CAR_Public/171120.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


            Monday, November 20, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 229



                            Headlines

ALCOBRA LTD: "Shammas" Action to Halt Vote on Merger, Seeks Info
ALPINE ACCESS: Morowitz FLSA Claims in "Morse" Dismissed
AMERIPRISE INSURANCE: MSP Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
ANGELS OF THE WORLD: Faces "Tracey" Class Suit in New York
ARQENTA INC: "Medina" Suit Seeks to Recover Wages Under FLSA

ARROWHEAD LOCK: "Bowen" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
AT&T CORP: "Butler" Suit Alleges False Advertising Act Violation
ATI MEDICAL: "Dhesi" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
ATLANTA DEVELOPMENT: Ansley Walk Suit Seeks Judgment, Damages
BAYER HEALTHCARE: "Roseman" Suit Alleges Consumer Act Violations

BEST BUY STORES: "Touche" Sues Over Denied Warranty Claim on TV
BRAAVOS INC: Misclassifies Security Guards, "Gordon" Suit Says
BROKER SOLUTIONS: Accused by "Hicke" Class Suit of Violating TCPA
BRUNEL ENERGY: "Stalcup" Labor Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
BURGOS RESTAURANT: Sued by Ortega Dominguez for Unpaid Wages

CALGON CARBON: Sued in Penn. Over Proposed Kuraray Merger Plan
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Faces "Jackson" Suit in Dist. of New Jersey
CDK GLOBAL: Teterboro Sues Over Data Mgmt Systems Price-fixing
COLONEL'S LIMITED: "Achoual" Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
COMPUTER SCIENCES: Denial of Class Cert in ERISA Suit Affirmed

DEVON ENERGY: "Cowan" Suit Remanded to Oklahoma State Court
DIBOLL, TX: Pleas to Jurisdiction Order in "Hunt" Affirmed
EL MAR CONSULTING: "Thomas" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
EOS CCA: Taveras Files Suit in S. Dist. Florida
EQUIFAX GROUP: "Wong" Sues Over Data Breach, Claims Damages

ESURANCE INSURANCE: MSP Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of Florida
EXECTECH OF NORTHERN: "Dhesi" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations
FENIX PARTS: "Beezley" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
FORD MOTOR: Faces "Ruckel" Securities Class Suit in E.D. Michigan
FTS USA: Appeals Class Certification Ruling to Supreme Court

GENERAL ELECTRIC: Accused by "Sullivan" Suit of Violating ERISA
HAN DYNASTY: "Eulalio" Seeks Withheld Tips, OT and Minimum Pay
HOMELAND PATROL: "Gonzalez" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
HP INC: Court Stays "Romero" Pending Settlement Ruling in "Wolf"
INTERMEX WIRE: Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Action Claims

JOINT COMMISSION: Sued in West Va. Over Pain Management Standards
JZJ SERVICES: "Clavel" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
KEANE GROUP: "Castro" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
KEYES COMPANY: Faces "Grigorian" Suit Alleging Violations of TCPA
KIMBERLY-CLARK: "Mattocks" Class Suit Transferred to S.D.N.Y.

KOMAROV ENTERPRISES: "Martinez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
LADY JANE'S: "Durr" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
LULAROE LLC: Accused by Haskett Suit of Operating Pyramid Scheme
LUXOTTICA RETAIL: "Tenagila" Suit Moved from Florida to New York
MAALT SPECIALIZED: Hines Seeks to Recover Overtime for Pushers

MARTIN'S FAMOUS: Smelser Questions Classification of Distributors
MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: Settlement in "Bacchi" Has Final Approval
MC CABLE: Accused by "Vazquez" Suit of Not Paying OT Under FLSA
MDL 2273: Court Narrows Claims in Antitrust Suit
MDL 2314: Parts of Internet Tracking Suit May be Filed Under Seal

MDL 2741: "Bailey" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. California
MONTEREY FINANCIAL: Faces "Cintron" Suit in New Jersey
SMG HOLDINGS: Fails to Pay Overtime & Minimum Wages, McCarty Says
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Bid to Stay Discovery in "Allen" Suit Granted
NEULION INC: "Daas" Class Suit Transferred to Nevada

