balance sheet, steadily improved its regulatory capital
requirements, and improved the quality of its loan portfolio under
a more rigorous practice of proactive credit risk management. As
Bear State confirmed in its most recent financial results, the
Company's core profitability continues to improve.  Bear State is
poised for strong growth and its solid balance sheet gives the
Company an opportunity for further internal expansion and the
exploration of acquisition opportunities. Thus, the Merger
Consideration being offered to Bear State's public shareholders in
the Proposed Transaction is unfair and grossly inadequate because,
among other things, the intrinsic value of Bear State common stock
is materially in excess of the Merger Consideration given the
Company's recent financial performance and its prospects for
future growth and earnings.

The lawsuit notes that insiders and affiliates of Bear State own
approximately 45.73% of the Company's outstanding common stock.
Chairman Massey has sole voting and dispositive control over
approximately 42.35% of the outstanding stock of Bear State.
Individual Defendant Massey's control of these shares primarily
derives from his position as the managing member of BSF Holdings,
which owns 40.28% of the Company's outstanding common stock. Bear
State director William Changose is a member of and serves as Chief
Operating Officer of BSF Holdings. Bear State directors Scott Ford
and Dabbs Cavin and certain officers of the Company, including
Matt Machen, Sherri Billings, Tom Fritsche, Shelly Loftin, Donna
Merriweather, Yurik Paroubek and Paul Lowe are also members of BSF
Holdings.

BSF Holdings and Richard N. Massey have each entered into voting
agreements with Arvest and agreed to vote in favor of the Proposed
Transaction. In light of Massey's significant stock ownership and
position as Chairman of the Board and managing member of BSF
Holdings, Massey and BSF Holdings are controlling shareholders of
Bear State.

According to the lawsuit, Massey and BSF Holdings owe fiduciary
duties to the Company's remaining shareholders in their capacity
as controlling shareholders of the Company, which they have
breached by agreeing to the Proposed Transaction for the unfair
Merger Consideration. Further, because Individual Defendant Massey
(who has the sole power to vote and dispose of BSF Holdings'
shares in the Company) and the other Individual Defendants who
hold leadership positions at BSF Holdings (Messrs. Machen,
Changose, Ford, and Cavin) each stand to receive personal, unique
financial benefits in connection with the Proposed Transaction,
including the accelerated vesting of outstanding restricted stock
units ("RSUs"), options, and warrants and/or other significant
"change in control" payments, the Proposed Transaction is subject
to the exacting entire fairness standard of review, which requires
Defendants to establish that the Proposed Transaction was the
result of an entirely fair process and resulted in a fair price.
As set
forth herein, both the Merger Consideration and the process by
which the Defendants have agreed to consummate the Proposed
Transaction are unfair to the Company's remaining
shareholders.

The lawsuit contends that, to ensure that the Proposed Transaction
is consummated, the Individual Defendants locked up the deal by
agreeing to unfair "deal-protection" provisions in the Merger
Agreement, effectively rendering the Proposed Transaction a fait
accompli. For example, the Board agreed to: (i) a "no-shop"
provision that prevents the Company from negotiating with or
providing confidential Company information to competing bidders
except under extremely limited circumstances; (ii) a "matching
rights" provision that allows Arvest five (5) business days to
match any competing proposal in the unlikely event that one
emerges; and (iii) a $14 million termination fee to be paid to
Arvest if the Board agrees to accept a competing proposal. In
pursuing the unfair plan to facilitate the acquisition of Bear
State by Arvest for grossly inadequate consideration, through a
flawed process, each of the Individual Defendants violated
applicable law by directly breaching and/or aiding the other
Individual Defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties of
loyalty, due care, independence, good faith and fair dealing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Isl Bryce Brewer, Esq.
          BRYCE BREWER LAW FIRM, LLC
          800 West 4th Street
          North Little Rock, AR 72114
          Telephone: (501) 978 3030
          Facsimile: (501) 978 3050
          E-mail: bryce@brycebrewerlaw.com

               - and -

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
          350 Fifth A venue, Suite 4405
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: (212) 971 1341
          Facsimile: (212) 202 7880

               - and -

          Guri Ademi, Esq.
          Shpetim Ademi
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Ave.
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482 8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482 8001


BIG LOTS: Stores Not Accessible to Disabled, "Brito" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos G. Brito, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated mobility-impaired individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Big Lots
Stores, Inc., an Ohio Corporation doing business as Big Logs at
Chelton Center, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02052, (D. Colo.,
August 25, 2017), seeks injunctive relief, declaration of rights,
attorneys' fees, litigation expenses and costs for defendant's
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The plaintiff's complaint alleges that the defendant continues to
discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block
them from access and use of defendant's Big Lots Property and
Business. Plaintiff is an individual with disabilities as defined
by and pursuant to the ADA.  The plaintiff visited the Big Lots
Property and Business and encountered multiple violations of the
ADA that directly affected his ability to use and enjoy the Big
Lots Property and Business.  Plaintiff is an individual with
disabilities as defined by and pursuant to the ADA.  The plaintiff
encountered architectural barriers at the subject Big Lots
Property and Business and wishes to continue his patronage and use
of the premises in the near future.  The defendant has
discriminated against the individual plaintiff and other similarly
situated persons by denying access to and full and equal enjoyment
of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and
accommodations of the property. Hence, the plaintiff brings the
class suit to require the defendant to make reasonable
modifications in policies, practices or procedures necessary to
afford all offered goods, services, facilities, privileges,
advantages or accommodations to individuals with disabilities.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

Anthony J. Perez, Esq.
Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, Esq.
GARCIA-MENOCAL, & PEREZ, P.L.
4937 SW 74th Court, No. 3
Miami, FL 33155
Telephone: (305) 553-3464
Facsimile: (305) 553-3031
Email: ajperezlaw@gmail.com
Email: agmlaw@bellsouth.net
Email: mpomares@lawgmp.com


BOAR'S HEAD: Case Management Conference Set for Nov. 28
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Theresa Forsher, individually and on behalf of all
others similary situated, the Plaintiff, v. Boar's Head Provisions
Co., Inc. the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-04974-EDL, (N.D. Cal.,
August 25, 2017), a Case Management Statement is due by Nov. 21,
and an Initial Case Management Conference is set for Nov. 28 at
10:00 a.m.

The class action lawsuit alleges that the defendant deceptively
and misleadingly marketed and continues to deceptively and
misleadingly market certain of its cheese products as natural when
in fact the products contain ingredients derived from using
unnaturally genetically modified organisms. Defendant's labeling,
marketing and advertising for the products was designed to
encourage consumers to purchase the said products and it
materially mislead the plaintiff and other similarly situated
consumers.  The plaintiff and other similarly situated consumers
relied on the defendant's misrepresentations since consumers rely
on food label representations and information in making purchasing
decisions and that wrongful conduct of the defendant caused the
plaintiff and other consumers injuries.

Boar's Head produces and distributes meats, cheeses and condiments
to delicatessens, gourmet stores and supermarkets throughout the
United States.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

Michael R. Reese, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
New York, New York 10025
Telephone: (212) 643-0500
Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
Email: mreese@reesellp.com

     - and -

Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
Christopher J. Moreland, Esq.
HALUNEN LAW
1650 IDS Center
80 South Eight Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 605-4098
Facsimile: (612) 605-4099
Email: weiner@halunenlaw.com
Email: moreland@halunenlaw.com


CARBONLITE INDUSTRIES: Improperly Paid Workers, "Gallegos" Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT GALLEGOS, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated v. CARBONLITE INDUSTRIES,
LLC, an unknown business entity; BBSI, an unknown business entity;
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC678134 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Los Angeles Cty., October 3, 2017), alleges that the
Defendants hired the Plaintiff and the 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 rest breaks.

CarbonLite Industries LLC, a recycling company, produces and
markets bottle-grade post-consumer recycled polyethylene
terephthalate.  The Company specializes in processing used plastic
bottles into bottle-grade PET resin flakes and pellets that are
used to manufacture new plastic beverage bottles and other
products.  The Company was incorporated in 2010 and is based in
Los Angeles, California.  CarbonLite operates as a subsidiary of
HPC Industries, LLC.  The true names and capacities of BBSI and
the Doe Defendants are unknown to the Plaintiff.[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
          E-mail: edwin@lfjpc.com


CARNEGIE VALET: Conference in "Diaz" Suit Moved to Nov. 21
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge J. Paul Oetken entered an Order dated Oct. 26 granting a
Letter Motion that adjourns the conference scheduled for Nov. 9 to
Nov. 21 at 10:15 a.m., in the case, Juan Diaz on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Carnegie
Valet Cleaning Corp.; Carnegie Linen Services, Inc.; Carnegie
Hotel Cleaners Ltd.; Danielle Uniform Maintenance Inc.; Gary
Perlson and Eric Schweitzer, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
06402-JPO, (S.D.N.Y., August 22, 2017).

The plaintiff alleges in his complaint that he was employed by
Carnegie Valet where he laundered restaurant linens and uniforms.
Defendants misclassified the plaintiff and others similarly
situated employees as exempt from the overtime protections of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Laws.  The
employees of the defendants were illegally underpaid for their
work by reason of defendants' persistent and willful violations of
the FLSA and the NYLL. Defendants' violations of the FLSA and NYLL
are by not paying employees their time-and-a-half for time worked
in excess of 40 hours each week, by not paying employees one
additional hour of pay at the basic minimum hourly rate on days
when their spread of hours exceeded to ten, by not providing
employees within ten business days of the commencement of their
employment a written notice in English and Spanish and by not
providing employees with every payment of wages an accurate
statements.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COLLEGE OF MOUNT SAINT VINCENT: Faces "Delacruz" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The College of Mount
Saint Vincent. The case is captioned as Emanuel Delacruz, on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
The College of Mount Saint Vincent, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-
cv-08206-KPF (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 24, 2017). The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Katherine Polk Failla.

The College of Mount Saint Vincent is a Catholic liberal arts
college located in the northwest corner of the Riverdale section
of The Bronx, New York, adjacent to the Yonkers border. It is the
northernmost location in New York City.[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


COURAGE TEAM: Chen Dismissed Suit over Minimum Wage & OT Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr on Nov. 9 approved the Plaintiff's
Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of the case, Shou Le Chen and John
Doe, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated persons,
the Plaintiff, v. Courage Team Inc., doing business as Pig Haven
and Huifong Lee, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-06365-ALC,
(S.D.N.Y., August 22, 2017).  The lawsuit seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wage, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees and costs for defendants' violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

In the complaint, the plaintiff states that throughout his entire
employment as a delivery person with defendants, he regularly
worked over 40 hours per week and was required to work without any
lunch break on a daily basis. The plaintiff was compensated a
fixed salary and there was never any understanding that the fixed
daily salaries were intended to cover any overtime hours worked.
The fixed salary amounted to regular rates below the prevailing
statutory minimum wage under the FLSA and NYLL. The defendants
failed to pay the proper overtime compensation in violation of the
FLSA and NYLL. Further, the defendants did not provide with a
proper wage and hour notices or wage statements as required by
NYLL.  The defendants knowingly and willfully operated their
business with a policy of not paying either the FLSA minimum wage
or the New York State minimum wage to the plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees.[BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


CRM PROPERTY: Bianchi Files Class Suit over Rental Fees
-------------------------------------------------------
Leah Bianchi, Joshua Cook, Sarah Cook and Phillip Sandy, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs,
v. CRM Property Management Corp. and Imstar LLC, the Defendants,
Case No. 17-3266C, (Trial Court of Massachusetts The Superior
Court, October 11, 2017), seeks damages for defendants violations
of the Massachusetts General Laws.

The plaintiffs state that they leased premises from Imstar through
CRM. Imstar has been the owner and landlord of the property and
contracted the services of CRM to manage the property.  The
lawsuit says Imstar and CRM have failed to notify all their
tenants of the amount of interest accrued on advance rental
payments.  Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws, residential
lessors like Imstar and CRM are required to pay to Massachusetts
tenants' interest on advance rent payments such as a last month's
rent. Defendants' failure to provide tenants, such as Plaintiffs,
payment of interest on advance rental payments, such as the Last
Month Rent paid by Plaintiffs, constitutes a violation of M.G.L.

The lawsuit alleges against the defendant claims of breach of
contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing
and unjust enrichment.

CRM is a property management company that provides property
management services for residential and commercial properties in
Boston and the Greater Boston Area.[BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

Travis J. Jacobs, Esq.
Michael Kurban, Esq.
THE JACOBS LAW, LLC
36 Bromfield Street, Suite 502
Boston, MA 02108
Telephone: (800) 652-4783
Facsimile: (888) 613-1919
Email: TJacobs@TheJacobsLaw.com
Email: MKurban@TheJacobsLaw.com

     - and -

Michael S. Denham, Esq.
PO Box 1606
Framingham, MA 01701
Telephone: (617) 651-2171
Email: michael@denham-law.com


CSC SERVICE: Faces Parkville Realty Suit Over Washers' Admin. Fee
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PARKVILLE REALTY ASSOCIATES, LLC, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. CSC SERVICE WORKS, INC., Case No.
607833/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., October 3, 2017), accuses
the Defendant of breach of contract.

In March 2012, the Plaintiff and Service Directions, Inc., entered
into a lease agreement for a term of eight years permitting
Service Directions to install, maintain and operate washers and
dryers on the premises of a residential apartment building located
in Brooklyn, New York, which is owned and operated by the
Plaintiff.

The agreement further provided, inter alia, that the parties would
split the (laundry) revenues each month on a 50/50 basis.  In
2014, CSC purchased the assets of or otherwise merged with Service
Directions with CSC as the surviving corporation.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Plaintiff contends, commencing
in May 2017, CSC commenced deducting what it termed an
"Administrative Fee" from the commission revenue due to the
Plaintiff and all other Class Members.  The Plaintiff argues that
CSC's actions constitute a breach of contract since such fees are
not provided for in its agreements, expressly or impliedly.

CSC Service Works, Inc., is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the state of Delaware with offices located in
Plainview, New York.  CSC is a company engaged in the business of,
inter alia, providing laundry solutions for multifamily,
residential and commercial industries as well as vending services
for convenience stores and gasoline stations.  CSC does business
under various names or otherwise has numerous affiliates engaged
in the same laundry solutions business.  These include ASI Campus
Laundry; Coinmach; Kwik-Wash; Mac-Gray; SDI Laundry Solutions;
Sparkle Solutions and Super Laundry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth A. Elan, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH A. ELAN
          217 Broadway, Suite 603
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 619-0261
          Facsimile: (212) 271-4230
          E-mail: elanfirm@yahoo.com


CSC SERVICEWORKS: Summit Gardens Sues over Breach of Lease
----------------------------------------------------------
SUMMIT GARDENS ASSOCIATES ET AL and SUNNYSLOPE INVESTMENTS NO. 1,
LTD., the Plaintiffs, v. CSC SERVICEWORKS, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. CV 17 888502 (Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County,
Ohio, Nov. 3, 2017), alleges that CSC is charging Plaintiffs and
all others similarly situated an additional fee in breach of the
lease agreements governing the subject transactions. CSC leases
space from owners of apartment buildings and other small business
entities like Plaintiffs for the installation and operation of
coin- and/or card-operated laundry equipment. In exchange, CSC
pays Plaintiffs and its other lessors a portion of the collections
from the laundry machines as rent.

Beginning in May 2017, CSC began unilaterally imposing a new
"Administrative Fee" upon Plaintiffs and its other lessors, which
CSC unilaterally deducted from its rental payments to Plaintiffs
and its other lessors. This fee was not authorized anywhere in the
standard laundry room leases that CSC entered into with its
lessors.

Since 2013, CSC has been providing multifamily residential and
commercial laundry solutions nationwide. CSC's laundry solutions
consist of, among other things, leasing laundry room space in
apartment buildings, college housing, and other locations from
business owners like Plaintiffs to install laundry equipment for
the use of the tenants in those locations.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Patrick J. Perotti, Esq.
          Nicole T. Fiorelli, Esq.
          Frank A. Bartela, Esq.
          DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., L.P.A.
          60 South Park Place
          Painesville, OH 44077
          Telephone: (440) 352 3391
          Facsimile: (440) 352 3469
          E-mail: pperotti@dworkenlaw.com
                  nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com
                  fbartela@dworkenlaw.com

               - and -

          Ronald P. Friedberg, Esq.
          MEYERS, ROMAN, FRIEDBERG & LEWIS
          28601 Chagrin Boulevard, Suite 500
          Cleveland, OH 44122
          Telephone: (216) 831 0042
          Facsimile: (216) 831 0542
          E-mail: rfriedberg@meyersroman.com


CSX INTERMODAL: Plaintiffs Can Pursue Wage Claims Individually
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for California Labor Law News, reports that a
California wage and hour lawsuit that was originally put forward
as a class action has been amended to allow class participants the
opportunity to pursue their wage and hour claims individually. To
that end, all class claims associated with the plaintiffs' fourth
amended complaint have been stricken, following approval by US
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte earlier this month.

The original wage and hour complaint against defendant CSX
Intermodal Terminals Inc. (CSX) accused the company of incorrectly
classifying drivers as independent contractors when they were
rightly employees of the firm, or so the plaintiffs alleged. As a
result, plaintiffs allege they were denied meal and rest breaks,
denied pay that reflected proper minimum wage levels, denied
reimbursement for work-related expenses including insurance costs,
fuel and maintenance, and together with other rights guaranteed to
employees under California employment law.

CSX, according to Court documents, is a provider of freight
transport via trucks as well as rail. Drivers were hired to
operate trucks that pulled CSX trailers laden with freight between
rail yards and clients of CSX.

The wage and hour lawsuit is Valadez, et al. v. CSX Intermodal
Terminals Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-05433. As suggested above the
lawsuit was originally proposed as a class action until plaintiffs
decided to amend their suit, with the support of the Court.

At the same time, an additional wage and hour lawsuit has been
filed (Goyal, et al., v. CSX Intermodal Terminals Inc., Case No.
4:17-cv-06081), alleging similar claims to that of Valadez, et al
v. CSX. According to Law360 (10/27/17), the Goyal complaint has
been filed on behalf of some 30 drivers with another 25 expected
to be added in the coming weeks. It was reported that Goyal et al
drivers were originally members of the Valadez class, although
none participated as named plaintiffs.

Goyal et al has been put forward itself as a proposed class action
with about 90 class participants expected.

The six named drivers in Valadez v. CSX abandoned all of their
original class claims against the defendant, with one exception:
claim for penalties under the California Private Attorneys General
Act, which seeks relief on behalf of employees who were allegedly
harmed by CSX.

Amongst claims made against CSX by Goyal et al is an assertion of
a pre-existing agreement between CSX and drivers stipulating that
drivers had the right to refuse assignments.