NFP PROPERTY: Camacho Files Suit in S.D. New York
NRT NEW YORK: Faces "Camacho" Suit in S.D. New York
OCULAR THERAPEUTIX: "Caraker" Suit Transferred to Massachusetts
OMEGA PROTEIN: "Franchi" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violations
OPEN DOOR: Court Stays "Conde" Suit Pending Ruling in "Morris"

PAIGE HOSPITALITY: Faces "Camacho" Suit in S.D. New York
PARTS AUTHORITY: Johnson Appeals Arbitration Ruling to 2nd Cir.
PEET'S OPERATING: Faces "Camacho" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
PERCHERON FIELD: Court Narrows Claims in "Boyington"
REMINGTON ARMS CO: "Wilson" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Premiums

ROCKWELL COLLINS: "Sharpenter" Suit Seeks to Block Sale to UTC
SKECHERS USA: Pension Fund Sues Over Share Price Drop
SENTINEL INSURANCE: MSP Recovery Suit Removed to S.D. Fla.
SOUTHERN AUTO: "Baroldy-Romo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
STEPHEN EINSTEIN: Faces "Pezzica" Suit in S.D. New York

SYLVIE SHAIN: Accused by Ramos of Invading Privacy Under TCPA
SYNGENTA SEEDS: "Gauntt" Class Suit Transferred to Kansas
TAISHAN GYPSUM: Faces "Allman" Class Suit Over Defective Drywall
TAYLOR SMITH: Vanardo Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime & Damages
TD AMERITRADE: "Antczak" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violation

TITLE SOURCE: Bid for Conditional Class Cert. Held in Abeyance
TOTAL PHARMACY: Sued by Bobo's Drugs Over Violations of TCPA
TRIBECA RESTAURANT: Mendoza Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
TRISTAR PRODUCTS: "Pinon" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio
VANTIV INTEGRATED: "Turnell" Wants OT Pay for Off-the-Clock Work

VOLKSWAGEN AG: "Sharma" Suit Transferred to N.D. California
VOLVO CARS: Bid to Dismiss "Laurens" Warranty Suit Partly Granted
WAL-MART STORES: "Forbes" Suit Alleges Civil Rights Violations






                            *********


ALCOBRA LTD: "Shammas" Action to Halt Vote on Merger, Seeks Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Shammas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Alcobra Ltd., Yaron Daniely, Howard B.
Rosen, Joao Siffert, Daniel E. Geffken, Orli Tori, Aharon
Schwartz, Arieh Ben Yosef, Ofer Segev, Amir Efrati, Yuval Yanai,
Arcturus Therapeutics, Inc. and Aleph Mergersub, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 17-cv-04692 (E.D. Pa., October 20, 2017), seeks to enjoin
Defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from
proceeding with, consummating, or closing the acquisition of
Alcobra Ltd. by Arcturus Therapeutics, Inc., rescinding it and
setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages in the event
defendants consummate the merger, costs of this action, including
reasonable allowance for attorneys' and experts' fees and such
other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Pursuant to the terms of the merger agreement, the holders of
Arcturus outstanding capital stock immediately prior to the merger
will receive ordinary shares of Alcobra. As a result, Alcobra
shareholders are expected to own approximately 40% and Arcturus
shareholders are expected to own approximately 60% of the combined
company.

Defendants filed a proxy statement that failed to include
financial projections and valuation analyses performed by its
financial advisor, Ladenburg Thalmann & Co. Inc., critical to
making their decision on the said merger, says the complaint.

Alcobra is an Israeli pharmaceutical company primarily focused on
the development and commercialization of novel treatments for CNS
and cognitive disorders such as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity
Disorder and Fragile X syndrome, a rare disease that is the most
common single-gene cause of autism and inherited cause of
intellectual disability among boys. Its United States offices is
located at 101 West Elm Street, Suite 350, Conshohocken, PA 19428.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Tel: (302) 295-531
      Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
      Email: bdl@rl-legal.com

             - and -

      Marc S. Henzel, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF MARC S. HENZEL
      230 Old Lancaster Road, Suite B
      Merion Station, PA 19066
      Telephone: (610) 660-8000
      Fax: (610) 660-8080
      Email: mhenzel@henzellaw.com


ALPINE ACCESS: Morowitz FLSA Claims in "Morse" Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Brenda K. Sannes of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of New York dismissed with prejudice the claims of
Plaintiff Sandy Morowitz under Fair Labor Standards Act in the
case CAROL MORSE, other similarly-situated individuals, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. ALPINE ACCESS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
5:17-CV-0235(BKS/ATB)(N.D. N.Y.).