The Goyal et al lawsuit, however, claims that drivers who
attempted to refuse assignments did not receive alternate
assignments. Some drivers, the lawsuit asserts, were not offered
replacement assignments for two, or more working days.

On occasion, a driver who rejected a CSX assignment would be fired
by the company, or so it is alleged.

According to the wage and hour lawyer for the plaintiffs, the
defendant moved to terminate the contracts of all affected drivers
in September of last year, and now reportedly uses a third-party
for driving services originally undertaken by both the Valadez and
Goyal drivers.

Both cases were filed in US District Court for the Northern
District of California. [GN]


DA DEFENSE: "Ignelzi" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARCELO A. IGNELZI, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. DA DEFENSE LOGISTICS HQ, LLC, a Texas
limited liability company; and DOES I through 50, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. 17CV318170 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 26, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid wages under California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have failed to provide him
and all other similarly situated individuals with meal periods;
failed to provide them with rest periods; failed to pay them
premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods; failed to pay
them premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods at the
regular rate of pay; failed to pay them at least minimum wage for
all hours worked; failed to pay them overtime wages at the correct
rate; failed to pay them double time wages at the correct rate;
failed to reimburse them for all necessary business expenses;
failed to provide them with accurate written wage statements; and
failed to pay them all of their final wages following separation
of employment.

DA Defense provides logistic services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DESH BANGLA: "Alam" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT under Labor Law
---------------------------------------------------------------
MD Nurul Alam, on behalf of himself and all persons similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Desh Bangla Inc.; The Bangla Times
Inc.; and Choudhury S. Hasan, the Defendants, Case No. 714912/2017
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., Oct. 25, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages,
including unpaid minimum wages, overtime pay and spread of hours
pay, and an additional and equal amount as liquidated damages
pursuant to the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants employed MD Nurul Alam
for two roles.  One role was being a salesman, which involved
working on customer accounts. As a salesman, he was responsible
for marketing, advertising, accounts receivables, and soliciting
new business. The other role was being a delivery man. As a
deliveryman, he was responsible for delivering newspapers.

According to the complaint, Mr. Alam was a loyal and dedicated
employee, working over 50 hours a week, six days a week for most
of the weeks he was employed by Defendants. As compensation,
Defendants provided a fixed weekly payment that did not compensate
him in accordance with the requirements of the wage and hour laws.
Separate from this weekly payment, at the time the Individual
Defendant hired Plaintiff, the Individual Defendant promised
Plaintiff that he would receive an additional payment at the end
of the year, calculated at $200 per week for each week he was
delivering newspapers. Plaintiff has made repeated demands for
payment but has not been paid as promised.

A comparison of the wages the Employer has paid to the Plaintiff
against the wages that were due under federal and state wage-and-
hour laws, specifically, (i) the New York State mandated minimum
wage; (ii) the New York State mandated overtime wage; and (iii)
the New York State required spread of hours laws, reveals that
this Plaintiff has been grossly underpaid. In addition to bringing
claims for violation of the wage and hour laws on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff brings an
individual claim for violation of federal, state and city
discrimination laws.

In May 2016, Plaintiff suffered an on-the-job injury; a left
Achilles tendon rupture for which he required surgery. (A worker's
compensation claim was filed and the matter is ongoing in front of
the worker's compensation board.) Plaintiff was out of work for
approximately two months. When Plaintiff returned to work in
August 2016, he resumed his normal duties, except he no longer
delivered newspapers as doctors had advised that the injuries he
suffered left him in a condition that could not sustain the
physical demands that came with delivering newspapers for his
Employer. Defendants made no efforts to accommodate this
disability.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
          27005 79th Avenue
          New Hyde Park, NY 11040-1546
          Telephone: (718) 669 0714
          E-mail: mgangat107@gmail.com


DYNAMIC DISTRIBUTION: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage & OT, Lopez Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JULIO CESAR LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DYNAMIC DISTRIBUTION
AND WAREHOUSING INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. BC682l78 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 2, 2017),
seeks to recover minimum wage and unpaid overtime under California
Labor Code.

According to the Plaintiff, there were times during his employment
that Plaintiff was told by management he was not permitted to take
a meal break. Plaintiff estimates this occurred 1-2 times per
week, however, Dynamic Distribution would deduct 30 minutes from
employees' time records indicated a break had been taken when it
had riot.  Dynamic Distribution's policy was to automatically
deduct 30-minute meal periods whether or not employees actually
were able to take them. When employees were required to use
handwritten time cards, they were instructed to insert a 30-minute
meal period even if one was not actually taken. When there was an
"urgent" order or when a container arrived at the facility,
warehouse employees were told not to take any breaks or required
to postpone their meal break which resulted in not being provided
a meal break until after the fifth hour of work. The Plaintiff and
other warehouse workers were not paid for time worked during
recorded meal periods and were not paid premium pay for meal and
rest breaks not provided.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
          Katherine J. Odenbreit, Esq.
          Derek R. Guizado, 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: kmahonev@mahoney-law.net
                  kodenbreit@mahonev-law.net
                  dguizado@mahonev-law.net


EARTH ISLAND: Abarca Sues over Inaccurate Wage Statements
---------------------------------------------------------
ALFRED ABARCA; individually, and on behalf of members of the
general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. EARTH ISLAND,
a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. BC681764 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 1, 2017),
seeks to recover statutory wages, civil penalties, interest, and
other damage.

According to the complaint, despite requesting that Plaintiff and
the other class members sign one of the Releases, Defendants did
not make a reasonable inquiry as to how many overtime hours
Plaintiff or the other employees worked for Defendants, how many
meal or rest breaks they "missed," how many hours they worked off
the clock, how many inaccurate wage statements they received,
whether their final paycheck was provided timely, how much in
necessary business-related expenses remained unpaid by Defendants,
and/or whether they received minimum wages for all hours worked.
Despite requesting that Plaintiff and other employees to sign a
Release, Defendants did not make a reasonable inquiry into the job
duties that Plaintiff or the other class members performed or the
amount of time each day that they performed those job duties.
Defendants did not provide a basis for the amount of compensation
Plaintiff or the other class members would receive nor did they
make reasonable efforts to determine what was owed to Plaintiff or
the other class members.[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


EDGE PROPERTY: Fails to Pay Wages, "Grabias" Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------
BOGDAN GRABIAS (on behalf of himself and other workmen similarly
situated), the Plaintiff, v. EDGE PROPERTY MAINTENANCE INC., AB
CONTRACTING LLC, ANDREW BIZUB, FIRST INDEMNITY OF AMERICA
INSURANCE COMPANY, JOHN DOES 1 through 100 And XYZ CORORATIONS 1
through 100, (fictitious names), the Defendants, Case No.1-7698-17
(N.J. Super. Ct., Oct 30, 2017), demands judgment against the
defendants for damages, interest, attorney's fees and costs.

This action is brought in part pursuant to the provisions of the
New Jersey Prevailing Wage Act, which allows a private right of
action by plaintiff on behalf of himself and other workmen
similarly situated to recover the full amount of the prevailing
wage owed to them. Inasmuch as plaintiff and other workmen
similarly situate were paid less than the prevailing wage on the
public works projects on which they were employed, plaintiff and
others are entitled to recover the difference between the
prevailing wage and that which they were actually paid, together
with costs and reasonable attorney's fees as may be allowed by the
court.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard A. Vrhovc, Esq.
          719 Van Houten Ave.
          Clifton, NJ 07013
          Telephone: (973) 779 2001


EMPIRE PHARMACY: Violates California Labor Laws, Hollander Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
E. Hollander, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Empire Pharmacy Consultants LLC and
Does 1 through 50, the Defendant, Case No. BC679107, (Cal. Sup.
Ct., October 11, 2017), alleges that the defendant failed to
provide its Pharmacist employees meal breaks, rest breaks, and pay
stubs; reimburse necessary expenses; and provide employment
records upon request.  The plaintiff states that he was able to
eat a meal but could not leave the pharmacy and was required to
assist customers and answer any questions at the same time.  The
Defendant failed to timely compensate plaintiff and other
similarly situated Pharmacists for all outstanding wages owing
twice per month, and did not provide wage statements with required
information, including but not limited to, hours worked, the
inclusive dates of the pay period, employee identification number
or last four digits of his social security number and all
applicable rates of pay.

Plaintiff says he will amend the complaint to assert a claim for
relief under the Private Attorneys General Act for
misclassification as independent contractors, failure to provide
sick leave and failure to timely pay earned wages.

Empire Pharmacy Consultants is a Florida Limited Liability Company
which is a labor contractor that supplies staff pharmacists to
various pharmacies in the Los Angeles area.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

Alan Harris, Esq.
Priya Mohan, Esq.
MinJi Gal, Esq.
HARRIS & RUBLE
655 North Central Avenue 17th Floor
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: 323.962.3777
Facsimile: 323.962.3004
Email: harrisa@harrisandruble.com
Email: pmohan@harrisandruble.com
Email: mgal@harrisandruble.com


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Bailey" Suit in S.D. West Virginia
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Inc. The
case is captioned as Ryan Bailey, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff v. Equifax Inc. and
Equifax Information Services, LLC, Case No. 3:17-cv-04211
(S.D.W.Va., Oct. 24, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Robert C. Chambers.

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:

          Charles Edward Amos, II, Esq.
          Jason P. Foster, Esq.
          Scott S. Segal, Esq.
          THE SEGAL LAW FIRM
          810 Kanawha Boulevard, East
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 344 9100
          Facsimile: (304) 344 9105
          E-mail: edward.amos@segal-law.com
                  jason.foster@segal-law.com
                  scott.segal@segal-law.com

               - and -

          Kevin Sharp, Esq.
          SANFORD HEISLER SHARP
          611 Commerce St., Suite 3100
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 434 7001
          Facsimile: (615) 434 7020


EQUIFAX INC: Probe Finds Execs' $1.8MM Stock Sales Legal
--------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Tribune reports that Equifax, the credit report company
hacked over the summer exposing the personal information of 145
million Americans, said a special committee has determined that
none of the four executives who sold shares at the time did
anything wrong.

The high-level executives sold shares worth a combined $1.8
million in the days immediately after the company discovered the
breach.

When Equifax went public with the breach in early September,
company shares cratered, erasing about $2.35 billion of its market
value.

The company revealed that an ongoing cyberattack lasted from mid-
May to July. Equifax Inc. said it detected the hack on July 29.

On Aug. 1 and Aug. 2, Equifax Chief Financial Officer John Gamble
and three other executives sold a combined $1.8 million in stock.

The company said on November 3 that a special committee comprised
of independent directors, and advised by an independent counsel,
found that none of the executives had knowledge of the breach when
their trades were made.

The committee's review included dozens of interviews and the
scouring of more than 55,000 documents including emails, text
messages, phone logs and other records.

The report on November 3 is unlikely to relieve pressure on the
beleaguered company, which badly bungled the response to the hack.

Investigators will want to know how a breach of this size and
scope could have occurred, without the knowledge of some of the
company's highest executives.

Faith in the leadership and the security of private information
eroded in the weeks after the attack.

Anxious consumers experienced jammed phone lines and clueless
company representatives. An Equifax website set up to help people
determine their exposure was described as sketchy by security
experts. The site provided inconsistent and unhelpful information
to many. The company blamed the problems of an online customer
help page on a vendor's software code after it appeared that it
had been hacked as well.

High-level executives, including CEO Richard Smith, have already
stepped down.

The internal report did not appear to ease the apprehension of
those who hold company stock. Shares were essentially flat on
Friday.

That's because it is the Securities and Exchange Commission, the
federal agency that enforces securities laws, which will have the
final say.

SEC Chairman Jay Clayton has refused to comment when asked by
lawmakers if executives at Equifax engaged in insider trading when
they sold their shares. He has not confirmed or denied that the
SEC is investigating.

Smith, the former Equifax CEO, appeared before Congress to answer
questions from lawmakers, but they were far from satisfied with
the answers they received.

The Atlanta company is under multiple state and federal
investigations and has been sued by numerous customers in
litigation likely to evolve into class-action lawsuits.

What makes the data breach so dangerous is the information that
Equifax holds. Social security numbers, identification, addresses
and personal information held by Equifax and the two other, major
credit agencies is used to determine a person's creditworthiness.
[GN]


ETERNAL INK: Whitcomb & Dzikowski Seek Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Colton Whitcomb and Melissa Dzikowski, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Eternal Ink,
Inc. also known as Eternal Manufacturing and Design and Terry
Welker, the Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-13333-MFL-APP, (E.D.
Mich., October 11, 2017), seeks unpaid wages and overtime
compensation.  Plaintiffs allege that they worked more than 40
hours per week and were not paid 1-1/2 times their regular rate of
pay for their overtime hours worked.

Eternal Ink is a Michigan corporation which is engaged in the
manufacture and distribution of tattoo ink.[BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Maia Johnson Braun, Esq.
     David A. Hardesty, Esq.
     GOLD STAR LAW, P.C.
     2701 Troy Center Dr., Ste. 400
     Troy, MI 48084
     Telephone: (248) 275-5200


EXPRESS PIPE: "Mortley" Suit Moved to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled James Mortley, individually, and
on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Express Pipe and Supply Co., LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; Morrison Supply Company, LLC,
a Texas limited liability company; and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 30-02017-000946124-CU-OX-CXC, was removed on
Nov. 2, 2017 from the Superior Court of CA for the County of
Orange, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California (Southern Division - Santa Ana). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 8:17-cv-01938-JLS-JDE to the proceeding.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Josephine L. Staton.

Express Pipe manufactures fabricated pipes and fitting products.
The Company offers kitchen and bathroom piping solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arnab Banerjee, Esq.
          Brandon Kyle Brouillette, Esq.
          Ruhandy Glezakos, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAWYERS APC
          1875 Century Park East Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556 4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943 0396
          E-mail: arnab.banerjee@capstonelawyers.com
                  brandon.brouillette@capstonelawyers.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Keith A. Jacoby, Esq.
          Rachael Sarah Lavi, Esq.
          Littler Mendelson PC
          2049 Century Park East 5th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3107
          Telephone: (310) 553 0308
          Facsimile: (310) 553 5583
          E-mail: kjacoby@littler.com
                  rlavi@littler.com


FARMERS SERVICES: Web Site Not Friendly to Blind, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
JASON CAMACHO AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITU-
ATED, the Plaintiffs, v. FARMERS SERVICES INSURANCE AGENCY; ZURICH
INSURANCE GROUP LTD., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-06306-AMD-
CLP (E.D.N.Y., Oct 30, 2017), seeks permanent injunction to cause
a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer. Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired"
to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal
definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with
correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people
who meet this definition have limited vision. Others have no
vision. Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately
8.1 million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000
visually impaired persons live in the State of New York.

The Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against Defendants
for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The
Defendants denial of full and equal access to its web-site, and
therefore denial of its services and services offered thereby and
in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Because Defendant's website, www.farmers.com, is not equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates
the ADA. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Janet Nina Esagoff, Esq.
          ESAGOFF LAW GROUP, PC
          10 Bond St., Suite 118
          Great Neck, New York 11021
          Telephone: (212) 417 7737
          E-mail: janet@esagoff.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 228 9795
          Facsimile: (212) 982 6284
          E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
                  danalgottlieb@aol.com


FAT SAL'S: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Ho" Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY HO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. FAT SAL'S BRANDING, LLC, a California;
Company; FAT SAL'S KITCHEN 1, LLC, a California Company; NEW YORK
RESTAURANT CONCEPTS, INC., a California Company; and DOES 1
through 20, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC682110 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Nov. 1, 2017), seeks to recover injunctive relief,
restitution, and disgorgement of all benefits Defendants enjoyed
from their failure to pay proper compensation, pursuant to
Business and Professions Code and California Labor  Code.

The Plaintiff and Class Members allege that Defendants failed to
pay overtime wages for all the overtime hours; failed to provide
to Plaintiff meal break periods and failed to pay one hour of pay
at the employee's regular rate of compensation for each workday
that the meal break period was not provided; failed to permit and
authorize rest break periods and failed to pay one hour of pay at
the employee's regular rate of compensation for each workday that
the rest break period was not provided; failed to furnish accurate
wage statements; and failed to pay all wages earned each pay
period on the regular payday for the pay period.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald W. Makarem, Esq.
          Gene Williams, Esq.
          MAKAREM & ASSOCIATES, APLC
          11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2440
          Los Angeles, CA 90025-1760
          Telephone: (310) 312 0299
          Facsimile: (310) 312 0296


FERGUSON ENTERPRISES: Violates Fair Credit Reporting Act
--------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON ELLINGTON, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FERGUSON ENTERPRISES,
INC., the Defendant, Case No. 63300780 (in the Circuit Court of
the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County,
Florida, Oct. 25, 2017), seeks to recover damages as a result of
Defendant's violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970.

The Defendant allegedly violated the FCRA by procuring consumer
reports on Plaintiff and other Background Check Class members
without first making proper disclosures in the format required by
15 U.S.C. section 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i). Namely, these disclosures had
to be made (1) before Defendant actually procured consumer
reports, and (2) in a stand-alone document, clearly informing
Plaintiff and other Background Check Class members that Defendant
might procure a consumer report on each of them for purposes of
employment. The Plaintiff suffered an informational injury.

The Defendant is the largest plumbing wholesaler and distributor
in North America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
          C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
          Andrew Frisch, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          201 North Franklin Street, Suite 700
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223 5505
          Facsimile: (813) 257 0572
          E-mail: MEdelman@forthepeople.com
                  RMorgan@forthepeople.com
                  AFrisch@forthepeople.com


FOGO DE CHAO: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, "Safi" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
MARGALARA SAFI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. FOGO DE CHAO, INC., a Delaware 16 11
corporation; FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (SAN JOSE) LLC, a 17 II
Delaware limited liability company; FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA 18
II (CALIFORNIA), LLC, a California limited liability company; and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 17CV318072
(Cal. Super. Ct., Oct 24, 2017), seeks to recover minimum wages
and overtime wages under California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to provide employees
meal and rest periods as required under California law, failed to
pay minimum and overtime wages, and failed to reimbursed business
expenses.

Fogo de Chao is a fine dining, full-service Brazilian steakhouse
or churrascaria. Fogo de Chao currently operates 29 locations in
the United States of America and nine locations in Brazil.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          Launa Adolph, Esq.
          Kayvon Sabourian, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans A venue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531 1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531 1901


GEM RECOVERY: Faces "Clyburn" Suit in District of New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GEM RECOVERY SYSTEMS
LLC. The case is captioned as KISHA CLYBURN, On behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GEM RECOVERY
SYSTEMS LLC and JOHN DOES 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-
09621-MCA-LDW (D.N.J., Oct. 27, 2017). The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Madeline Cox Arleo.