Plaintiffs Morse, Becky Nellos and Morowitz, commenced the FLSA
case asserting claims on behalf of themselves and other similarly-
situated individuals.  On Aug. 3, 2017, the Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss Morowitz under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).  Morowitz
has not opposed this motion.

The Plaintiffs' counsel has informed defense counsel that Morowitz
intends to withdraw from the litigation.  The Defendants' motion
was referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter who, on
Sept. 26, 2017, issued a Report-Recommendation recommending that
the Defendants' motion to dismiss be granted.  Magistrate Judge
Baxter advised the parties that under 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1),
they had 14 days within which to file written objections to the
report, and that the failure to object to the report within 14
days would preclude appellate review.

As no objections to the Report-Recommendation have been filed, and
the time for filing objections has expired, Judge Sannes reviews
the Report-Recommendation for clear error.  Having reviewed the
Report-Recommendation for clear error and found none, she adopted
it in its entirety.

Accordingly, the Judge ordered that the Report-Recommendation is
adopted in its entirety.  She granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss all claims of Morowitz and dismissed with prejudice the
claims of Morowitz under the FLSA.  The claims of Morowitz as a
Named Plaintiff under the New York Labor Law or other state law
are dismissed without prejudice to her future participation, to
the extent the Court deems appropriate, as an absent class member
on those state law claims, if the Rule 23 class action becomes
certified.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 8, 2017 Memorandum-Decision
and Order is available at https://is.gd/zIoVQv from Leagle.com.

Carol Morse, Plaintiff, represented by Charles R. Ash, IV --
crash@sommerspc.com -- Sommers Schwartz, P.C., pro hac vice.

Carol Morse, Plaintiff, represented by Jason T. Brown --
jtb@jtblawgroup.com -- JTB Law Group, LLC, Kevin J. Stoops --
kstoops@sommerspc.com -- Sommers Schwartz, P.C., pro hac vice,
Nicholas Raymond Conlon -- nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com -- JTB
Law Group, LLC, pro hac vice & Zijian Guan, JTB Law Group, LLC,
pro hac vice.

Becky Nellos, Plaintiff, represented by Charles R. Ash, IV,
Sommers Schwartz, P.C., pro hac vice, Jason T. Brown, JTB Law
Group, LLC, Kevin J. Stoops, Sommers Schwartz, P.C., pro hac vice,
Nicholas Raymond Conlon, JTB Law Group, LLC, pro hac vice & Zijian
Guan, JTB Law Group, LLC, pro hac vice.

Sandy Morowitz, Plaintiff, represented by Charles R. Ash, IV,
Sommers Schwartz, P.C., pro hac vice, Jason T. Brown, JTB Law
Group, LLC, Kevin J. Stoops, Sommers Schwartz, P.C., pro hac vice,
Nicholas Raymond Conlon, JTB Law Group, LLC, pro hac vice & Zijian
Guan -- cocozguan@jtblawgroup.com -- JTB Law Group, LLC, pro hac
vice.

Alpine Access, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew J. Voss --
avoss@littler.com -- Littler, Mendelson Law Firm, pro hac vice &
Paul R. Piccigallo -- ppiccigallo@littler.com -- Littler,
Mendelson Law Firm.

Sykes Enterprises, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew J. Voss,
Littler, Mendelson Law Firm, pro hac vice & Paul R. Piccigallo,
Littler, Mendelson Law Firm.


AMERIPRISE INSURANCE: MSP Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on October 2, 2017, styled MSP
Recovery Claims, Series, LLC, on behalf of themselves and all
similarly-situated v. Ameriprise Insurance Company, Case No. 2017-
019514-CA-01 was removed on October 31, 2017 from the Circuit
Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade
County, Florida to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:17-cv-23980-JEM to the proceeding.

Ameriprise Insurance Company operates an insurance company
licensed to do business in the State of Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Irene S. Motles, Esq.
      MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, P.C.
      1901 Sixth Avenue North Suite 2400,
      Regions/Harbert Plaza
      Birmingham, AL 35203-2618
      Telephone: (205) 254-1000
      Facsimile: (205) 254-1999
      E-mail: imotles@maynardcooper.com


ANGELS OF THE WORLD: Faces "Tracey" Class Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Angels of the
World, Inc. d/b/a Club Angels and George Stoupas.

The case is captioned Christine Tracey, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. Angels of the World, Inc. d/b/a
Club Angels and George Stoupas, Case No. 607132/2017 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., November 1, 2017).

The Defendants own and operate adult entertainment establishments
in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ARQENTA INC: "Medina" Suit Seeks to Recover Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Medina, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Arqenta Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-08309 (S.D.N.Y.,
October 27, 2017), alleges that pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act the Plaintiff and the class are:

    (i) entitled to unpaid wages from Defendant for working more
        than 40 hours in a week and not being paid an overtime
        rate of at least 1.5 times the regular rate for each and
        all such hours over 40 in a week; and

   (ii) entitled to maximum liquidated damages and attorneys'
        fees pursuant to the FLSA.

Arqenta Inc. is a New York for-profit corporation with a place of
business located in New York City, where the Plaintiff was
employed.  The Defendant is engaged in the building construction
and renovation business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ARROWHEAD LOCK: "Bowen" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
Herbert "Skip" Bowen, and all others similarly-situated v.
Arrowhead Lock & Safe, Inc. and Fran Henderson, Case No. 1:17-cv-
04418 (N.D. Ga., November 3, 2017), seeks declaratory relief,
liquidated and actual damages for Defendants' failure to pay
federally mandated minimum wages and overtime wages in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Plaintiff was hired as a locksmith in August 2016.

Defendant Arrowhead is a locksmith company owned by Defendant
Henderson. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul J. Sharman, Esq.
      THE SHARMAN LAW FIRM LLC
      11175 Cicero Drive, Suite 100
      Alpharetta, GA 30022
      Tel: (678) 242-5297
      Fax: (678) 802-2129
      E-mail: paul@sharman-law.com


AT&T CORP: "Butler" Suit Alleges False Advertising Act Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Latonya Butler, and all others similarly-situated v. AT&T Corp.,
and Does 1-10 inclusive, Case No. 2:17-cv-08040 (C.D. Calif.,
November 3, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for
violations of the California False Advertising Act, Unfair
Competition Law, and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

Plaintiff brings this class action to stop Defendant's practice of
falsely advertising its television services and to obtain redress
for a California class of consumers who changed position, within
the applicable statute of limitations period, as a result of
Defendant's false and misleading advertisements.

Plaintiff Latonya Butler is a resident of the State of California,
County of Los Angeles.

Defendant AT&T Corp. provides voice, video, and data
communications services to businesses, consumers, and governments
worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ATI MEDICAL: "Dhesi" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------
Sarbjit Dhesi, and all others similarly-situated v. ATI Medical
Waste Management Services, and Does 1 through 10, Case No. 3:17-
cv-06446 (N.D. Calif., November 6, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

Plaintiff Sarbjit Dhesi is a resident of Contra Costa County,
California.

Defendant ATI Medical Waste Management Services, is a company in
the business of medical waste management. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ATLANTA DEVELOPMENT: Ansley Walk Suit Seeks Judgment, Damages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ansley Walk Condominium Association, Inc., individually and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. The
Atlanta Development Authority (d/b/a Invest Atlanta), a Public
Body Corporate Politic of the State of Georgia and an
Instrumentality of the City of Atlanta, Atlanta Beltline, Inc.,
and The City of Atlanta, Defendants, Case No. 17-CV-296875, (Ga.
Super, October 20, 2017), seeks monetary judgment in favor of
Plaintiffs representing the full fair market value of the property
taken by Defendants, including damages for Defendants' trespass on
their property, including punitive damages, attorneys' fees and
expenses of litigation and such other and further relief under the
Georgia Condominium Act.

Railroad easements that ran over Plaintiff's property were
terminated on March 7, 2017. Plaintiffs are entitled to reclaim
their "reversionary" right to use, possess and control their land.
However, Defendants, developed and are developing the Atlanta
BeltLine Project, a multi-use trails for pedestrian/bicycle
traffic and fixed rail routes and modern streetcars over the
property and have have not compensated Plaintiffs' for the
unauthorized use of and taking of their land.