GEM Recovery is a leader in the management of accounts
receivable.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GENERAL MOTORS: "Wolfe" Suit Consolidated with Case 17-12786
------------------------------------------------------------
Erica Wolfe, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. General Motors, LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 2:17-cv-12823-MFL-RSW, (E.D. Mich., August 25, 2017), has
been consolidated with other similar lawsuits under lead case
number 17-12786, according to an October 20 court order by
District Judge Matthew F. Leitman.

Following consolidation, the Wolfe case has been terminated.

The lawsuit arises from defendant's fraudulent and misleading
marketing and sales of vehicles despite knowing prior to sale that
the air conditioning system is defective; and failing to disclose
those material facts to the plaintiff and other similarly situated
persons.  The Complaint says the air conditioning defect may cause
engine stalling endangering occupants and operators.  This
dramatically increases the likelihood of accident and injury for
all those traveling in the vehicle, the lawsuit adds.

GM is an automobile design, manufacturing, distribution and
service corporation doing business throughout the United
States.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

E. Powell Miller, Esq.
Sharon Almonrode, Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
950 W University Dr., Suite 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Telephone: (248) 841-2200
Email: epm@millerlawpc.com
Email: ssa@millerlawpc.com

     - and -

Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
Glen L. Abramson, Esq.
BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
1622 Locust Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
Email: scarson@bm.net
Email: gabramson@bm.net

     - and -

Kevin Page, Esq.
CUMMINGS & PAGE, LLP
16 Studio Hill Road
Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510
Telephone: (914) 821-6400
Facsimile: (914) 821-6444
Email: kevin@candplaw.com


GENOCEA BIOSCIENCES: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Genocea Biosciences, Inc., and certain of its officers.
The class action, filed in United States District Court, for the
District of Massachusetts, and docketed under 17-cv-12168, is on
behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Genocea securities, seeking to recover
compensable damages caused by defendants' violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Genocea securities between
May 5, 2017, and September 25, 2017, both dates inclusive, you
have until January 2, 2018 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead
Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained
at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss this action, contact Robert
S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and number of shares purchased.

Genocea is a biopharmaceutical company that discovers and develops
vaccines and immunotherapies.  At all relevant times, Genocea's
genital herpes immunotherapy product GEN-003 was the Company's
lead product candidate.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's finances were
insufficient to support Phase 3 trials of GEN-003; (ii)
accordingly, Genocea had overstated the prospects for GEN-003; and
(iii) as a result of the foregoing, Genocea's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On September 25, 2017, post-market, Genocea disclosed that it was
halting spending and activities on GEN-003 and exploring strategic
alternatives for the drug. The Company also announced that it was
cutting 40% of its workforce.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $ 4.08, or 76.5%, to
close at $ 1.25 on September 26, 2017.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida,
and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in
the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the
field of securities class actions.

         Robert S. Willoughby, Esq.
         Pomerantz LLP
         E-mail: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]


GOSCH IMPORTS: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug Files Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug
& Bhowmik filed a class action lawsuit alleging that Gosch
Imports, Inc., failed to correctly classify their California auto
Service Advisor employees as "non-exempt", resulting in alleged
unpaid overtime wages. The Gosch Imports, Inc., class action
lawsuit, Case No. RIC1720356 is currently pending in the Riverside
County Superior Court for the State of California.

According to the lawsuit, Gosh Imports, Inc., allegedly failed to
accurately classify their auto Service Advisor employees as "non-
exempt" employees and failed to provide them the legally required
overtime compensation and benefits these employees are entitled
to. The Complaint further claims that Gosch Imports, Inc.,
allegedly failed to accurately record missed meal and rest breaks
and also allegedly failed to pay the proper minimum wages causing
the wage statements being issued to the employees by Gosch
Imports, Inc., to allegedly violate California law, and in
particular, Labor Code Section 226(a).

Cal. Lab. Code Sec 1194 states: Notwithstanding any agreement to
work for a lesser wage, any employee receiving less than the legal
minimum wage or the legal overtime compensation applicable to the
employee is entitled to recover in a civil action the unpaid
balance of the full amount of this minimum wage or overtime
compensation, including interest thereon, reasonable attorney's
fees, and costs of suit.

If you would like to know more about the Gosch Imports, Inc.
lawsuit, please contact Attorney Nicholas J. De Blouw, Esq. --
DeBlouw@bamlawca.com and NICK@BAMLAWCA.COM -- by calling (800)
568-8020

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug and Bhowmik is a California employment law
firm that dedicates its practice to helping employees, fight back
against unfair business practices, including violations of the
California Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards Act. The firm has
offices located in San Diego, Los Angeles, Riverside, San
Francisco, Sacramento and Chicago. [GN]


HENDREN PLASTICS: Sen. Hendren Files Defamation Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Nathan Owens, writing for Arkansas Online, reports that the top
Republican in the Arkansas Senate filed a defamation lawsuit late
November 1st in Benton County court on behalf of his company after
allegations that Hendren Plastics Inc. used participants in a
rehabilitation program as unpaid workers.

Sen. Jim Hendren of Gravette said his company, Hendren Plastics,
paid for the work done by participants in the Drug and Alcohol
Recovery Program in Decatur and that the allegations against his
company are not true.

The November 1 filing accused attorney Timothy Steadman, Esq., of
Holleman & Associates in Little Rock of making "categorically
false" statements about Hendren Plastics on Fort Smith-based
television station KHBS-TV, Channel 40, that were an "assertion of
fact and not a mere opinion."

Steadman's firm filed a lawsuit in Benton County on Oct. 23, after
an article about the rehabilitation program was published by the
Center for Investigative Reporting. The suit seeks class-action
status. The organization highlighted the questionable practices of
Oklahoma-based Christian Alcoholics and Addicts in Recovery, which
reportedly modeled its nonprofit after the Drug and Alcohol
Recovery Program.

"These programs are supposed to help people combat addiction, not
turn them into slaves for businesses that are unashamedly for
profit," Steadman said during the TV news broadcast on November 2.

"Hendren and Simmons Food and the other business that use these
men and women . . . . they control the employment," Steadman said
later.

Hendren Plastics claims that Steadman's statements were defamatory
and presented the company in a false light. The Gravette company
is seeking damages resulting from its loss of reputation and
character as well as punitive damages.

Attorney Tim Hutchinson, Esq. of Reece Moore Pendergraft LLP filed
the defamation claim on November 1. He declined to comment on
November 3.

Neither Steadman nor Hendren were available November 3 for
comment.

Laurent Sacharoff, associate professor of law at the University of
Arkansas, Fayetteville, said the case is peculiar because
Steadman's statements fall in line with his lawsuit.

"Normally, when people use [the word] 'slavery,' it's hyperbolic,
so there'd be no case at all," Sacharoff said. "But here it's
interesting because they're actually suing for slavery."

The lawsuit filed Oct. 23 in Benton County accused Hendren
Plastics, along with Simmons Foods, and up to 30 "John Doe"
companies of conspiring to use rehabilitation participants as a
free labor pool for manufacturing jobs often described as dirty
and dangerous.

On November 1 the American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma filed
a lawsuit in Muskogee, Okla., federal court against companies that
worked with rehabilitation programs that supplied workers.

Hendren on October 30 terminated Hendren Plastics' agreement with
the Drug and Alcohol Recovery Program in Decatur. Hendren said he
was disappointed because he saw the value in the program in that
it gave nonviolent offenders a second chance.

"When you see these kind of things made against our company -- you
can't allow those kind of attacks," he said October 31. [GN]


HENRY SCHEIN: TCPA Suit Stayed Pending Resolution of 8th Cir. Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Knef, writing for St. Louis Record, reports that U.S. District
Judge John A. Ross has ruled for defendants Henry Schein Practice
Solutions and Integrated Media Solutions' joint motion to stay a
class-action complaint alleging the defendants violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

Plaintiff BPP filed suit earlier this year claiming the defendants
sent unsolicited fax ads without a proper opt-out notice as
required by federal law.

The defendants had asked that the action be stayed pending a
decision at the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of St.
Louis Heart Center Inc. v. Nomax Inc.

At issue on appeal in that case is standing, which Nomax argues
cannot be based on a "bare procedural violation of a federal
statute divorced from any concrete harm."

"Defendants argue that resolution of Nomax 'could significantly
curtail or extinguish altogether Plaintiff's claims because the
standing question presented in Nomax is identical to the standing
issue presented in this case,'" Ross wrote.

Ross also wrote that defendants further argued that a stay would
"preserve judicial and party resources and would not prejudice BPP
because the case is in its infancy, discovery has not yet
commenced, and the trial date is approximately 16 months away."

They further argued that if their request to stay were turned down
all parties would be prejudiced "because they would incur
significant expense in discovery 'only to later find out that
Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue this case,'" Ross's ruling
states.

"Defendants also maintain that Nomax has been fully briefed and is
likely to be decided within the next six months, and that BPP will
suffer no damage from a stay because a modest delay in receiving
money damages is not prejudicial and the conduct challenged in the
Complaint has already stopped," it states.

Ross wrote that he was not persuaded by BPP's argument that a
decision by this court in the Nomax case is an "outlier in the
law" and that federal courts nationwide have been rejecting
defense motions challenging standing in TCPA cases.

BPP also had argued that parties had "already expended significant
judicial and party resources due to failed attempts at early
mediation," and that the defense had not explained "a good excuse"
for why they had not stayed the action in a more timely fashion.

Finally, BPP had argued that it would be prejudiced if the judge
were to stay the case due to a risk of evidence being lost.

"In light of the Eighth Circuit's pending decision in Nomax, and
in the interest of reaching consistent results in similar TCPA
cases, the Court will grant Defendants' motion to stay this case,"
Ross wrote. "The Court is not persuaded that Plaintiff will be
unduly prejudiced by such a stay, as the case is in the early
stages of litigation. Furthermore, the Court believes that a stay
will preserve the resources of the parties, as well as the Court,
which weighs in favor of a stay." [GN]


HOMEAWAY.COM: "Meyer" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Karen Meyer, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Homeaway.com, Inc., a Delaware corporation and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 37-02017-0003668-CU-BC-NC, was removed on Nov.
3, 2017 from the Superior Court of California, San Diego County,
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
(San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-
02243-JLS-KSC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Janis L. Sammartino.

HomeAway, Inc. is a vacation rental marketplace with more than
2,000,000 vacation rentals in 190 countries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Natasha N Serino, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ALEXANDER M. SCHACK
          16870 West Bernardo Drive, Suite 400
          San Diego, CA 92127
          Telephone: (858) 485 6535
          Facsimile: (858) 485 0608
          E-mail: natashaserino@amslawoffice.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Joseph H. Bias, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS
          300 South Grand Avenue
          Twenty-Second Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 612 7397
          Facsimile: (213) 612 2501
          E-mail: joseph.bias@morganlewis.com


HOST INTERNATIONAL: "Smith" Suit Moved to E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Kelly Smith, individually, and on
behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Host
International, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 17CECG03397, was
removed on Nov. 3, 2017 from the Fresno Superior Court, to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California in
Fresno. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-01487-
DAD-MJS to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
District Judge Dale A. Drozd.

Host International, Inc. is a restaurant which engages in
providing food items like pizza, pasta, salads and more. It also
provides alcoholic beverage.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Margaret Rosenthal, Esq.
          Nicholas D. Poper, Esq.
          Shareef Farag, Esq.
          Vartan Serge Madoyan, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          11601 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 820 8800
          Facsimile: (310) 820 8859
          E-mail: mrosenthal@bakerlaw.com
                  npoper@bakerlaw.com
                  sfarag@bakerlaw.com
                  vmadoyan@bakerlaw.com


IQ DATA: "Buchwald" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Carrie Buchwald, as parent and
guardian of A.B., a minor, and all other similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. I.Q. DATA INTERNATIONAL, INC., the Defendant, Case
No. 17-005789-CA-01, was removed on Nov. 1, 2017 from 11th
Judicial Circuit Court in Miami, Florida, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-24010-KMW to the proceeding.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Kathleen M. Williams.

IQ Data is a national leader in multi-family property management
debt collections.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher W. Legg, Esq.
          CHRISTOPHER LEGG, P.A.
          3837 Hollywood Blvd., Ste. B
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Telephone: (954) 962 2333
          Facsimile: (954) 927 2451
          E-mail: chris@theconsumerlawyers.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Douglas A. Kahle, Esq.
          SCHWED MCGINLEY & KAHLE LLC
          11410 North Jog Road, Suite 100
          Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33418
          Telephone: (561) 694 0070
          Facsimile: (561) 694 0057
          E-mail: dkahle@schwedpa.com


JAMES SWARTWOUT: Faces "Masiello" Suit in N.D. Ohio
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against James Swartwout. The
case is captioned as Matthew Masiello, Individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. James
Swartwout, Joseph Hartnett, David Molfenter, James Fast, Charles
Kummeth, Frank Wilson, Alan L. Bazaar, and John A. Janitz, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02239-CAB (N.D. Ohio, Oct. 24, 2017).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Christopher A. Boyko.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Beau D. Hollowell, Esq.
          Daniel R. Karon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL R. KARON
          700 St. Clair Avenue, W, Ste. 200
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 622 1851
          Facsimile: (216) 241 8175
          E-mail: bhollowell@karonllc.com
                  dkaron@karonllc.com


LG ELECTRONICS: Smart TVs Lose Access to YouTube, Conn Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD CONN, on behalf of himself, all other others similarly
situated, and the general public, the Plaintiff, v. LG
Electronics, USA, a New Jersey corporation, and DOES I through
100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC682080 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Nov. 1, 2017), contends that certain flash-based Smart TVs,
including those manufactured by LG, no longer have access to the
YouTube app.  The Defendant had promoted Affected Smart TVs by
placing the YouTube logo on its packaging, in-store displays, and
by displaying the YouTube app in its commercials and in online
advertising to inform consumers that Affected Smart TVs came with
YouTube access included upon purchase.  At no time prior to 2013
did Defendant disclaim that continued use of the YouTube app, for
the life of its Affected Smart TVs, could or would end.

LG manufactures consumer electronics products including
specifically smart televisions (Smart TVs).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kaveh S. Elihu, Esq.
          Thomas L. Dorogi, Esq.
          Sylvia V. Panosian, Esq.
          Employee Justice Legal Group, LLP
          3055 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1120
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 382 2222
          Facsimile: (213) 382 2230


LOWE'S HOME: Violates Wage & Hour Laws, "Saenz" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH SAENZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, a North
Carolina limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 20,
inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. (S.D. Fla., Nov. 1, 2017),
seeks to recover damages as a result of Defendants' continuous
violation to California wage and hour laws.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants knew or should have known
that Plaintiff and Class Members were entitled to receive itemized
wage statements prescribed by Labor Code that accurately showed
nine pieces of information, including gross wages earned and all
deductions.

Lowe's Home operates home improvement stores. It retails
appliances, tools, paints, lumber, and nursery products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LUXOTTICA RETAIL: "Infante" Moved to Eastern District of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Kathleen Infante, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Luxottica Retail North America, doing business as: Lenscrafters an
Ohio corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-05145, was
transferred on Nov. 2, 2017 from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-06389-SLT-RER to the proceeding.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Sandra L. Townes.

Luxottica Retail sells prescription glasses and sunglasses in
North America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles Philip Reichmann, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES REICHMAN
          16 Yale Circle
          Kensington, CA 94708
          Telephone: (415) 373 8849
          Facsimile: (855) 780 6405
          E-mail: cpreichmann@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Sally M. Handmaker, Esq.
          Andrew N. Friedman, Esq.
          Geoffrey Graber, Esq.
          Theodore J. Leopold, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Ave., Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408 4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408 4699
          E-mail: shandmaker@cohenmilstein.com
                  afriedman@cohenmilstein.com
                  ggraber@cohenmilstein.com
                  tleopold@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Robert Gordon, Esq.
          GREITZER & LOCKS
          1500 Walnut Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19102

               - and -

          Steven G Calamusa, Esq.
          4114 Northlake Blvd
          Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
          Telephone: (561) 799 5070
          Facsimile: (561) 799 4050
          E-mail: SCalamusa@ForTheInjured.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Harrison Brown, Esq.
          BLANK ROME LLP
          2029 Century Park East, 6th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (424) 239 3433
          Facsimile: (424) 239 3434
          E-mail: hbrown@blankrome.com


MARKHAM, IL: Class Takes on Chicago Suburb's Red-Light Cameras
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Klein, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a
resident of the Chicago suburbs filed a class action claiming the
city of Markham is collecting fines for red-light camera
violations while skirting state law.

A class-action lawsuit led by Karen M. Murphy of nearby Orland
Park, Ill., seeks to stop Markham's allegedly "unlawful collection
of money from vehicle owners through its Photo Enforcement
Program."

According to the complaint filed on November 7 in Cook County
Circuit Court by Chicago attorney Clinton A. Krislov, Esq. --
clint@krislovlaw.com -- Markham "has been issuing red light
violation notices and collecting fines and late fees despite its
failure to comply with two mandatory provisions of the state law
governing red light cameras."

Markham does not publish the location of its cameras, which record
drivers going through red lights, on its website. Murphy claims
the city also does not provide a statistical analysis on the
safety impact of each camera, another requirement of Illinois law.

"There is no indication that defendant has conducted the
statistical analysis as required by statute. No such study appears
anywhere on the city of Markham website," the complaint alleges.

Markham officials did not immediately respond November 8 to a
request for comment on the lawsuit.

Clicking the "red light enforcement" link on the city's website
takes visitors to a 404 error page.

Murphy's attorney, Krislov, said in a phone interview that "red-
light cameras have proven to be very lucrative for
municipalities."

"The fact is, if they're going to use them as revenue generators,
they should go through the hoops," he added. "We're merely saying
if you're going to do it, follow the law."

Murphy is suing Markham for unjust enrichment, asking the court to
void red-light traffic violations and order a return of the $100
fines that drivers have paid.

She seeks to represent a class of anyone who has been issued red-
light tickets from Markham.

Her complaint was electronically filed on November 7, but was not
made available until November 8.

The case is KAREN M. MURPHY, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF MARKHAM, Defendant, Case
No. ______, filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois
Country Department, Chancery Division.

Attorney for Plaintiffs:

     Clinton A. Krislov, Esq.
     Christopher M. Hack, Esq.
     KRISLOV & ASSOCIATES, LTD
     20 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1300
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Tel: (312) 606-0500


MAXMAHAN COMPANY: "Cole" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
SHARON COLE, on behalf of herself and all those similarly
situated, the PLAINTIFF, v. MAX MAHAN COMPANY INC. and JOHN DOES
1-10, c/o MAX MAHAN COMPANY INC., the DEFENDANTS, Case No. 1:17-
cv-01014 (W.D. Tex., Oct 24, 2017), seeks to recover overtime
wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class regularly
worked more than 40 hours per workweek. However, Defendants did
not pay any additional compensation for hours worked over 40 hours
in a workweek.