Ansley Walk Condominium Association, Inc. is a Georgia domestic
non-profit Corporation with its principal place of business at
2555 Westside Parkway, Suite 600, Alpharetta, Fulton County,
Georgia 30004. Plaintiff is the association of condominium owners
for the Ansley Walk Condominiums located on Ansley Walk Terrace
NE, Atlanta, Fulton County, Georgia 30309. [BN]

      Samuel R. Arden, Esq.
      HARTMAN SIMONS & WOOD LLP
      6400 Powers Ferry Road, N.W., Suite 400
      Atlanta, GA 30339
      Tel: (770) 951-6590
      Fax: (770) 538-1452

             - and -

      Steven Wald, Esq.
      Michael Smith, Esq.
      STEWART, WALD & MCCULLEY, LLC
      12474 Olive Blvd., Suite 280
      St. Louis, MO 63141
      Tel: (314) 720-0220
      Fax: (314) 899-2925


BAYER HEALTHCARE: "Roseman" Suit Alleges Consumer Act Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Roseman, and all others similarly-situated v. Bayer
Healthcare LLC and Merck & Co., Inc., Case No. 004259-17 (N.J.
Super., November 3, 2017), seeks damages, statutory penalties and
injunctive relief under the New Jersey Uniform Declaratory
Judgment Act, the New Jersey Consumer Act and the New Jersey Truth
Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act.

Plaintiff Andrew Roseman is a citizen of New Jersey. Plaintiff
Roseman has purchased Coppertone Sport High Performance SPF 30
sunscreen spray and lotion on numerous occasions.

Defendant Bayer Healthcare LLC manufactures, markets, and sells
personal care products, including Coppertone sunscreen and
specifically the Coppertone Sport High Performance SPF 30
sunscreen spray and lotion that is the subject of this complaint,
to consumers in New Jersey and throughout the United States.

Defendant Merck & Co., Inc. manufactured, marketed, and sold
personal care products, including Coppertone sunscreen and
specifically the Coppertone Sport High Performance SPF 30
sunscreen spray and lotion that is the subject of this complaint,
to consumers in New Jersey and throughout the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq.
      Joseph Osefchen, Esq.
      Shane T. Prince, Esq.
      DeNITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, PC
      5 Greentree Centre
      525 Route 73 North, Suite 410
      Marlton, NJ 08053
      Tel: (856) 797-9951
      Fax: (856) 797-9978
      E-mail: sdenittis@denittislaw.com

          - and -

      Janine Lee Pollack, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN
      ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      270 Madison A venue
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 545-4600
      Fax: (212) 686-0114
      E-mail: pollack@whafh.com

          - and -

      Theodore B. Bell, Esq.
      Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN
      ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      70 W. Madison St., Suite 1400
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 984-0000
      Fax: (312) 214-3110
      E-mail: tbell@whafh.com
              malmstrom@whath.com


BEST BUY STORES: "Touche" Sues Over Denied Warranty Claim on TV
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nola Touche, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Best Buy Stores, LP (d/b/a Best Buy, Geek
Squad and Magnolia Home Theater), Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-00259
(N.D. Fla., October 19, 2017), seeks injunctive relief,
compensatory damages, attorney fees, expenses, and costs and such
other and further relief for violation of the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act.

Plaintiff purchased a five-year consumer products insurance from
Best Buy in December 2012 for her Samsung television purchased at
the same time to cover defects, manufacturer's warranty and
defective parts. Said TV malfunctioned on October 2017 and the
Best Buy representative was unable to fix it and failed to replace
it.

Best Buy operates 1,026 Best Buy stores including stores in all
states, districts and territories of the United States under
various brand names including Geek Squad and Magnolia Home
Theater. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Simone Chriss, Esq.
      3524 NW 60th Terrace
      Gainesville, FL 32606
      Phone: (352) 284-2537
      Fax: (352) 271-8347


BRAAVOS INC: Misclassifies Security Guards, "Gordon" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
KAYLA GORDON and JAMES MOLLO, the Plaintiffs, v. BRAAVOS, INC.,
d/b/a BANNERMAN SECURITY; JONATHAN CHIN; and DOES 1 through 10,
Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-06310-MEJ (N.D. Cal.,
Oct. 31, 2017), seeks to recover overtime pay under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs, security guards formerly employed by Bannerman,
bring this class and collective action on behalf of themselves and
all other similarly-situated current and former security guards
who perform or performed guard work for Bannerman, regardless of
their precise titles. Bannerman employs security guards across the
country, using a software application ("app") to manage employees'
assignments and compensation. Bannerman had and continues to have
a policy and practice of intentionally misclassifying all of its
security guards as independent contractors, and failing to pay
them overtime in violation of the FLSA. The complaint contends
that Bannerman guards are in fact employees, not independent
contractors, and are therefore entitled to overtime pay for all
hours worked in excess of forty in a single work week.