Max Mahan primarily transports "fracking sand", which is used by
natural gas companies in the hydraulic fracturing process.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edmond S. Moreland, Jr., Esq.
          MORELAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
          13590 Ranch Road 12
          Wimberley, Texas 78676
          Telephone: (512) 782 0567
          Facsimile: (512) 782 0605
          E-mail: edmond@morelandlaw.com

               - and -

          Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
          Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
          SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
          1101 Kings Highway N, Ste. 402
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Telephone: (856) 685 7420
          Facsimile: (856) 685 7417
          E-mail: mmiller@swartz-legal.com
                  jswidler@swartz-legal.com


MUNICIPAL WATER SAVINGS: Tuttle Sues over Savings Products
----------------------------------------------------------
Twinkle Tuttle, individually and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Municipal
Water Savings California Corp. the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-
06277-ODW-AS, (C.D. Cal., August 24, 2017), seeks damages and to
stop the defendant's practice of falsely advertising water
conservation products in violation of Unfair Competition Law and
Electronic Funds Transfer Act.

The plaintiff's complaint states that the defendant approached her
to solicit to purchase a product that allegedly saves money on
their water utility bill.  The plaintiff agreed to purchase the
product after being pitched by a sales representative working for
the defendant.  The representative provided with a brochure
wherein it advertised that the product would save the plaintiff an
expected $475 per year on her water bill. However, the plaintiff's
water bill has not decreased or changed since the installation of
the defendant's product.  The plaintiff requested to cancel the
service because of false advertising but the defendant refused and
attempted to charge her $1,800 as an early cancellation fee on the
basis of supposedly entered five year deal. The defendant
represents a money back guarantee for a consumer that no longer
wishes to use the product but when the plaintiff sought to invoke
the guarantee the defendant informed her that she did not qualify
because she cannot get a rebate from her homeowner's insurance
company.  The condition was never communicated to the plaintiff
before she signed a signature pad at defendant's request.
Further, the defendant gathered the plaintiff's bank card payment
information via a voided check in order to set up auto pay and did
not make plaintiff fill out a proper EFTA disclosure form.  The
plaintiff did not provided the defendant either with a written or
an electronic signature authorizing the recurring or automatic
payments in violation of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act and its
surrounding regulations.

The case has been reassigned from Judge Ronald S.W. Lew to Judge
Otis D. Wright, II for all further proceedings.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., #780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: 877-206-4741
Facsimile: 866-633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
Email: abacon@toddflaw.com


MZL ISLAND: "Lutfieva" Suit Seeks Wages under Labor Law
-------------------------------------------------------
GULCHEKHRA LUTFIEVA, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated who were employed by MZL HOME CARE
AGENCY, LLC, the Plaintiffs, v. MZL HOME CARE AGENCY, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 159740/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nov. 1, 2017),
seeks to recover wages and benefits under the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant 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. The Plaintiff has initiated this action
seeking for herself, and on behalf of all similarly situated
employees who are citizens of New York and who performed work
within the State of New York, minimum wages, overtime
compensation, "spread of hours" compensation, reimbursement for
business expenses borne for the benefit and convenience of the
Defendant, as well as damages arising from Defendant's breach of
contract, which they were deprived of, plus interest, attorneys'
fees, and costs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq.
          NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          517 Brighton Beach Ave., 2nd Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11235
          Telephone: (718) 808 2224
          Facsimile: (866) 261 5478
          E-mail: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com


NATIONAL GENERAL: "Miller" Suit Goes to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case, Caroline Miller, individually and on  behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. National General
Holdings Corp., National General Insurance Company and Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A., doing business as Wells Fargo Dealer Services, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-06586-UA, (S.D.N.Y., August 29,
2017), has been transferred to the United States District Court,
Central District of California acknowledging receipt of
transferred case, and assigned Case Number: 8:17-cv-01824 (C.D.
Cal.).

The lawsuit alleges that Wells Fargo and its insurance underwriter
National General conspired to steal hundreds of millions of
dollars from unsuspecting automobile purchasers by imposing
unwanted, unneeded and unlawful automobile insurance costs on
them. Wells Fargo, together with National General, engaged in a
continuous scheme to cheat unsuspecting auto loan customers into
paying for unnecessary, unwanted and unlawful lender-placed or
"force-placed" automobile insurance policies, commonly referred to
as collateral protection insurance ("CPI").  Defendants' scheme
resulted in the forced payment of unnecessary auto insurance
policies, the incurrence of substantial and unwarranted fees and
charges, negative credit reporting and other delinquencies, and/or
repossession of Class members' vehicles.

National General Insurance Company nominally underwrote collateral
protection insurance policies for Wells Fargo auto loan
borrowers.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

Jeffrey K. Koenig, Esq.
HECHT, KLEEGER & DAMSCHEK, PC
19 West 44th Street Suite 1500
New York, New York 10036
Telephone: (212) 490-5700
Facsimile: (212) 490-4800
Email: koenig@lawyer1.com

     - and -

Arnold Levin, Esq.
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
Fax: (215) 592-4663
Email: ALevin@lfsblaw.com
Email: CSchaffer@lfsblaw.com

     - and -

Franklin D. Azar, Esq.
Keith Scranton, Esq.
Hugh Z. Balkin, Esq.
FRANKLIN D. AZAR & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
14426 East Evans Avenue
Aurora, CO 80014
Telephone: (303) 757-3300
Facsimile: (303) 757-3206
Email: azarf@fdazar.com
Email: scrantonk@fdazar.com
Email: balkinz@fdazar.com


NAVIENT CORPORATION: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Navient Corporation and certain of its officers.  The
class action, filed in United States District Court, for the
District of New Jersey, and docketed under 17-cv-11014, is on
behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Navient securities, seeking to recover
compensable damages caused by defendants' violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Navient securities between
February 25, 2016, and October 4, 2017, both dates inclusive, you
have until December 15, 2017 to ask the Court to appoint you as
Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be
obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.

Navient Corporation provides asset management and business
processing services to education, health care, and government
clients at the federal, state, and local levels in the United
States.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that:  (i) the Company engaged in
deceptive practices to facilitate the origination of subprime
loans; (ii) the Company committed unfair and deceptive acts by
steering student borrowers into payment plans that postponed
bills, allowing interest to accumulate, rather than helping them
enroll in income-driven repayment plans; and (iii) as a result of
the foregoing, Navient's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

On October 5, 2017, Pennsylvania's Attorney General filed a
lawsuit against Navient and its subsidiary Navient Solutions, LLC,
alleging "widespread abuses" in Navient's student loan origination
and servicing segments and deceptive lending practices.  Among
other abuses, the lawsuit alleges that Navient marketed predatory
loans and steered student borrowers into payment plans that
postponed bills, allowing interest to accumulate, rather than
helping them enroll in income-driven repayment plans.

On this news, Navient's share price fell $2.10, or 14.25%, to
close at $12.61 on October 5, 2017.

On October 10, 2017, Bloomberg published an article entitled
"Navient Subject of AFL-CIO Call for Insider Trading Probe,"
disclosing that the American Federation of Labor and Congress of
Industrial Organizations ("AFL-CIO"), the nation's largest labor
federation, called for the SEC to "examine the trading in
Navient's common stock on August 31" for possible insider trading.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida,
and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in
the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the
field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members.

         Robert S. Willoughby, Esq.
         Pomerantz LLP
         Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]


NEVADA: ACLU Accuses State of Denying Rural Defendants Due Process
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mynews4.com reports that the American Civil Liberties Union is
accusing the state of Nevada of routinely violating the
constitutional rights of criminal defendants in 11 rural counties
by failing to provide them with adequate legal representation when
they can't afford their own lawyer.

The ACLU's Nevada chapter filed a class-action suit in Carson
District Court on November 2 alleging indigent defendants are
being denied their right to due process under the state system
that transfers the job of public defense to individual counties.

The suit says the state lacks adequate oversight of the counties
and their system of contracting attorneys to represent the
accused. It says the contract lawyers receive de facto flat fees
and have a financial incentive to provide as little legal
assistance to their clients as possible.

The ACLU has filed similar suits in several other states,
including Idaho and Utah. [GN]


NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: "Falk" Suit Goes to Mediation
---------------------------------------------------
In the case, Michelle Falk, Indhu Jayavelu, Patricia L. Cruz,
Danielle Trotter and Amanda Macri, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Nissan North
America, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-04871-EDL, (N.D.
Cal., August 22, 2017), Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on Nov. 13
entered an order granting a Stipulation selecting Private ADR.

The lawsuit arises from the sale or lease of more than 500,000
vehicles throughout the United States manufactured by Nissan that
are equipped with defective transmissions. Nissan, the lawsuit
says, breached its express and implied warranties at the time each
class vehicle was sold or leased because each was equipped with a
dangerous and defective transmission.  The transmissions are
defective in design, materials and workmanship.  The transmissions
cause sudden, unexpected shaking and violent jerking when drivers
attempt to accelerate it. Vehicle owners reported complete
transmission failure in the middle of roadways and the defect
creates unreasonably dangerous situations while driving and
increases the risk of a crash. Hence, plaintiffs bring this class
action for themselves and all others similarly situated owners for
defendant's breach of express and implied warranties under state
laws and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, Nissan's deceptive trade
practices in violation of the consumer protection laws of
California, Ohio, New York, Colorado and Illinois.[BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

Shimon Yiftach, Esq.
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN
1925 Century Park East, Suite 1990
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (424) 322-0322
Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
Email: shimony@bgandg.com
Email: peretz@bgandg.com

     - and -

Gary Mason, Esq.
Jennifer S. Goldstein, Esq.
WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP
5101 Wisconsin Ave., NW Suite 305
Washington, D.C. 20016
Telephone: (202) 429-2290
Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
Email: gmason@wbmllp.com
Email: jgoldstein@wbmllp.com

     - and -

Lawrence Deutsch, Esq.
Jeffrey Osterwise, Esq.
BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
1622 Locust Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3062
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
Email: ldeutsch@bm.net
Email: josterwise@bm.net

     - 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
Facsimile: (202) 800-2730
Email: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
Email: jrathod@classlawdc.com

     - and -

Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
Jay I. Brody, Esq.
KANTROWITZ GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
747 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200
Chestnut Ridge, New York 10977
Telephone: (845) 356-2570
Facsimile: (845) 356-4335
Email: ggraifman@kgglaw.com
Email: jbrody@kgglaw.com

     - and -

Daniel Calvert, Esq.
Catherine S. Blackshear, Esq.
PARKER WAICHMAN, LLP
27300 Riverview Center Boulevard Suite 103
Bonita Springs, Florida 34134
Telephone: (239) 390-1000
Facsimile: (239) 390-0055
Email: dcalvert@yourlawyer.com
Email: cblackshear@yourlawyer.com


NOBLE DISTRIBUTION: "Miller" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT & Minimum Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMEKA MILLER, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NOBLE
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC681763 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Nov. 1, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and minimum
wages under California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff and the other class members worked over 8 hours in a
day, and/or 40 hours in a week during their employment with
Defendants. The Defendants are engaged in a pattern and practice
of wage abuse against their hourly-paid or non-exempt employees
within the State of California. This pattern and practice
involved, inter alia, failing to pay them for all regular and/or
overtime wages earned and for missed meal periods and/or rest
breaks in violation of California law.[BN]

Noble Distribution is in the General Warehousing business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
          410 Arden Ave, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265 1020
          E-mail: lfj@lfjpc.com


NOBLE HOUSE: "Holt" Suit Moved to Southern District of California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Kathleen Holt, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Noble
House Hotels & Resort, LTD, doing business as: Noble House Hotels
& Resort, LTD, LP; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. 37-02017-00035217-CU-MC-CTL, was removed on Nov. 3, 2017
from the Superior Court of California, San Diego County, to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San
Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-02246-
MMA-BLM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Michael M. Anello.

Noble House owns and operates upper segment boutique hotels. Its
amenities include rooms, resort and spa, golf resort, and marinas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Toby Lemieux, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233 7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297 1022
          E-mail: kevin@westcoastlitigation.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Heidi Brooks Bradley, Esq.
          SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
          1888 Century Park East, 21st Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-1725
          Telephone: (310) 712 6600
          Facsimile: (310) 712 8888
          E-mail: bradleyh@sullcrom.com


NOVAN INC: Jan. 2 Deadline to File Lead Plaintiff Bid
-----------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, and KSF partner, former Attorney General
of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that they
have until January 2, 2018 to file lead plaintiff applications in
a securities class action lawsuit against Novan, Inc.
(Nasdaq:NOVN), if they purchased the Company's shares between
September 26, 2016 and January 26, 2017 (the "Class Period")
and/or pursuant to its September 26, 2016 initial public offering
("IPO").  This action is pending in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.

                              What You May Do

If you purchased shares of Novan and would like to discuss your
legal rights and your right to recover for your economic loss, you
may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing
Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or via email
(lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
http://ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgm-novn/to learn more. If you
wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must
petition the Court by January 2, 2018.

                         About the Lawsuit

Novan certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the class period, violating
federal securities laws.

The alleged false and misleading statements and omissions include,
but are not limited to, that: (i) the Company had initiated and
conducted two identical Phase 3 clinical trials for its lead
product candidate SB204; (ii) in fact, the two SB204 Phase 3
clinical trials were not identical; and (iii) as a result of the
foregoing, Novan's financial statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

                About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC

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

To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.

         Lewis Kahn, Esq., Managing Partner
         Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
         206 Covington St.
         Madisonville, LA 70447
         Tel. No.: 1-877-515-1850
         Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN]


NOVAN INC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP disclosed that a class action has
been commenced on behalf of purchasers of Novan, Inc. ("Novan")
(NASDAQ:NOVN) stock during the period between September 26, 2016
and January 26, 2017 (the "Class Period"), including those who
purchased Novan stock pursuant and/or traceable to the
Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with
the Company's initial public offering on or about September 26,
2016 ("IPO"). This action was filed in the Middle District of
North Carolina and is captioned Miriyala v. Novan, Inc., et al.,
No. 17-00999.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from November 3, 2017. If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren
Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via
e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com. If you are a member of this class, you
can view a copy of the complaint as filed at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/novan/.Any member of the putative
class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through
counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an
absent class member.

The complaint charges Novan, certain of its officers and
directors, and the underwriters of its IPO with violations of the
Securities Act of 1933. It also charges Novan and its former CEO
and CFO with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Novan is a clinical-stage drug development company that focuses on
the development and commercialization of nitric oxide-based
therapies in dermatology. At all relevant times, Novan's lead
product candidate was SB204, a once-daily topical gel for the
treatment of acne vulgaris.

The complaint alleges that in the IPO Registration Statement and
Prospectus, and throughout the Class Period, defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding Novan's
business and outlook, specifically regarding SB204. For example,
defendants repeatedly stated that Novan had commenced and
performed two identically designed Phase 3 clinical trials for
SB204. Defendants' statements falsely stated that the two Phase 3
clinical trials were identical and omitted specific facts as to
why the two critical trials were, in fact, not identical. As a
result of these false statements, the Company's outlook and
expected financial performance were not accurately represented to
the market at all relevant times. As a result of defendants' false
statements during the Class Period, the price of Novan stock
climbed significantly above the IPO price of $11.00 per share,
reaching as high as $29.09 per share on December 7, 2016.

Before the market opened on January 27, 2017, Novan announced the
top-line results of its two Phase 3 clinical trials of SB204.
Although the drug hit all of its goals in one of the trials, it
failed to beat a placebo in the other trial. On this news, the
price of Novan stock dropped from a close of $18.70 per share on
January 26, 2017, to a close of $4.86 per share on January 27,
2017, a decline of 74%.

Subsequent disclosures regarding SB204 demonstrated that the two
Phase 3 clinical trials of SB204 were not identical. Following
these disclosures, several executives left the Company. Then, on
June 5, 2017, Novan announced that it was replacing its CEO and
co-founder and that it was laying off 20% of its workforce. As a
result, the price of Novan stock fell on June 6, 2017. Additional
disclosures on August 2, 2017 revealed that Novan was retreating
further from SB204, signaling a shift in Novan's primary focus and
causing the stock to drop more than 17% to close at $4.54 that
day.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Novan stock during the Class Period, including those who purchased
Novan stock in connection with the Company's IPO (the "Class").
The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has
extensive experience in prosecuting investor class actions
including actions involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller is widely recognized as a leading law firm advising
and representing U.S. and international investors in securities
litigation and portfolio monitoring. With 200 lawyers in 10
offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history. For the third
consecutive year, the Firm ranked first in both the total amount
recovered for investors and the number of shareholder class action
recoveries in ISS's SCAS Top 50 Report. Robbins Geller attorneys
have shaped the law in the areas of securities litigation and
shareholder rights and have recovered tens of billions of dollars
on behalf of the Firm's clients. Robbins Geller not only secures
recoveries for defrauded investors, it also implements significant
corporate governance reforms, helping to improve the financial
markets for investors worldwide. Please visit
http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information.

https://www.linkedin.com/company/rgrdlaw
https://twitter.com/rgrdlaw
https://www.facebook.com/rgrdlaw
https://plus.google.com/+Rgrdlaw/posts

         Contacts
         Darren Robbins, Esq.
         Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
         Tel. No.: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058
         Email: djr@rgrdlaw.com [GN]


ORBITAL ATK: "Cramer" Suit Balks at Merger Deal
-----------------------------------------------
KELLY CRAMER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ORBITAL ATK, INC., DAVID W. THOMPSON,
RONALD R. FOGLEMAN, KEVIN P. CHILTON, ROXANNE J. DECYK, LENNARD A.
FISK, RONALD T. KADISH, TIG H. KREKEL, DOUGLAS L. MAINE, ROMAN
MARTINEZ IV, JANICE I. OBUCHOWSKI, JAMES G. ROCHE, HARRISON H.
SCHMITT, and SCOTT L. WEBSTER, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
01225-CMH-MSN (E.D. Va., Oct. 25, 2017), seeks to enjoin
Defendants from holding a shareholder vote on a proposed merger
agreement, and from taking any steps to consummate the proposed
merger unless and until material information is disclosed to
Orbital ATK shareholders, or, in the event the Proposed Merger is
consummated, to recover damages resulting from the Defendants'
violations of the Securities Exchange Act.

On September 18, 2017, the Board caused the Company to enter into
an agreement and plan of merger, pursuant to which the Company's
shareholders stand to receive $134.50 in cash for each share of
Orbital ATK common stock they own. On October 25, the Board
authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading
definitive Proxy Statement with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act. While Defendants are touting the fairness of the
Merger Consideration to the Company's shareholders in the Proxy,
according to the complaint, they have failed to disclose material
information that is necessary for shareholders to properly assess
the fairness of the Proposed Merger, thereby rendering certain
statements in the Proxy incomplete and misleading. In particular,
the Proxy contains materially incomplete and misleading
information concerning: (i) financial projections for Orbital ATK;
and (ii) the valuation analyses performed by the Company's
financial advisor, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., in support of
its fairness opinion.

The special meeting of Orbital ATK shareholders to vote on the
Proposed Merger is schedule for November 29, 2017.  The lawsuit
says it is imperative that the material information that has been
omitted from the Proxy is disclosed to the Company's shareholders
prior to the shareholder vote, so that they can properly exercise
their corporate suffrage rights.

Orbital ATK is an American aerospace manufacturer and defense
industry company. It was formed in 2015 from the merger of Orbital
Sciences Corporation and parts of Alliant Techsystems.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


P.S.C. INC: "Miller" Suit Moved to W.D. Washington
--------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Kimberly Miller, Briana Houser,
and Dean Buchhol, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of others
similarly situated, v. P.S.C., Inc. doing business as: Puget Sound
Collections and Does One Through Ten, Case No. 17-00002-11360-9,
was removed on Oct. 24, 2017 from the Pierce County Superior
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington (Tacoma). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:17-cv-05864-RBL to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Ronald B. Leighton.

PSC Inc. provides data-collection solutions for the retail supply
chain worldwide. The Company's products include mobile and
wireless data-capture terminals.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Beth E Terrell, Esq.
          Blythe H Chandler, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
          936 North 34th Street, Ste 300
          SEATTLE, WA 98103-8869
          Telephone: (206) 816 6603
          Facsimile: (206) 319 5450
          E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
                  bchandler@tmdwlaw.com

               - and -

          Joshua L Turnham, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JOSHUA L TURNHAM PLLC
          214 E Galer St St 100
          Seattle, WA 98102
          Telephone: (206) 395 9267
          Facsimile: (206) 905 2996
          E-mail: joshua@turnhamlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Robert E Sabido, Esq.
          Timothy J. Fransen, Esq.
          COSGRAVE VERGEER KESTER
          500 Pioneer Tower
          888 Sw Fifth Avenue
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: (503) 323 9000
          Facsimile: (503) 323 9019
          E-mail: rsabido@cosgravelaw.com
                  tfransen@cosgravelaw.com


PEACHTREE ORTHOPEDIC: Hanover Insurance Sues over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hanover Insurance Company, the Plaintiff, v. Peachtree Orthopedic
Clinic, P.A. and David Wexler, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
04236-CAP (N.D. Ga., Oct 24, 2017), seeks to recover damages
arising from injuries allegedly suffered by David Wexler and by a
class of all similarly situated individuals as a result of a 2016
data breach of Peachtree Orthopedic computer records concerning
Peachtree Orthopedic patients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin A. Doyle, Esq.
          Lokey, Mobley and Doyle, LLP
          Hanover Insurance Company
          8425 Dunwoody Place
          Atlanta, GA 30350
          Telephone: (770) 640 9441
          E-mail: kdoyle@mobley-doyle.com


PG&E CORP: Woman Sues After Losing Napa Condo in Wildfire
---------------------------------------------------------
Maria Sestito, writing for Napa Valley Register, reports that a
Napa homeowner has joined the ranks of what is now more than 100
people suing PG&E for allegedly causing the wildfires that plagued
Northern California for several weeks in October.

The homeowner, San Mateo resident Valerie Evans, filed her class
action suit alleging negligence against the utility company in
Napa County Superior Court while fires in Napa, Solano and Sonoma
counties were still burning. Evans' Creekside condo at 100 Bonnie
Brook Drive at Silverado Resort burned to the ground in the Atlas
Fire, according to the lawsuit.

The Atlas Fire, which started Oct. 8 on Atlas Peak Road, burned
51,624 acres and destroyed nearly 500 homes before it was 100
percent contained last November 3, according to Napa County
officials.

Although the cause of the fire is still under investigation by Cal
Fire, the lawsuit alleges that the fire began when high winds blew
vegetation and/or trees into electrical transmission or
distribution lines owned, operated, controlled and/or maintained
by PG&E.

The company had a duty to maintain the equipment and should have
known the risk not doing so would have, the suit alleges,
"particularly in light of the increased vegetation growth caused
by an exceptionally wet spring, the presence of drought-stricken
trees, and the foreseeable dry, windy fall conditions."

The suit calls the wildfires a "foreseeable" and "preventable"
tragedy.

Along with her condo and its contents, Evans says she lost one-of-
a-kind artwork, rare trees and "irreplaceable" vintage
collectibles from around the world.

Evans, who is being represented by law firms Caddel & Chapman of
Houston and Francis & Mailman, P.C. of Philadelphia, is asking to
be certified as a class representative representing other property
owners who were victims of the Atlas Fire in Napa and Solano
counties.

In addition to suing PG&E Corporation and Pacifica Gas and
Electric Co., Evans has also named 50 "Does" representing
potential contractors hired by PG&E to clear vegetation and/or
trim trees around power lines in Napa County.

The first individuals to sue the utility company were Wayne and
Jennifer Harvell, residents of Santa Rosa's Coffey Park
neighborhood which was leveled by the Tubbs Fire. The couple filed
their lawsuit just eight days after the Tubbs Fire destroyed their
home. Since then, more than 100 other victims have filed lawsuits
against PG&E, according to media reports. [GN]


PHILIPS AND PIONEER: Judge Signs Off $55.5MM Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge on November 7
signed off on a $55.5 million settlement of class action price-
fixing conspiracy claims by indirect purchasers of optical disk
drives, in which Philips and Pioneer will pay $50.5 million and
TEAC will pay $5 million.

A full-text copy of the Order dated November 7, 2017, is available
at https://is.gd/ZQlyyZ

The case is IN RE OPTICAL DISK DRIVE PRODUCTS ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, No. 3:10-md-2143 RS (JCS)(N.D. Calif.).

Lead Counsel for Indirect Purchaser Class:


     Jeff D. Friedman, Esq.
     Shana E. Scarlett, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
     Berkeley, CA 94710
     Tel: (510) 725-3000
     Fax: (510) 725-3001
     Email: jefff@hbsslaw.com
            shanas@hbsslaw.com

        -- and --

     Steve W. Berman, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Tel: (206) 623-7292
     Fax: (206) 623-0594
     Email: steve@hbsslaw.com


PROFESSIONAL PRODUCE: Fails to Pay Wages & OT, Franco Says
----------------------------------------------------------
MARIA FRANCO, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly
situated current and former employees of Defendants, the
Plaintiff, v. PROFESSIONAL PRODUCE, a California Corporation; and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC682132
(Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 3, 2017), seeks to recover minimum and
straight time wages and overtime compensation under the California
Labor Code.

The Plaintiff brings this action against Professional Produce for
California Labor Code violations stemming from Defendants' failure
to provide meal periods, failure to provide all net,
10-minute rest periods, failure to pay for all hours worked,
including minimum wage, straight time, and overtime pay, failure
to timely pay all wages to terminated employees, and failure to
furnish accurate statements and maintain required records.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Farzad Rastegar, Esq.
          RASTEGAR LAW GROUP, APC
          22760 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 200
          Torrance, CA 90505
          Telephone: (310) 961 9600
          Facsimile: (310) 961 9094
          E-mail: farzad@rastegarlawgroup.com


PSF TRUCKING: Faces "Pearson" Suit in California State Court
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PSF Trucking, Inc.
The case is captioned as RAY PEARSON, INDIVIDUALLY, ON A
REPRESENTATIVE BASIS, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. PSF TRUCKING, INC., A CALIFORNIA
CORPORATION and PAMELA SUZANNE FORD, the Defendant, Case No. BCV-
17-102520 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 24, 2017). The case is assigned
to the Hon. Judge David R. Lampe.

PSF Trucking is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and
trucking company running freight hauling business from
Bakersfield, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter H. Carlson, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
          222 North LaSalle Street, Suite 300
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 704 3060

QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: "Bennett" Suit Remains Stayed in New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action suit has been filed against Quest Diagnostics, Inc.
The case is styled as Jennifer Bennett, Diana Dannelly, Edie
Golikov, Dolores Herrmann, Lonnie Hodges Jr., Lily Martyn, Ryszard
Pojawis, Stephen Timm and Liang Yu, the Plaintiffs, v Quest
Diagnostics, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-06514-ES-MAH,
(D.N.J., September 3, 2017).  The case is assigned to Judge Esther
Salas.

In a Stipulation and Order dated Oct. 6, Magistrate Judge Michael
A. Hammer said Defendant Quest's time to respond to the Complaint
shall be stayed pending adjudication of the motion to dismiss in
Leslie v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc., Civil Action No. 17-01590.[BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeffrey W. Herrmann, Esq.
COHN, LIFLAND, PEARLMAN, HERRMANN & KNOPF, LLC
250 PEHLE AVENUE, SUITE 401
Saddlebrook, NJ 07663
Telephone: (201) 845-9600
Facsimile: (201) 845-9423
Email: jwh@njlawfirm.com


RESIDENCE RESOURCE: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JASON CAMACHO AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, v. RESIDENCE RESOURCE LTD.,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-06246-NGG-JO (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 25,
2017), the Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against the
Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.
The complaint says Defendant's denial of full and equal access to
its website, and therefore denial of its products and services
offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical locations, is
a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act. Because Defendant's website,
www.lincolntowers.com, is not equally accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers, it violates the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer. Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired"
to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal
definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with
correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people
who meet this definition have limited vision. Others have no
vision.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Janet Nina Esagoff, Esq.
          ESAGOFF LAW GROUP, PC
          10 Bond St., Suite 118
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 417 7737
          E-mail: janet@esagoff.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 228 9795
          Facsimile: (212) 982 6284
          E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
                  danalgottlieb@aol.com


ROCKET FARMS: "Moreno" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------------
LUZ A. MORENO on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. ROCKET FARMS HERBS, INC., a California
Corporation; ROCKET FARMS, INC., a California Corporation; and
DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC682309 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Nov. 3, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages to
compensate employees waiting time penalties in the form of
continuation wages for failure to timely pay former employees all
earned and unpaid wages; back pay for failure to give written
notice of mass layoffs; applicable civil penalties; injunctive
relief and other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees
pursuant to California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and
other non-exempt employees with all wages (including up to 60 days
of average regular rate of compensation or final rate of
compensation for Defendants failure to provide 60 days' notice of
a mass layoff) after Plaintiff and other California employees
separated employment with Defendants. As a result, Defendants
failed to pay those employees timely after each employee's
termination in violation of Labor Code.

Rocket Farms is the largest grower of indoor flowers, fresh cut
herbs and potted edibles in the country.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Joshua M. Webster, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 432 0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432 0001
          E-mail: jwebster@lelawfirm.com


SAVE-A-LOT INC: Sued by Wallace for Improperly Charging Drink Tax
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARK J. WALLACE, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SAVE-A-LOT, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Case No. 2017CH13297 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., October 3, 2017),
accuses the Defendant of improperly charging the Cook County
sweetened beverage tax on retail purchases of unsweetened
beverages in Save-A-Lot stores.

The Cook County Sweetened Beverage Tax Ordinance imposes a tax at
the rate of $0.01 per ounce on the retail sale of all sweetened
beverages in Cook County, Illinois.  Notwithstanding the
requirements in the Cook County Sweetened Beverage Tax Ordinance,
the Defendant charged the Plaintiff a sweetened beverage tax on
his purchases of unsweetened, 100% juice, resulting in an unlawful
tax charge, according to the complaint.

Save-A-Lot, Inc., is a corporation organized under the laws of
Delaware with its principal place of business located in Earth
City, Missouri.  The Defendant owns, controls and maintains Save-
A-Lot retail locations in Cook County, Illinois, and sells
beverages and other items to consumers in those locations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
          Sharon A. Harris, Esq.
          Matthew C. De Re, Esq.
          Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq.
          Maebetty Kirby, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          77 West Washington Street, Suite 1220
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 440-0020
          E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com
                  sharon@attorneyzim.com
                  matt@attorneyzim.com
                  nick@attorneyzim.com
                  maebetty@attorneyzim.com


SCOTIABANK PR: Maura et al. Sue over Foreclosures
-------------------------------------------------
In the case, YIRIES JOSEPH ASEF SAAD MAURA, WILLIAM LOPEZ COLON,
his spouse NANCY COLON BERRIOS and the CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP
CONSTITUTED BETWEEN THEM, et al. the Plaintiffs, v. SCOTIABANK
PUERTO RICO, MIDFIRST BANK, PR ASSET PORFOLIO 2013-1 INTERNATIONAL
LLC, MWPR CR LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case No. (S.D. Fla.,
Oct. 27, 2017), Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of
themselves and a class of persons who sought loan modifications to
their mortgage payments through their banks and/or mortgage loan
servicers.  Plaintiffs are residents of the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico and/or the United States of America, with real estate
properties located in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The
Defendants are banks and/or mortgage loan servicers dedicated to
provide mortgage loans to qualified individuals with offices,
branches and subsidiaries located in Puerto Rico and/or the United
States.

The Defendants' actions have cause great suffering and emotional
distress to Plaintiffs, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiffs had not
been able to live peacefully and quietly since the start of
lawsuits and/or foreclosure proceedings. The Plaintiffs had mental
anguishes and sufferings as a result of the lawsuits and/or
foreclosure proceedings brought against them. Defendants directly
or indirectly through them, their loan servicers, employees and
representatives, have been continually harassing the Plaintiffs by
requiring them pay inexistent or inaccurate arrears, to
communicate with them and threatened to foreclose their
property.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vanessa Saxton-Arroyo, Esq.
          P.O. Box 191590
          San Juan, PR 00919-1590
          Telephone: (787) 667 8094
          E-mail: vanessa.saxton@capr.org

               - and -

          John A. Stewart-Sotomayor, Esq.
          Arecibo PR 00614-0357
          Telephone: (787) 955 0516
          E-mail: stewart_j_esq@msn.com

               - and -

          Lisandra Rodriguez Moreno, Esq.
          Parque del Monte MB-78 Paseo del Sol
          Trujillo Alto, PR 00976
          Telephone: (787) 603 5199
          E-mail: lrodzmoreno@gmail.com

               - and -

          Joseph Gierbolini, Esq.
          PO Box 191620
          San Juan, PR 00919-1620
          Telephone: (787) 225 5367
          E-mail: juriszone@capr.org

               - and -

          Atabey Lamela-Garcia, Esq.
          PO Box 194829
          San Juan, PR 00919-4829
          Telephone: (787) 960 7780
          E-mail: lcda.lamela@hotmail.com


SIXT RENT A CAR: Underpays Fleet Planners, "Russell" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Russell, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Sixt Rent A Car LLC and Does
1 through 100, the Defendants, Case No. BC679288, (Sup. Ct. Cal.,
October 11, 2017), seeks to recover civil penalties under the
California Labor Code.

The plaintiff alleges that he worked for defendants as a Fleet
Planner from approximately November 2014 until his resignation on
August 7, 2017. During the plaintiff's employment with the
defendants, he regularly worked in excess of eight hours per
workday, but did not receive overtime compensation equal to 1-1/2
times their regular rate of pay for overtime hours worked. The
plaintiff and similarly situated employees were receiving an
incentive pay that caused them to be underpaid all their required
overtime wages. Defendants also failed to compensate Plaintiff and
similarly aggrieved employees for all hours worked.

Specifically, Plaintiff and similarly aggrieved employees were
required to download Microsoft Outlook onto their cellular phones
and respond to Defendants' emails when they were off-duty.
Plaintiff and similarly aggrieved employees were not compensated
for this time worked, causing them to not be paid all minimum and
overtime wages.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

Paul K. Haines, Esq.
Sean M. Blakely, 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
Email: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
Email: sblakely@haineslawgroup.com
Email: dbrown@haineslawgroup.com


SELENE FINANCE: "Werner" Suit Moved to S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
The venue of the case styled as Diana Werner, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Selene
Finance, LLC and Friedman Vartolo, LLP, the Defendants, was
removed from Supreme Court, County of Dutchess, Case No. 17-51519,
on August 30, 2017, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, Case No. 7:17-cv-06514-NSR.  The case is
assigned to Judge Nelson Stephen Roman.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

Edward B. Geller, Esq.
EDWARD B. GELLER, ESQ. P.C
15 Landing Way
Bronx, NY 10464
Telephone: (914) 473-6783
Email: epbh@aol.com

     - and -

Richard J. Davis, Esq.
BURR & FORMAN LLP
420 North 20th Street
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 251-3000
Facsimile: (205) 244-5654
Email: rdavis@maynardcooper.com


SJS ENTERPRISES: Bautista Seeks Minimum Wage, OT under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Katryna Bautista, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SJS Enterprises, Inc., doing
business as SC Village Paintball and Airsoft Park; D & G
Sports Ventures, LLC doing business as Giant Sports; Hollywood
Sports Park, LLC; and, Does One through Ten the Defendants, Case
No. BC682213 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 2, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wage and overtime under California Labor Code.

On a regular and consistent basis, Plaintiff was not provided with
meal periods before the end of the fifth hour of work, if at all.
Defendants, by and through their officers, directors and managing
agents, intentionally and systematically promulgated and enforced
policies under which Plaintiff regularly worked more than five
hours per day without being allowed one meal period of at least 30
minutes during which she was relieved of all of her respective job
duties. Throughout the relevant period, Plaintiff frequently was
required to forego her meal periods in order to continue working.
The Plaintiff was not provided with an additional hour of pay for
each workday that the meal period was not properly provided.
Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff for missed meal periods
systemically violated the mandatory requirements of sections 226.7
and 512 of the California Labor Code and Commission wage order No.
10-2001.

SJS Enterprises provides printing services to automotive,
electronics, and appliance industries worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Ricasa, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN RICASA
          15760 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 700
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (818) 650 8077
          Facsimile: (818) 301 5151
          E-mail: jricasa@ricasalaw.com


SKECHERS USA: Dec. 22 Deadline to File Lead Plaintiff Bid
---------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors that they have until December 22, 2017 to file lead
plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit
against Skechers U.S.A., Inc. (NYSE:SKX), if they purchased the
Company's shares between April 23, 2015 and October 22, 2015,
inclusive (the "Class Period").  This action is pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

Skechers investors should visit us at
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-skechers-usa-inc-
securities-litigation-2 or call to speak to our claim center toll-
free at (844) 367-9658.

Skechers and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.