Plaintiff Gordon also brings this action on behalf of herself and
all similarly situated current and former Bannerman guards who
worked in the State of California, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23, to remedy violations of California Labor Code,
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order, California Business and
Professions Code, and supporting regulations, interpretations, and
case law.

Bannerman is a platform that connects people that need to book
security with security personnel.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class and Collective:

          Jennifer Liu, Esq.
          Rebecca Peterson-Fisher, Esq.
          THE LIU LAW FIRM, P.C.
          1390 Market Street, Suite 200
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 896 4260
          Facsimile: (415) 231 0011
          E-mail: jliu@liulawpc.com
                  rpetersonfisher@liulawpc.com

               - and -

          Alison Kosinski, Esq.
          Emily Thiagaraj, Esq.
          KOSINSKI & THIAGARAJ, LLP
          351 California Street, Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 230 2860
          Facsimile: (415) 723 7099
          E-mail: alison@ktlawsf.com
                  emily@ktlawsf.com


BROKER SOLUTIONS: Accused by "Hicke" Class Suit of Violating TCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TOM HICKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BROKER SOLUTIONS, INC. DBA NEW AMERICAN FUNDING, and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 3:17-cv-
02201-WQH-BLM (S.D. Cal., October 28, 2017), seeks damages and
remedies resulting from the alleged illegal actions of the
Defendant in negligently, knowingly, and willfully contacting the
Plaintiff on his cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Broker Solutions, Inc., doing business as New American Funding,
provides home loans.  The true names and capacities of the Doe
Defendants are currently unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          Meghan E. George, Esq.
          Tom E. Wheeler, 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: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com
                  mgeorge@toddflaw.com
                  twheeler@toddflaw.com


BRUNEL ENERGY: "Stalcup" Labor Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Stalcup, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Brunel Energy, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
17-cv-03193 (S.D. Tex., October 21, 2017), seeks to recover
overtime compensation, other wages, liquidated damages, attorney's
fees, costs of court, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and
injunctive relief under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938.

Brunel Energy is a staffing company focused on placing employees
in the oil and gas, mining, engineering and construction,
manufacturing, infrastructure, life sciences, power utilities,
marine, petrochemical, IT, transportation and renewable energy
industries nationwide. Stalcup was allegedly misclassified by the
Defendant as exempt from the overtime protections and benefits.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     J. Moises Cedillos, Esq.
     John M. Padilla, Esq.
     PADILLA & RODRIGUEZ, L.L.P.
     5433 Westheimer, Suite 825
     Houston, TX 77056
     Telephone: (713) 574-4600
     Facsimile: (713) 574-4601

            - and -

     John M. Padilla, Esq.
     PADILLA & RODRIGUEZ, L.L.P.
     5433 Westheimer, Suite 825
     Houston, TX 77056
     Telephone: (713) 574-4600
     Facsimile: (713) 574-4601


BURGOS RESTAURANT: Sued by Ortega Dominguez for Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO ORTEGA DOMINGUEZ, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. BURGOS RESTAURANT CORP. (d/b/a BURGOS
RESTAURANT CAFE), ZERVIAN CAFE CORP (d/b/a BURGOS RESTAURANT CAFE)
and JACKELYN BURGOS, Case No. 1:17-cv-08327 (S.D.N.Y., October 27,
2017), is on behalf of the Plaintiff, and other similarly situated
individuals, for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law.

Burgos Restaurant Corp., doing business as Burgos Restaurant Cafe,
is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
state of New York with its principle place of business located in
New York City.  Zervian Cafe Corp, doing business as Burgos
Restaurant Cafe, is a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the state of New York.  Jackelyn Burgos is an owner,
officer and/or agent of the Defendant Corporations.