On October 22, 2015, the Company released its Q3 2015 results,
which revealed net sales far below analysts' consensus estimates
based on $20 million in net sales being moved from Q3 to Q2 2015
because of early customer deliveries as well as a weaker retail
environment than expected.

On this news, the price of Skechers shares plummeted $14.55 per
share, or 31.50 percent, to close on October 23, 2015 at $31.64
per share.

                           About ClaimsFiler

ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. ClaimsFiler's
team of experts monitor the securities class action landscape and
cull information from a variety of sources to ensure comprehensive
coverage across a broad range of financial instruments. [GN]


SOCAL REPRODUCTIVE CENTER: Faces "Thompson" Suit
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Southern California
Reproductive Center. The case is captioned as Latoshia Ann
Thompson and Chyontelle Marcia McGinnis, Individually and as
Limited Liability Partners of MDT and Associated, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, for the benefit of
MDT and Associates, LLC, the Plaintiffs. v. Southern California
Reproductive Center; Shahin Ghadir, M.D.; The City of Los Angeles,
as The Mayor of the City of Los Angeles; Eric Garcetti, as the
Mayor of the City of Los Angeles; DPSS; Homeless Services
Authority; LAHSA; LAFD; LASD; RAPS; Metropolitan Transit
Authority, MTA; Shane Murphy Goldsmith as The City of Los Angeles
Police Board Commissioner; LAHSA former Vice Chair; Downtown
Women's Center DWC; Angel Jones Day Center Manager DWC; the
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-07883-VBF-KS (C.D. Cal., Oct. 27,
2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Valerie Baker
Fairbank.

Southern California Reproductive Center is the leading fertility
clinic in the Los Angeles and Santa Barbara areas offering
surgical and non-surgical treatments.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


SOUTH COAST TRANS: Fails to Pay Earned Wages, "Yoo" Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
SAM YOO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. SOUTH COAST TRANSPORTATION &
DISTRIBUTION, INC., and DOES 1 through 25, the Defendants, Case
No. BC62126AXED (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 2, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid earned wages under California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, during each assignment, upon arriving
at a drop destination, Plaintiff was required to wait while goods
were unloaded from his truck. Plaintiff was not paid for his
waiting time. Occasionally, while on driving assignments, the
trucks being driven by Plaintiff and other members of the Class
would require maintenance or repairs. As drivers, Plaintiff and
other members of the Class were required to arrange for such work
and wait while it was performed. Plaintiff and other Class members
were not paid for such time. While employed on driving assignments
for Defendants, Plaintiff was not always provided with compliant
meal and rest breaks. And, when Plaintiff took ten-minute rest
breaks, he was not separately compensated for such time. To
perform their jobs, Plaintiff and other members of the Class were
required to purchase navigation devices and road maps. Defendants
did not reimburse employees for these expenses.

South Coast provides transportation and logistics services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

     - and -

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


SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS: Cost of 2015 Leak at $841MM and Counting
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Solis, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
the 2015 blowout at an LA-area natural gas storage facility that
displaced thousands of residents will cost Southern California Gas
Company an estimated $841 million, according to a quarterly
earnings report from the company -- which said the leak generated
more than 300 lawsuits involving over 43,800 plaintiffs.

The suits claim negligence, strict liability, property damage,
fraud, public and private nuisance (continuing and permanent),
trespass, inverse condemnation, fraudulent concealment, unfair
business practices, and loss of consortium, among other things
against the utility and the state of California. Most of those
suits were filed with the Los Angeles Superior Court.

Porter Ranch resident Matt Pakucko, who has been a vocal critic of
how the state and SoCalGas handled the situation at its Aliso
Canyon facility, said the 2015 leak was like a faáade being lifted
from the community.

"We could tell there were all these strange problems with people's
health before the blowout, but there were no infections, no
bacteria that could be discovered by tests," Pakucko said in an
interview.

"The symptoms were in line with exposure to chemicals. Then we
knew the truth."

Pakucko, founder of the group Save Porter Ranch, personally knows
hundreds of people who have sued SoCalGas and the state, including
himself. He has lived in the San Fernando Valley community for 10
years and does not expect the quarterly earnings report to have
any impact on the Aliso Canyon storage facility's operations.

In July, SoCalGas Company restarted operations at the facility
with the approval from the California Public Utilities Commission
and state's Department of Conservation Division of Oil, Gas &
Geothermal Resources.

A majority of the $840 million estimated cost was used to relocate
residents and to pay for cleaning and labor costs. More was spent
on efforts to control and stop the leak, reduce emissions, and
investigate the cause of the blowout at the well.

The remaining sum includes "legal costs incurred to defend
litigation, the value of lost gas, the costs to mitigate the
actual natural gas released, and other costs," according to the
report.

One lawsuit filed by Alberto Del Castillo, his family and several
other Porter Ranch residents the leak made them "sick almost all
the time" due to the strong gas odor they could smell from their
home.

In 2016, a Los Angeles judge ordered SoCalGas to pay for the costs
to clean residents' homes. And the utility pleaded no contest as
part of a settlement agreement after the Los Angeles County
District Attorney's Office filed a misdemeanor criminal complaint
seeking penalties and other remedies over the failure to provide
timely notice of the leak.

SoCalGas agreed to pay a $75,000 fine, penalty assessments of
approximately $233,500 and operational commitments estimated at $5
million.

Liza Tucker with Consumer Watchdog wants to know how much of the
$841 million estimate will be passed on to ratepayers, and told
Courthouse News the utility shouldn't be allowed to ask customers
to pay for anything.

"They're supposed to be maintaining these wells, but they were
not," Tucker said. "They collected ratepayers' fees to service the
facilities. Clearly the wells were not being maintained. It was
SoCalGas' fault that the well exploded. It was not an act of God."

In 2015, the California Public Utilities Commission ordered
SoCalGas to exclude costs related to the Aliso Canyon leak from
requests to raise rates. And in March 2016, the commission ordered
SoCalGas to track day-to-day costs not associated with the leak so
regulators can determine if ratepayers should receive a refund.

Several state agencies have ongoing investigations related to the
estimated 109,000 metric tons of natural gas that were released
during the leak. The $841 million estimate does not include
pending lawsuits, costs of cooperating with the investigations,
damages and restitution, civil, administrative and criminal fines,
or other penalties.

The residents' lawsuits will likely go to trial by late next year.


SPANISH BROADCASTING: Sends Spam Text Messages, Bugbee Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Bugbee, the Plaintiff, v. Spanish Broadcasting System, Inc.
and Does 1-20, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-06164, (N.D. Ill.,
August 24, 2017), alleges that in multiple instances, the
defendant sent text messages to the class members without the
prior express consent of the recipients, and even continue to send
text messages after the class members requested to stop and after
the member registered with the federal government's Do Not Call
list.  The acts and omissions of the defendant constitutes
numerous and multiple negligent and willful violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the lawsuit says.

Spanish Broadcasting System, Inc. was engaged in the marketing and
operation of Spanish-language radio stations throughout the United
States.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

David B. Levin, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
111 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (312) 212-4355
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
Email: dlevin@toddflaw.com


SUBWAY: Plaintiffs Abandon Footlong Sandwich Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal News Line, reports that
plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit brought over Subway's
"footlong" sandwiches have decided to abandon efforts to pursue
the litigation.

The plaintiffs filed a two-page stipulation of dismissal without
prejudice in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin Oct. 24.

Their voluntary dismissal comes nearly two months after the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit dismissed a proposed
settlement agreement.

The Seventh Circuit, in its Aug. 25 decision, reversed the Eastern
District of Wisconsin's decision certifying a proposed class and
approving a settlement in the case, calling it "utterly
worthless."

Days later, despite the Seventh Circuit ruling, the plaintiffs
said they intended to pursue the litigation.

They did not provide a reason for their voluntary dismissal, filed
by co-lead counsel Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq. --
sdenittis@denittislaw.com -- of the firm of DeNittis Osefchen
Prince P.C., of Marlton, N.J. and Thomas A. Zimmerman Jr., Esq. --
tom@attorneyzim.com -- of the Zimmerman Law Offices of Chicago.

"The Subway sandwich litigation was a racket used by plaintiffs'
attorneys to extract fees for themselves, as the Seventh Circuit
rightly recognized," said Ted Frank, with the Competitive
Enterprise Institute's Center for Class Action Fairness and a
frequent objector to such class action settlements.

Frank, a class member himself, objected to the settlement and
class certification.

He argued the settlement -- a proposed injunction -- enriched only
the lawyers and provided no meaningful benefits to the class.

"We hope the failure of this frivolous lawsuit and unfair
settlement deal will discourage others from pursuing frivolous
class actions," Frank said in a statement.

The plaintiffs alleged footlong sandwiches sold at Subway
restaurants were marketed as being 12 inches in length, when, in
fact, they were not.

According to their complaint, Subway's alleged business practices
violated state consumer protection statutes.

The class action stemmed from a social media post in 2013, which
pointed out how the chain's footlong sandwich came up short.

Matt Corby, an Australian teenager, purchased a Subway footlong
sandwich and decided to measure it. The sandwich was only 11
inches long. He took a photo of the sandwich next to a tape
measure and posted the photo on his Facebook page.

Subway, in response, issued a press release announcing it had
"redoubled" its efforts "to ensure consistency and correct length
in every sandwich." The franchisor assured its customers that its
"commitment remains steadfast" to ensure that every footlong
sandwich sold at each of its restaurants worldwide is at least 12
inches long.

"Within days of Corby's post, the American class-action bar rushed
to court," Judge Diane S. Sykes wrote in the Seventh Circuit's 11-
page ruling.

Plaintiffs' lawyers sued Doctor's Associates Inc., the franchisor
of Subway Sandwich Shops, seeking damages and injunctive relief
under the consumer protection laws of various states.

Subway moved to transfer the cases to a single district court for
a multidistrict litigation. The cases -- nine in total -- were
eventually consolidated in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. [GN]


SUPAROSSA RESTAURANT: Heckl Sues over Biometric Data Collection
---------------------------------------------------------------
LORNA HECKL, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated
individuals, the Plaintiff, v. SUPAROSSA RESTURANT GROUP LLC, MR.
B's STUFFED PIZZA, INC., REAL TIME SPORTS, MIA'S GELATO, BIAGIO
EVENTS & CATERING, CUCINA BIAGIO and LEGNO IGP, the Defendants,
Case No. 2017-CH-14299 (in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Ill.,
Oct. 25, 2017), seeks to stop Defendants from unlawful collection,
use, storage, and disclosure of sensitive biometric data belonging
to the Plaintiff and class.

According to the complaint, when employees first start working for
Defendants, they are required to scan their fingerprints and part
of their hand into its time clock. Defendants utilize that scanned
information as part of their biometric time tracking system, which
requires employees use their fingerprints and partial hand prints
as a means of authentication, instead of a passcode,
identification card or other means of identification. Employees
who are responsible for placing orders in Defendants' point of
sale ("POS") system, are also required to scan their fingerprints
in the POS system. Defendants utilize that scanned and sensitive
information as part of the login process for their POS system, as
opposed to a unique passcode, identification card, or other means
of identification. 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 and
hand prints are unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated
with the employee. This exposes employees to serious and
irreversible privacy risks. For example, if a fingerprint or
biometric database is hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed,
employees have no means by which to prevent identity theft and
unauthorized tracking of their own unique biometric makeup.

Suparossa is a company that has a variety of restaurant, catering,
and venue concepts located in Chicago and its suburbs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robin Potter, Esq.
          M. Nieves Bolanos, Esq.
          POTTER BOLANOS LLC
          www.potterlaw.org
          111 East Wacker Drive, Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 861 1800
          Facsimile: (312) 861 3009
          E-mail: robin@potterlaw.org
                  nieves@potterlaw.org

               - and -

          Randall B. Gold, Esq.
          FOX & FOX, S.C.
          www.fox-law.com
          111 East Wacker Dr. Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 6060
          E-mail: Rgoldlaw@aol.com


SYKES ENTERPRISES: "Rake" Suit Moved to Middle Dist. of Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Kevin Rake, on behalf of himself
and all similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff v. Sykes
Enterprises Incorporated, the Defendant, Case No. 17-CA-9148, was
removed on Oct. 30, 2017 from the 13th Judicial Circuit
Hillsborough County, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida (Tampa). The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 8:17-cv-02560-JDW-MAP to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge James D. Whittemore.

Sykes Enterprises, Incorporated is an American multinational
corporation headquartered in Tampa, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
          1110 N Florida Ave Ste 300
          Tampa, FL 33602-3343
          Telephone: (813) 224 0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229 8712
          E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
                  lcabassa@wfclaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Theresa M. Waugh, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, PC
          111 North Magnolia Ave., Suite 1250
          Orlando, FL 32801-2366
          Telephone: (407) 393 2900
          Facsimile: (407) 393 2929
          E-mail: twaugh@littler.com


TD BANK: "Lay" Suit Moved to Southern District of Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Michael Lay, on behalf of himself
and similarly situated employees, the Plaintiff, v. TD Bank,
National Association, the Defendant, was moved on Nov. 2, 2017 to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Ft
Lauderdale). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:17-cv-
62143-JIC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Senior Judge James I. Cohn.

TD Bank, N.A., is an American national bank. It is the result of
many mergers and acquisitions. The bank operates in 15 states and
Washington D.C. It is located on the East coast of the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Michael Lay, Esq.
Scott M. Behren, Esq.
BEHREN LAW FIRM
2893 Exectuive Park Drive, Suite 110
Weston, FL 33331
Telephone: (954) 636 3802
Facsimile: (772) 252 3365
E-mail: scott@behrenlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

Aaron Jarett Reed, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
333 S.E. 2nd Avenue, Suite 2700
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 400 7500
Facsimile: (305) 603 2552
E-mail: AReed@littler.com


TERMINIX INT'L: "Renteria" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
JIMMY RENTERIA, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. BC678353 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., October 3, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid wages and penalties under the California Business and
Professions Code, the California Labor Code and the Industrial
Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 5.

Terminix International, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, provides
pest control services to residential and commercial customers, and
employed the Plaintiff and other similarly situated non-exempt
employees within the County of Los Angeles and the state of
California.  The Plaintiff does not know the true names or
capacities of the Doe Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          Sean M. Blakely, 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
                  sblakely@haineslawgroup.com
                  dbrown@haineslawgroup.com


TESLA INC: Dec. 11 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
----------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP alerts investors in Tesla, Inc.
(NASDAQ:TSLA) to the securities class action pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.  The Lead
Plaintiff deadline is December 11, 2017.  If you purchased or
otherwise acquired securities of TSLA between May 4, 2016 and
November 1, 2017 and suffered losses contact Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP.  For more information visit
https://www.hbsslaw.com/cases/TSLA or contact Reed Kathrein, who
is leading the firm's investigation, by calling 510-725-3000 or
emailing TSLA@hbsslaw.com

On October 6, 2017, the Wall Street Journal reported: "Unknown to
analysts, investors and the hundreds of thousands of customers who
signed up to buy it, as recently as early September major portions
of the Model 3 were still being banged out by hand, away from the
automated production line, according to people familiar with the
matter."  This news drove the price of TSLA shares down $13.94, or
nearly 4%, to close at $342.94 on October 9, 2017.

Then, on November 1, 2017, the WSJ reported (a) "Tesla said it
would build 10% fewer Model S and X vehicles in the fourth quarter
than the third quarter" and (b) "[t]he outlook is even worse for
the Model 3 [. . . ] [i]t now expects to produce 5,000 a week by
the first quarter of next year, another slippage in its timeline."
This news drove the price of TSLA shares down as much as $24.80,
or nearly 8%, during intraday trading on November 2, 2017.

"We're focused on Tesla's apparent omissions concerning its
struggle to build the Model 3 and investor damages resulting from
the recent revelations," said Hagens Berman partner Reed Kathrein.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
Tesla should consider their options to help in the investigation
or take advantage of the SEC whistleblower program.  Under the new
program, whistleblowers who provide original information may
receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful
recovery made by the SEC.  For more information, call Reed
Kathrein at 510-725-3000 or email TSLA@hbsslaw.com.

                    About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman is a national investor-rights law firm headquartered
in Seattle, Washington with 70+ attorneys in 11 offices across the
country.  The firm represents investors, whistleblowers, workers
and consumers in complex litigation.  More about the firm and its
successes can be found at www.hbsslaw.com.  For the latest news
visit our newsroom or follow us on Twitter at @classactionlaw.

         Reed Kathrein, Esq.
         Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
         Tel. No.: 510-725-3000
         E-mail: reed@hbsslaw.com  [GN]


TEZOS ICO: CA Lawsuit Now Official, Tim Draper on Defensive
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jon Buck, writing for The Cointelegraph, reports that the behemoth
Tezos ICO, once the darling of the ICO world backed by VC icon Tim
Draper, is now the subject of at least one major class action
lawsuit with potentially more to follow. The threat of class
action came some weeks back after infighting at the top of the
company went public.

The class action has been filed in district court in California by
attorney James Taylor-Copeland. Esq. --
james@taylorcopelandlaw.com -- on behalf of investors. The suit
alleges that Tezos violated US Securities Law by offering
securities, while at the same time "misleading" investors
regarding the nature of the company.

Tim Draper defended his position writing in his comment to
Cointelegraph:

"There was nothing secretive about our purchase of Tezos. We
invested for ownership in the company, which at the time was two
bright young people and an idea. The sale might not have happened
at all! We also participated in the Pre-sale. Most ICO founders
earn tokens over time. All tokens we hope to receive that we
didn't buy in the Pre-sale (alongside with all the other investors
who participated) will vest over time with the founders' tokens. I
have no intention of selling these tokens because I am a true
believer in the Tezos mission: to build a Blockchain on proof of
stake and open it up for developers to build and invent on a new
and more relevant platform."

                             Investors Angry

The suit is not the only one in the works. Other firms are also
studying and preparing for potential lawsuits, including Florida-
based firm Silver Miller. Investors who feel they have been bilked
out of funds can contact either firm to be added to the class
action. According to the report:

"Taylor-Copeland said the proposed class includes an estimated
30,000 people who bought Tezzies and seeks to allow them to
rescind their purchases and other damages. He said the lawsuit may
be the first civil action brought over an ICO." [GN]


THERAPY SOURCE: Fails to Pay Full Commission to Sales Reps
----------------------------------------------------------
COLLEEN LIDSTONE and ALICE M. FORSYTHE, on their own behalf and
for all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. THERAPY
SOURCE INC., JOSHUA CARTAGENOVA and STACEY CARTEGENOVA, the
Defendants, Case No. 171003423 (in the Court of Common Pleas of
Philadelphia County, PA, Oct. 25, 2017), contend that Defendants
violated the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law, when
they breached their employment contracts, which required them to
pay full commissions to their sales representatives but, as a
matter of policy, willfully and continuously refused to do so.

Therapy Source is a resource for therapist jobs, and staffing
solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy M Kolman, Esq.
          KOLMAN ELY, P.C.
          414 Hulmeville Avenue
          Penndel, PA 19047
          Telephone: (215) 750 3134
          E-mail: tkolman@kolmanlaw.net


TIM SCHAEFFER: Faces "Warid" Suit over Building Code Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
SOHAIL and SAMIRA WARID, husband and wife, and THADDAEUS and JENNY
ROBBINS, husband and wife, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. TIM SCHAEFFER DEVELOPMENT
CORP., d/b/a "Tim Schaeffer Communities" and "Schaeffer Family
Homes;" WHITE CEDARS ASSOCIATES, LLC, d/b/a "Tim Schaeffer
Communities" and "Schaeffer Family Homes;" DAYSTAR
CONSTRUCTION, INC., d/b/a "Tim Schaffer Communities" and
"Schaeffer Family Homes;" and SCHAEFFER FAMILY HOMES, LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 17-_____ (N.J. Super. Ct., Nov. 3, 2017),
seeks remedy from uniform, class-wide building code violation and
associated design and construction defects in approximately 44
mass-built homes with stucco facades/fronts that were designed,
constructed, and sold by Defendants.

According to the complaint, independent inspections have
determined that the stucco-front homes in the "White Cedars by Tim
Schaeffer Communities" development were designed and constructed
by Defendants in error and in violation of the applicable building
code, with several associated design and construction defects.
Specifically, it was discovered that Defendants made a design and
construction error in the installation of stucco, or exterior
insulated finish system, on the facades of approximately 44 homes
located in the "White Cedars by Tim Schaeffer Communities"
development, in that Defendants failed to provide the required
level of stucco thickness mandated by the applicable building
code, as well as other stucco-related design and construction
defects. These homes were built using uniform procedures,
according to a common design, and the code violation and design
defects described herein are common to all stucco-front homes
designed and built by Defendants in the "White Cedars by Tim
Schaeffer Communities" development. As related in greater detail
herein, Defendants were aware of the building code violation and
uniform construction defects at the time these homes were built
and originally sold
by Defendants to members of the proposed class, including
Plaintiffs. Despite this, Defendants failed to reveal the
existence of the building code violation, or the other uniform
construction defects described herein, to class members at the
time Defendants sold these homes to Plaintiffs and the class.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen P. Denittis, Esq.
          DENITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C.
          5 Greentree Circle, Suite 410
          Marlton, NJ, 08053
          Telephone: (856) 797 9951
          E-mail: sdenittis@denittislaw.com


TOYO INK: "Polino" Suit Goes to Mediation
-----------------------------------------
The venue of the case styled as Armando Polino individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Toyo
Ink America, LLC, the Defendant, was removed from Orange County
Court, Case No. 30-2017-009277581-CU-WT-CJC, on August 22, 2017,
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
Case No. 8:17-cv-01441-DOC-DFM, on September 3, 2017.

In a Nov. 1 Order, Judge John A. Kronstadt held that the case is
ordered to a private mediator based upon a stipulation of the
parties or by the court order.  The ADR Proceeding is to be held
no later than May 7, 2018.  Status Conference is set for May 21,
2018 at 1:30 pm before Judge Kronstadt.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

Meghan Elisabeth George, Esq.
Todd M Friedman, Esq.
TODD M. FRIEDMAN LAW OFFICES PC
21550 Oxnard Street Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA
Telephone: (877) 206-4741
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
Email: mgeorge@toddflaw.com
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com

Defendant is represented by:

Beth A Kahn, Esq.
CLARK HILL LLP
1055 West 7th Street 24th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2503
Telephone: (213) 891-9100
Facsimile: (213) 488-1178
Email: bkahn@clarkhill.com

     - and -

Michael Paul Purcell, Esq.
CLARK HILL LLP
One Embarcadero Center Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 984-8500
Facsimile: (415) 984-8599
Email: mpurcell@clarkhill.com


TRINITY MANAGEMENT: Spiro & Kaplan Sue over Water Service Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN SPIRO and SIMONE KAPLAN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. TRINITY
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case
No. CGC-17-562293 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 3, 2017), seeks an
injunction requiring Defendants to amend lease agreement and
notify all Class Members that they have a right to obtain the
information and documents describing in detail how Defendants
calculated their bill for trash and water/sewer charges.

This class action lawsuit is brought on behalf of the tenants and
former tenants of Defendants, one of San Francisco's largest
landlords with dozens of multi-apartment buildings and hundreds of
apartment units. Defendants have a systematic business practice of
fraudulently overcharging their tenants for trash and water/sewer
service. Defendants also have a business practice of covering up
their fraud by refusing to provide their tenants with the
information and documentation that would allow the tenant to know
that he or she has been overcharged. Finally, Defendants enforce
illegal and unfair contractual provisions that purport to strip
any ability of the Courts or a regulatory agency from stopping
Defendants fraudulent practices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Devine, Esq.
          SEEGER SALVAS & DEVINE LLP
          455 Market Street, No. 1530
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 981 9260


TRINITY PRESS: "Mamary" Suit Claims Sexual Harassment
-----------------------------------------------------
Tony Mamary, the Plaintiff, v. Trinity Press, Inc.; Raymond
Mininni; Kevin Barnes and John Does 1-5 and 6-10, the Defendants,
Case No. L-2808-17, (Sup. Ct. N.J., August 25, 2017), seeks
damages including interest, cost of suit and attorneys' fees for
defendants' discrimination and sexual harassment.

The plaintiff states that he began working as a "biller" with
Trinity Press in April 2013 and was subjected to sexual harassment
by the defendants on a daily basis until she was terminated in
July of 2017.  All harassment are alleged to have been because of
plaintiff's sex or gender which are severe or pervasive.
Harassment was purposeful, intentional, wilfull and undertaken by
members of upper management in fact and in law.  Thus punitive
damages are warranted.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Grizzlies Owner Faces Questions Over Quick Rise
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ted Evanoff, writing for Commercial Appeal, reports that when
California entrepreneur Robert Pera set out to buy the Memphis
Grizzlies, he looked like a young go-getter taking control of the
city's premier sports franchise.

Now a lawsuit filed in New York rekindles questions about business
practices at Ubiquiti Networks Inc., the wellspring of Pera's
considerable wealth.

You might remember this summer's war of words led by Citron
Research, a kind of pit bull in the financial world.

Citron's attack on Ubiquiti fell short, but the echo continues.

Citron accusations are at the center of a lawsuit that asks a
federal judge in New York to impanel a jury and weigh allegations
Ubiquiti made up information in its financial reports in violation
of U.S. law.

                          Class-action Case

Lots of lawyers troll the country for supposed victims of
securities fraud.

And this looks like one of those.

Class-action lawsuit attorneys Gardy & Notis LP reeled in a small
investor named Richard Gericke.

Gericke owns 75 Ubiquiti shares, the lawsuit contends, and he
bought the stock at prices artificially inflated by Ubiquiti.

Wall Street pit bulls, class-action trolls and a victim out a few
hundred bucks are hardly worth mention.

Except Pera's handling of this bears watching.

Too good to be true?

If this lawsuit goes to trial, Ubiquiti could wind up explaining
some actions that may not be unlawful, but as Citron's report
claims, don't really add up.

The report questions how a company with only 725 employees and so
little spending on innovation could make so much money.

All this could touch on the lingering question behind the
reclusive electrical engineer's fabulous wealth.

Is his story too good to be true?

Turns out a Manhattan jury may put the question to rest.

                          FedExForum

Whether some distant tech firm erred or not isn't a Memphis
concern.

But Robert Pera is our concern.

Memphis needs a Grizzlies owner able to keep the franchise stable.
For the city, this comes down to a tax base issue.

While other pro teams are in the region, the Grizzlies play in
FedExForum, the largest construction project ever undertaken by
local government.

Sales taxes paid by fans buying tickets, food and other items in
the arena help pay off the $250 million in construction loans.

The city needs an owner willing to keep the team in Memphis and
able to keep fans in the FedExForum's 18,100 seats.

Rags to riches

None of this seemed relevant six week ago.

Ubiquiti's stock climbed during the summer, rising 24 percent in
value between Memorial Day and Labor Day.

Stock is like money and if it rises in value the owner is richer.

Perhaps the biggest beneficiary was Pera himself. He owns about 56
million shares of Ubiquiti stock.

His is like a rags-to-riches story, except for the rags. He grew
up among San Francisco's elite.

He's the son of Edmond Pera, the former chief financial officer of
one of the nation's biggest private companies,  bluejeans maker
Levi Strauss of San Francisco.

The elder Pera now heads Armanino Foods, a San Francisco
wholesaler whose stellar board of directors once included
Hollywood movie producer and celebrity manager Toni Barzie, whose
clients have included Tommy Dorsey, Eddie Fisher, Jackie Gleason
and Frank Sinatra.

Robert Pera formed Ubiquiti in 2005 shortly after graduation from
San Diego State University. He was 27.

Ubiquiti made a simple wireless broadband device.

If you were in Peru or rural China this is what you wanted. It
lets a person in one town without extensive communication systems
talk by cell phone to a person in another town.

                              Sales Boom

To say the device caught on is to understate its popularity.

Choose your clichÇ. Young Pera minted money. He made money hand
over fist. His devices sold like hotcakes. His touch was gold.

Rather than hire a big sales force, Ubiquiti relied on customers
to spread the word. And rather than hire a big engineering staff,
the firm relied on customers to suggest product improvements.

In 2011, Ubiquiti went public, scheduling the sale of $147 million
worth of stock in the initial public offering.

In 2012, Pera bought a major stake in the Grizzlies, a franchise
in the National Basketball Association.

In 2014, business magazine Forbes named Pera, age 36, to its list
of world's youngest billionaires.

In 2017, Forbes estimated Pera's net worth exceeded $3.8 billion
with the bulk of the fortune apparently consisting of Ubiquiti
stock.

Then came Sept. 18.

                               Red Flags?

Los Angeles investment advisor Citron Research speculates on
stocks. It profits when the stock price falls, a procedure known
as short sales.

Citron short-seller extraordinaire Andrew Left's report identified
what he described as "red flag warnings."

"Citron," his report says, "believes (the) Ubiquiti story is
unraveling as we write. The end is now for the Ubiquiti fraud."

Ubiquiti's stock price fell 8 percent, closing at $50.62 per share
that day.

Pera soon calmed investors. He called Citron's attack the work of
"clowns."

Many stock analysts and observers, including The Commercial
Appeal, pointed out contentions aired by Citron had been made by
others and put to rest five years earlier.

Ubiquiti's stock price recovered.

                             Lawsuit Filed

Seven days after Citron's report splashed over Wall Street, the
Gericke lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court on Manhattan.

The lawsuit enshrined the accusations leveled by Andrew Left,
contending Citron had "documented verifiable fraudulent statements
concerning the reporting of accounts receivable, and the size of
Ubiquiti's reported user base."

It is business jargon -- accounts receivable, user base. But it
touches on the very core of Ubiquiti's success.

Between 2014 and 2016, Ubiquiti after-tax annual profits doubled
to almost $258 million while sales rose 45 percent to $865
million.

The company was pocketing almost 30 cents of every sales dollar.
Not even far larger rival Cisco Systems Inc., the Gericke lawsuit
points out, could manage that kind of margin.

About that jargon

Say a wholesaler in the Czech Republic orders 1,000 devices. This
gets classified as an accounts receivable.

Gericke's lawsuit cites Citron's report. It points out there was a
Czech wholesaler, a firm named Discomp. According to the lawsuit,
this wholesaler reported a "trade payable" of $3.4 million to its
government while Ubiquiti showed $9 million in accounts receivable
attributable to Discomp.

Because the $9 million transaction was highlighted by Ubiquiti in
its annual report to shareholders filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission, Citron claims  Ubiquiti committed fraud
and was actually trying to makes its sales volume look bigger than
it was.

Did Discomp, the Czech government,  Ubiquiti or Citron make a
mistake?  That's what a trial may sort out.

                       Ubiquiti Community

Similarly, there's the matter of user base.  Those are customers
actually. They comment on forums. They suggest fixes. The company
listens and responds. It is one way Ubiquiti gets by with a small
staff of researchers.

According to the lawsuit, the tech company in an Aug. 25 press
release described  "a global, grass-roots community of over 4
million entrepreneurial operators and systems integrators who
engage in thousands of on-line forums."

Citron contends the 4 million number is suspect. Citron said it
analyzed 11,250 registered accounts and found almost 97 percent
never posted a message in a forum and that many are actually web
robots,  the lawsuit contends.

Ubiquiti and lawyers for Gericke didn't return calls last week.

What's next

Other law firms have sought clients.

The Pomerantz law firm of New York, which looks for high-profile
class action cases, filed its own lawsuit against Ubiquiti on
behalf of client Gabby Klein, who also filed securities fraud
lawsuits in 2013 and 2016 against other companies.

It looks like the Klein and Geriche lawsuits and any others that
come along may be bundled and heard as a class-action case with
multiple accusers.

So far, Ubiquiti has weathered the storm.

Since September the company has bought tens of thousands of shares
from other investors, reducing the number of Ubiquiti shares
available to trade on the market.

Aided by the buying binge, Ubiquiti edged over $62 per share last
week, above the $54.95-price the stock traded at just before the
Citron attack.

In terms of the stock value, it's as if the assault never
happened.

But in the next few weeks we'll find out if a class-action
materializes and be able to hear Ubiquiti explain its success in
court. [GN]


UNITED PRODUCTION: Orozco Seeks Minimum Wages under Labor Code
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE OROZCO, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. UNITED PRODUCTION FRAMING
LLC, a California Limited Liability Corporation; and
DOES 1 through 100, the Defendant, Case No. BC68220 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Nov. 1, 2017), seeks to recover overtime wages and minimum
wages under California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff
and other non-exempt employees who were compensated on a piece-
rate basis for so-called "nonproductive" time (i.e., hours that
they were working but were not actually performing piece-rate
work). For example, Plaintiff was required to travel between
jobsites, unload tools, wait for materials to arrive at jobsites,
and sometimes had to wait for a forklift operator to become
available before he could begin his work. Under Defendants' piece-
rate compensation system, Plaintiff was not compensated for time
spent performing such tasks. As a result of these practices,
Defendants did not pay Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees
for all hours worked at the minimum wage when they were being
compensated on a piece-rate basis, as Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiff for non-productive hours.  The lawsuit cites Gonzalez v.
Downtown LA Motors, LP (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 36 (holding that a
piece-rate compensation structure that does not separately
compensate employees for non-productive time violates California
minimum wage laws).

United Production is using Alignable to connect with other
businesses in Riverside.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
          Andrew JTRowbotham, Esq.
          Stephanie A. Rierig, 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
                  fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com
                  arowbotham@haineslawgroup.com
                  skierig@haineslawgroup.com


UNITED STATES: Civil Rights Groups Sue for Cambodian Refugees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Yam, writing for Huffington Post, reports that civil
rights groups have launched a class action lawsuit against federal
immigration authorities after a series of recent raids led to the
detention of more than 100 Cambodian refugees who could now face
deportation.

The lawsuit, launched November 3 by a number of Asian-American
nonprofits, argues that the recent arrests of Cambodian-Americans
across the country by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE) officials has been illegal. The detentions occurred amid
U.S. government tensions with Cambodia over repatriation policies.

The organizations argue that the raids, which they called the
largest to ever target the Cambodian community, were abrupt and
arbitrary.

"The lawsuit is attempting to stop this indiscriminate style of
raids," said Anoop Prasad, a lawyer on the case on behalf of the
plaintiffs. "This style of raids put people in this constant state
of fear."

ICE declined HuffPost's request for comment on the case.

Nonprofits Advancing Justice - Asian Law Caucus, Advancing
Justice-Los Angeles, and law firm Sidley Austin LLP filed the suit
on behalf of Nak Kim Chhoeun, Mony Neth and other individuals who
were detained in the raids.

Many Cambodians who came to the U.S. as children have only ever
known one home, but nearly 2,000 people are currently subject to
deportation orders by federal immigration authorities. Because the
Cambodian government has in the past refused to accept individuals
slated for deportation from the U.S., many have lived for years as
lawful permanent residents.

Advocates say that most of these Cambodian refugees did receive
final orders of removal in the past and had been detained for
their criminal records, many as teenagers. But the vast majority
were released years ago on orders of supervision, required to
annually check in with authorities but otherwise free to live in
the U.S.. Many of those who've been rounded up had moved forward
with their lives, staying out of crime for decades, Prasad
explained.

The sudden urgency by the U.S. government to pursue detention
again has confounded advocates.

According to Prasad, it's legal for ICE to detain these
individuals in certain cases when there are relevant changes in
circumstances, including if ICE has acquired travel documents for
them, or if the Cambodian government has indicated that they're
willing to take specific people back.

But Prasad said those conditions have not been met with the raids.
In fact, most individuals have been routinely checking in with ICE
for some time but were unexpectedly detained at recent check-ins,
Prasad said.

He told HuffPost that he believes ICE is using these legal,
documented refugee immigrants as pawns during a time of strained
U.S. relations with Cambodia, and that raids are probably a
response to the Cambodian government's pushback on the U.S.
deportation of refugees who have few or no ties to their home
country.

Even though Cambodia has demonstrated cooperation with
repatriation efforts, the Trump administration continued with the
large-scale roundups, likely to put pressure on the country in
hopes it will take in more people in the coming year, Quyen Dinh,
executive director of nonprofit Southeast Asia Resource Action
Center, or SEARAC, previously told HuffPost.

Prior to the roundups, the Trump administration had already in
September imposed visa sanctions on Cambodia, preventing high-
ranking officials and their families from traveling to the U.S.

The raids have created a stressful environment for the families of
those who have been picked up, and the situation has stirred up
many emotions in the community.

"Especially for older generations -- the parents of a lot of
people being picked up -- they're feeling this trauma of being
separated from their families again," Prasad said. "Almost all of
them lost relatives in the genocide. Almost all of them were
separated from family members when they were fleeing and were
never able to find their family members again. I think the
experience of now losing another generation to deportation is
definitely traumatizing to the Cambodian community."