The Defendants own, operate and/or control a restaurant located at
206 Dyckman Street, in New York City, under the name Burgos
Restaurant Cafe.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
          E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com


CALGON CARBON: Sued in Penn. Over Proposed Kuraray Merger Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------
George Assad, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Calgon Carbon Corporation, J. Rich Alexander, Randall
S. Dearth, William J. Lyons, Louis S. Massimo, William R. Newlin,
John J. Paro, Julie S. Roberts, Timothy G. Rupert, Donald S.
Templin, Kuraray Co., Ltd., Kuraray Holdings U.S.A., Inc., and KJ
Merger Sub, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-01433-AJS (W.D. Penn., November
2, 2017), stems from a proposed transaction announced on September
21, 2017, pursuant to which Calgon Carbon Corporation will be
acquired by Kuraray Co., Ltd., Kuraray Holdings U.S.A., Inc., and
KJ Merger Sub, Inc. for $21.50 in cash for each share of Calgon
Carbon stock.

According to the complaint, the Defendants filed a Preliminary
Proxy Statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,
which recommends that Calgon stockholders vote in favor of the
Proposed Transaction. However, the Proxy omits or misrepresents
material information concerning, among other things: (i) the
Company's projected Management Case and Street projections of
unlevered free cash flows for years 2017 through 2021, and their
respective line items, as used by Morgan Stanley in its analysis;
(ii) the Street Case estimates based on the median Wall Street
broker projections through fiscal year 2019, the extrapolated
projections through 2021, and the estimated revenue growth and
estimated margin improvement rates for fiscal years 2020 and
2021 provided by Calgon Carbon's management; (iii) the inputs and
assumptions underlying the discount rate range of 8.4% to 10.1%
used by Morgan Stanley in its analysis; and (iv) the perpetuity
growth rate ranges implied by Morgan Stanley's analysis. The
failure to adequately disclose such material information
constitutes a violation of the Exchange Act as stockholders need
such information in order to cast a fully-informed vote in
connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Complaint says the
Proposed Transaction will unlawfully divest Calgon's public
stockholders of the Company's valuable assets without fully
disclosing all material information concerning the Proposed
Transaction to Company stockholders. To remedy defendants'
Exchange Act violations, Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the stockholder
vote on the Proposed Transaction unless and until such problems
are remedied.

Calgon Carbon Corporation offers innovative solutions, high
quality products, and reliable services designed to protect human
health and the environment from harmful contaminants in water and
the air. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alfred G. Yates, Esq.
      Gerald L. Rutledge, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ALFRED G. YATES, JR., P.C.
      300 Mt. Lebanon Boulevard, Suite 206-B
      Pittsburgh, PA 15234
      Telephone: (412) 391-5164
      Facsimile: (412) 471-1033
      E-mail: yateslaw@aol.com


CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Faces "Jackson" Suit in Dist. of New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CAPITAL MANAGEMENT
SERVICES, LP. The case is captioned as OMAR JACKSON, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LP, and JOHN DOES 1-25, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-10329-SDW-SCM (D.N.J., Oct. 31, 2017).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Susan D. Wigenton.

Capital Management Services, a collections agency, provides
delinquent receivables resolutions. It monitors and tracks debt
collection laws and state licensing.[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


CDK GLOBAL: Teterboro Sues Over Data Mgmt Systems Price-fixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Teterboro Automall, Inc. and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CDK Global, LLC and The Reynolds &
Reynolds Company, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-08714 (E.D. N.Y.,
October 17, 2017), is an anti-trust suit seeking damages and
injunctive relief under the Sherman Act and New Jersey anti-trust
laws.

Defendants are alleged of allocating market share, reducing
competition, and fixing, raising and maintaining and/or
stabilizing prices in the market for the provision of data
management systems to retail automotive dealerships.

CDK and Reynolds are in the business of providing data management
systems services to the auto-dealer industry.

Teterboro Automall operates a Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep and Ram
dealership. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      James E. Cecchi, Esq.
      Lindsey Taylor, Esq.
      CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO P.C.
      5 Becker Farm Road
      Roseland, NJ 07068
      Tel: (973) 994-1700
      Email: JCecchi@carellabyrne.com
             LTaylor@carellabyrne.com

             - and -

      Peggy J. Wedgworth, Esq.
      Andrei V. Rado, Esq.
      MILBERG LLP
      One Pennsylvania Plaza
      New York, NY 10119
      Tel: (212) 594-5300
      Email: pwedgworth@milberg.com
             arado@milberg.com

             - and -

      Leonard A. Bellavia, Esq.
      Steven Blatt, Esq.
      BELLAVIA BLATT & CROSSETT, PC
      200 Old Country Road, Suite 400
      Mineola, NY 11501
      Tel: (516) 873-3000
      Email: lbellabia@dealerlaw.com
             smalone@dealerlaw.com


COLONEL'S LIMITED: "Achoual" Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed December 6, 2017, captioned Rachid
Achoual, Muhammad Sultan, Mohammed Khaleque, and Kamal Rahamtalla,
Individually and on behalf of other similarly situated persons v.
Colonel's Limited, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-00662, was transferred on
November 1, 2017, from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:17-cv-08420 to the proceeding.