The groups who filed the lawsuit are currently awaiting ICE's
response to the litigation. But for now, they're calling on people
to sign a petition in opposition to the ICE raids. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Dingler Sue Appellate Court Judges
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against James N. Hatten.
The case is captioned as JOSEPH DINGLER and ASHTON DINGLER,
Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all persons similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. JAMES N. HATTEN, U.S. District Court,
Clerk; JUSTIN S. ANAND, Judge, U.S. District Court;
AMY TOTTENBERG, Judge, U.S. District Court; PHYLLIS A. KRAVITCH,
Judge, U.S. 11th Circuit; STANLEY F. BIRCH, JR., Judge, U.S. 11th
Circuit; JEROME FARRIS, U.S. 9th Circuit; and UNITED STATES, INC.
also known as: THE UNITED STATES also known as: UNITED STATES,
INC., Any pseudo name of 28 U.S.C. 3002(15)(A), Case No. 1:17-cv-
02232-UNA (D.D.C., Oct. 26, 2017).[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


UNITED STATES: Judge Urged to Free Iraqi Detainees
--------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
civil rights groups have asked a federal judge in Michigan to
order the release of Iraqi nationals who say they are being
unlawfully detained and face persecution and death if they are
forced to return to the Middle East.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents rounded up more than
100 Iraqi nationals in Detroit this summer, striking fear in a
community of Chaldean Christians that the Trump administration had
previously suggested it would protect from persecution in the
Middle East.

Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, a group of
detainees sued Detroit's ICE director in June, claiming the
administration was trying to send them back to a country where
they faced torture and death because of their religious beliefs.

In July, U.S. District Judge Mark Goldsmith barred the government
from deporting the plaintiffs, giving them three months to file
motions to reopen their cases in immigration courts.

Now, the ACLU of Michigan wants Judge Goldsmith to release them,
arguing that ICE has placed some of the Iraqis in indefinite
detention. It might be years before the courts resolve their cases
and some of the detainees have lived in the U.S. for decades, the
ACLU said in a motion for preliminary injunction filed November 7
in Detroit federal court.

"The Trump administration is shamefully prolonging the agony of
these Iraqi families in the hopes that they voluntarily give up
their immigration cases. It's time for the court to once again
step in and say enough," Judy Rabinovitz, a deputy director with
ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, said in a statement.

The Justice Department did not immediately respond November 9 to a
request for comment on the injunction motion.

Vice President Mike Pence has vowed to protect Christians in the
Middle East from persecution in speeches to religious leaders. ICE
had arrested people with deportation orders or pending criminal
charges or convictions, but civil rights groups said the move was
unfair given they face persecution if deported.

Judge Goldsmith's injunction against deportation stays in effect
for each Iraqi detainee until they have exhausted their legal
remedies, according to the ACLU.  Eighty-seven percent of the
detainees' cases have been reopened and the 10 cases the
immigration courts have adjudicated has resulted in a favorable
ruling for the plaintiffs, the group says.

"Yet almost all remain incarcerated," the ACLU said in Tuesday's
injunction motion. "Although it will soon be five months since the
June ICE raids, and although it is clear that petitioners and
class members face the prospect of many more months or years of
detention as they fight their immigration cases, and although
petitioners and class members have demonstrated through past
compliance with orders of supervision that they are not a danger
or flight risk, respondents insist on keeping them incarcerated."

In a news release, the ACLU said ICE cannot hold a detainee
indefinitely unless authorities show that they are likely to flee
or are a danger to the community. The civil rights group says the
agency lacks that justification for those swept up in the Detroit
raid.

Authorities are required to review the cases of detainees with
removal orders who are held for more than 90 days. But the ACLU
claims ICE has served the Iraqis with boilerplate denials and
extended their detentions. Some detainees have received no review
at all, the group says.

The ACLU's federal lawsuit was filed against Rebecca Adducci,
director of the Detroit ICE District, the Department of Homeland
Security and the U.S. attorney general.

CODE Legal Aid, Michigan Immigrant Rights Center, International
Refugee Assistance Project, and the law firm Miller Canfield
Paddock & Stone joined the ACLU in its Nov. 7 filing.

The case is USAMA JAMIL HAMAMA, et al., Petitioners/Plaintiffs, v.
REBECCA ADDUCCI, et al., Respondents/Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-
11910 (E.D. Mich.).

Attorneys for All Petitioners and Plaintiffs:

     Michael J. Steinberg, Esq.
     Kary L. Moss, Esq.
     Bonsitu A. Kitaba, Esq.
     Miriam J. Aukerman, Esq.
     AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FUND OF MICHIGAN
     2966 Woodward Avenue
     Detroit, Michigan 48201
     Tel: (313) 578-6814
     Email: msteinberg@aclumich.org

        -- and --

     Kimberly L. Scott, Esq.
     Wendolyn Wrosch Richards, Esq.
     Cooperating Attorneys
     ACLU Fund of Michigan
     MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK & STONE, PLC
     101 N. Main St., 7th Floor
     Ann Arbor, MI 48104
     Tel: (734) 668-7696
     Email: scott@millercanfield.com

        -- and --

     Nora Youkhana, Esq.
     Nadine Yousif, Esq.
     Cooperating Attorneys, ACLU Fund of Michigan
     CODE LEGAL AID INC.
     27321 Hampden St.
     Madison Heights, MI 48071
     Tel: (248) 894-6197
     Email: norayoukhana@gmail.com

        -- and --

     Maria Martinez Sanchez, Esq.
     AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NEW MEXICO
     1410 Coal Ave. SW
     Albuquerque, NM 87102
     Email: msanchez@aclu-nm.org

        -- and --

     Judy Rabinovitz, Esq.
     Lee Gelernt, Esq.
     ACLU FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT
     125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
     New York, NY 10004
     Tel: (212) 549-2618
     Email: jrabinovitz@aclu.org

        -- and --

     Margo Schlanger, Esq.
     Samuel R. Bagenstos, Esq.
     Cooperating Attorneys
     ACLU Fund of Michigan
     625 South State Street
     Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109
     Tel: 734-615-2618
     Email: margo.schlanger@gmail.com

        -- and --

     Susan E. Reed, Esq.
     MICHIGAN IMMIGRANT RIGHTS CENTER
     3030 S. 9th St., Suite 1B
     Kalamazoo, MI 49009
     Tel: (269) 492-7196, ext. 535
     Email: Susanree@michiganimmigrant.org

        -- and --

     Lara Finkbeiner, Esq.
     Mark Doss, Esq.
     Mark Wasef, Esq.
     INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE ASSISTANCE PROJECT
     Urban Justice Center
     40 Rector St., 9th Floor
     New York, NY 10006
     Tel: (646) 602-5600
     Email: lfinkbeiner@refugeerights.org

Attorney for Petitioner/Plaintiff Usama Hamama:

     William W. Swor, Esq.
     WILLIAM W. SWOR & ASSOCIATES
     1120 Ford Building
     615 Griswold Street
     Detroit, MI 48226
     Email: wwswor@sworlaw.com


UNITED STATES: Trump Rollback Spurs Suit by Princeton, Microsoft
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eva Fedderly, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Microsoft teamed up with Princeton University and one of its
students last November 3 for a federal complaint over the rollback
of a program that offers legal protections to qualifying young
immigrants.

Represented by the firm Jenner & Block, Microsoft and Princeton's
lawsuit in Washington comes exactly two months after Attorney
General Jeff Sessions, Esq. rescinded Deferred Action for
Childhood Arrivals.

Since its adoption by the Obama administration in 2012, DACA has
made it possible for about 800,000 individuals who might otherwise
be at risk of deportation to get driver's licenses, work
authorizations, and other state and local benefits.

Microsoft and Princeton say they are two such institutions that
benefit greatly from DACA. While there are at least 45 DACA
recipients working in some capacity for Microsoft and its
subsidiary LinkedIn, Princeton says it has enrolled at least 21
so-called Dreamers since 2012.

Maria de la Cruz Perales Sanchez, who joined the suit as a co-
plaintiff, is among the 15 beneficiaries currently enrolled in
undergraduate studies at the New Jersey-based Ivy.

"Dreamers are particularly promising students and employees
because of the significant barriers they have overcome in order to
excel. As children, they were forced not only to navigate a new
country, culture, and language, but also to do so knowing that at
any moment, they might be taken into custody and sent far from
their homes and lives here in the United States," the complaint
states. "To have achieved educational and career successes under
such precarious circumstances suggests that Dreamers have grit and
perseverance, can overcome obstacles, and will exceed expectations
-- all qualities that Princeton values in its students and
Microsoft values in its employees."

In addition to strengthening the communities at Microsoft and
Princeton, according to the complaint, DACA recipients benefit
society at large whether through service in the military or their
pursuit of work in understaffed fields such as nursing and home
health care.

"The Dreamers have held up their end of the bargain," the
complaint states. "But the same cannot be said of the United
States."

Microsoft and Princeton call the Trump administration's rescission
of DACA unconstitutional. Without DACA making it possible for
students like Perales Sanchez to get financial aid and work on
campus, Princeton for example will have to make up the difference
so that she can continue her studies.

"Similarly, Microsoft will lose employees who fill critical
positions in the company's workforce and in whom the company has
invested -- leaving gaps that cannot easily be filled," the
complaint states.

Calling for an injunction and declaratory relief, Microsoft,
Princeton and Perales Sanchez allege violations of the
Administrative Procedure Act, the Declaratory Judgment Act, and
the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

A representative for Homeland Security declined to comment on
pending litigation.

The case is THE TRUSTEES OF PRINCETON ) UNIVERSITY, MICROSOFT
CORPORATION, MARIA DE LA CRUZ PERALES SANCHEZ, Plaintiffs, v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,
and ELAINE C. DUKE, in her official capacity as Acting Secretary
of the Department of Homeland Security, Civil Action No. ____
(D.D.C.).

Attorneys for The Trustees of Princeton University, Microsoft
Corporation, and Maria De La Cruz Perales Sanchez:

     Thomas J. Perrelli, Esq.
     Lindsay C. Harrison, Esq.
     Marina Jenkins, Esq.
     Alex Trepp, Esq.
     JENNER & BLOCK LLP
     1099 New York Avenue, NW Suite 900
     Washington, DC 20001-4412
     Tel: 202-639-6000
     Fax: 202 639-6066
     Email: tperrelli@jenner.com
            lharrison@jenner.com
            mjenkins@jenner.com
            atrepp@jenner.com


VACO TECHNOLOGY: Misclassifies Employees, "Bush" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
Christina Bush, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Vaco Technology Services, LLC; Vaco
San Francisco, LLC; Vaco Lajolla, LLC; Vaco Orange County, LLC;
Vaco Los Angeles, LLC; Google, Inc and Does 1 to 50, the
Defendants, Case No. 17CV314988, (Sup. Ct. Cal., August 24, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid wages, actual and liquidated damages,
restitution including civil penalties, attorney's fees and costs
of suit for defendants violations of the Labor Code and Business
and Professional Code.

The complaint alleges eight causes of action against the
defendants which are failure to provide meal periods, failure to
provide rest periods, failure to pay hourly and overtime wages,
failure to indemnify, failure to provide accurate written wage
statements, failure to timely pay all final wages, unfair
competition and failure to pay employees for all hours worked in
violation of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act. The plaintiff
alleges that he was initially hired as an Order Audit Operation
Specialists and the primary duties involved data entry.  He was
promoted to Content Bug Technician with duties that involved
software quality assurance.  Later, he was transferred to the
Google Expedition team as a Team Lead with duties that involved
traveling to various public schools and providing education
virtual reality tours through an application developed by Google.

Plaintiff alleges that the Company's employees were misclassified
as exempt when in fact they were non-exempt.  Plaintiff in behalf
of himself and all other similarly situated employees worked more
than eight hours each workday and more than 40 hours each
workweek.  They were paid a fixed salary regardless of the hours
worked and were not paid any overtime compensation. They did not
perform duties more than 50% of the time that would qualify them
as exempt employees.  Hence, they were entitled to all the
protections afforded to non-exempt employees under the California
law.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VANTAGE SOURCING: Walker Sues over Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
Sherrie Lynn Walker, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Vantage Sourcing, LLC; Scott
Alan Stanford, Derrick Dean Willman and Does 1 through 10, the
Defendants, Case No. 17CV315216, (Sup. Ct. Cal., August 29, 2017),
is a consumer class action brought by the plaintiff in behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated consumers pursuant to the
California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and
California Civil Code.  California Civil Code prohibits debt
collectors from engaging in abusive, deceptive, and unfair
practices and also it that California consumers be provided a
"Consumer Collection Notice."  The plaintiff alleges that she is
alleged to have a financial obligation in the form of a consumer
credit account issued by Verizon Wireless and the plaintiff
generally denies that any debt is owed. The alleged debt was
assigned, consigned, or otherwise transferred to defendants for
collection from plaintiff. Defendants sent a collection letter to
the plaintiff in an attempt to collect the alleged debt. However,
the collection letter fails to provide the notice required by
California Civil Code, in a type-size that is at least the same
type-size as that used to inform Plaintiff of her specific debt or
in at least 12-point type. Defendants knew or should have known
that their conduct was directed towards a senior citizen.

Vantage Sourcing is engaged in the business of collecting
defaulted consumer debts.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

Fred W. Schwinn, Esq.
Raeon R. Roulston, Esq.
Matthew C. Salmonsen, Esq.
CONSUMER LAW CENTER, INC.
12 South First Street, Suite 1014
San Jose, CA 95113-2418
Telephone: (408) 294-6100
Facsimile: (408) 294-6190
Email: fred.schwinn@sjconsumerlaw.com


VEHI-SHIP LLC: "Mackey" Suit Seeks OT Pay under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL MACKEY and WILLIE REDMOND, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. VEHI-SHIP, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07737 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 26, 2017),
seeks to recover overtime pay under Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit on behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated persons who work or have worked for Vehi-Ship
as drivers within the last 3 years, and who elect to opt-in to
this action. Vehi-Ship unlawfully required Plaintiffs and all
individuals employed as drivers to work in excess of 40 hours per
week, without paying them overtime compensated for every hour
worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiffs and the FLSA
Collective Action members are "similarly situated," as that term
is used in 29 U.S.C. Sec 216(b), because, inter alia, all such
individuals worked pursuant to Vehi-Ship's previously described
common pay practices and, as a result of such practices, were not
paid the full and legally mandated overtime premium for hours
worked over 40 during the workweek. Resolution of this action
requires inquiry into common facts, including, inter alia, Vehi-
Ship's common compensation, timekeeping and payroll practices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard J. Miller, Esq.
          MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          1051 Perimeter Drive, Suite 400
          Schaumburg, IL 60173
          Telephone: (847) 995 1205
          E-mail: richard.miller@millerlawfirm.org

               - and -

          Scott C. Polman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT C. POLMAN
          8130 N. Milwaukee Ave.
          Niles, IL 60714
          Tel: 847.292.1989
          E-mail: spolman.law@comcast.net


WAL-MART STORES: "Beckman" Suit Moved to S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Gina Beckman, as an individual, on
behalf of herself and all persons similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., an Arkansas corporation
authorized to do business in the state of California; Espresso
Supply, Inc., a Washington corporation authorized to do business
in the state of California; Eko Brands, LLC, a Washington
corporation; Ekobrew, a Washington corporation; and Does 1-10,
inclusive, Case No. 37-02017-00021869-CU-BC-CTL, was removed on
Nov. 3, 2017 from the Superior Court of California, County of San
Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California (San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:17-cv-02249-BAS-BLM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Cynthia Bashant.

Wal-Mart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates as a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores,
and grocery stores.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Monique Renee Rodriguez, Esq.
          CLARK LAW GROUP
          205 W Date Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 239 1321
          Facsimile: (888) 273 4554
          E-mail: mrodriguez@clarklawyers.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Norman A. Ryan, Esq.
          RYAN CARVALHO & WHITE LLP
          Rio Vista Plaza
          8989 Rio San Diego Drive, Suite 368
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (858) 455 8700
          Facsimile: (858) 455 8701
          E-mail: nryan@ryanlitigators.com


WHOLE FOODS: Sued by Thomas for Not Providing Seats to Checkers
---------------------------------------------------------------
TERRI THOMAS, individually, and as a representative of all others
similarly situated v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET, and DOES 1 through 20,
inclusive, Case No. BC678289 (Cal. Super. Ct. Los Angeles Cty.,
October 3, 2017), alleges that Whole Foods failed to provide the
Plaintiff and other checkers and cashiers with seats as required
the California Labor Code.

Whole Foods Market is a corporation doing business throughout
California.  Whole Foods is a nationwide retail chain
operation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andre E. Jardini, Esq.
          K.L. Myles, Esq.
          KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE
          550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500
          Glendale, CA 91203-1922
          Telephone: (818) 547-5000
          Facsimile: (818) 547-5329
          E-mail: aej@kpclegal.com
                  klm@kpclegal.com


YANKEE CANDLE: Faces "Davis" Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Yankee Candle
Company, Inc. The case is captioned as Edward Davis, an
individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. The Yankee Candle Company, Inc., a Massachusetts
corporation and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case
No. 5:17-cv-02194-FMO-FFM (C.D. Cal., Oct. 25, 2017). The case is
a assigned to the Hon. Judge Fernando M. Olguin.

The Yankee Candle Company is an American manufacturer and retailer
of scented candles, candleholders, accessories, and
dinnerware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott J Ferrell, Esq.
          PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS APC
          4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 800
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 706 6464
          Facsimile: (949) 706 6469
          E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com


ZUFFA LLC: Has Until Dec. 15 to Respond to "Ferrandini" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Zuffa, LLC's time to answer, move or otherwise respond to
Plaintiffs' Complaint, Dean Ferrandini and Keffe Ferrandini,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Zuffa, LLC; Showtime Networks, Inc.; UFC and Does 1
through 100, the Defendants, Case No. BC673915, (C.D. Cal., August
25, 2017), has been extended until December 15, 2017, pursuant to
an order dated October 24 granting a stipulation by the parties.

The stipulation was approved by Judge Manuel L. Real.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants failed to provide live
streaming services to the thousands of Californian who paid over
$100 for the UFC Fight Pass to watch but were unable to watch the
majority of the event live due to defendants' failure to prepare
for the high volume of subscribers. The Floyd Mayweather Jr. vs.
Conor McGregor was widely advertised as being one of the biggest
sporting events.  Plaintiffs were intrigued by the hype
surrounding the fight and decided to order the event with UFC
Fight Pass.  Plaintiffs purchased streaming passes from
defendants.  When the live stream start at a scheduled time, the
plaintiffs received an error message and attempted to call
consumer support but were never connected to any person and they
even attempted several times over the next few hours but of no
avail.  Plaintiffs did not receive the services for which they
paid for and expected and the defendants have not refunded any
money even though defendants knew the patrons who purchased the
streaming passes were unable to access the live streaming of the
event due to technical failures.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

Hrag Kouyoumijan, Esq.
Drew Ferrandini, Esq.
SEVEN HILL LAW, APC
411 West 7th Street, Suite 310
Los Angeles, CA 90014
Telephone: (213) 235-3532
Facsimile: (213) 488-1588
Email: hragk@sevenhilllaw.com
Email: drewf@sevenhilllaw.com






                             *********


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  * * *