The case asserts labor-related claims.

Colonel's Limited, LLC owns and operates approximately 63 Papa
John's franchise stores in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Foster S. B. Friedman, Esq.
      Andrea Marie Downing, Esq.
      WADE FRIEDMAN & SUTTERPC
      616 North Washington St
      Alexandria, VA 22314
      Telephone: (703) 836-9030
      Facsimile: (703) 683-1543
      E-mail: friedman@oldtownlawyers.com
              downing@oldtownlawyers.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Andrew Baird Rogers, Esq.
      LITTLER MENDELSON PC
      1650 Tysons Blvd, Suite 700
      McLean, VA 22102
      Telephone: (703) 442-8425
      Facsimile: (703) 442-8428
      E-mail: arogers@littler.com


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Denial of Class Cert in ERISA Suit Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JEFFREY PLOTNICK; JAMES C. KENNEDY, on behalf of
themselves, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION
DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN FOR KEY EXECUTIVES; COMPUTER SCIENCES
CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 16-1606 (4th Cir.),
Judge Allyson Kay Duncan of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's order denying class
certification and granting summary judgment for CSC.

As select, highly compensated CSC executives, Plotnick and Kennedy
were eligible to participate in CSC's Deferred Compensation Plan
for Key Executives.  The Plan is a type of unfunded, deferred-
compensation plan commonly known as a "top-hat plan," through
which key executives could elect to forgo compensation during
their employment in exchange for payments in retirement.

Plotnick and Kennedy elected to participate in the Plan beginning
in the 1990s.  Plotnick retired in September 2012 with an account
value of approximately $3.5 million, and Kennedy retired in March
2012 with an account value of approximately $4 million.  Neither
Plotnick's account nor Kennedy's account decreased in value at the
time that the 2012 Amendment took effect.

On May 20, 2013, Plotnick and Kennedy each sent CSC a letter
claiming benefits under the Plan.  Each letter argued that: (i)
the Plan was a unilateral contract that could not be amended after
a participant's retirement; (ii) the 2012 Amendment was invalid
because the new crediting rates permitted participants' accounts
to lose as well as gain value; (iii) the 2012 Amendment was
invalid because it did not use a 120-month rolling average, as the
previous crediting rates had done, to smooth out market
volatility; and (iv) the new crediting rate violated the Plan's
requirement that distributions be made in approximately equal
annual installments.  CSC denied both Appellants' claims for
benefits on July 22, 2013.

Plaintiffs-Appellants Plotnick and Kennedy brought claims under
Section 1132(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 ("ERISA"), as amended, alleging denial of benefits under
their deferred executive compensation plan after a plan amendment
changed the applicable crediting rate.  Plotnick filed a putative
class-action suit on Jan. 15, 2014, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey, and the case was transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia shortly
thereafter.  Kennedy intervened in January 2016.

Plotnick and Kennedy sought class certification on behalf of all
retired plan participants affected by the amendment, and CSC moved
for summary judgment.  The district court denied class
certification and granted summary judgment for CSC.  The appeal
followed.

Plotnick and Kennedy principally challenge three features of the
2012 Amendment: (i) the change to the crediting rate; (ii) the
introduction of potential for risk and volatility into the Plan;
and (iii) variations in annual distributions, which Plotnick and
Kennedy argue are no longer "approximately equal."

Because affirmance of the district court's grant of summary
judgment disposes of Plotnick and Kennedy's claims, Judge Duncan
declines to address the district court's denial of class
certification.

Judge Duncan finds that -- regardless of the standard of review
applied -- the 2012 Amendment is valid and does not render any
contractual promise illusory.  The Plan did not require the Board
to select crediting rates with a particular mix of risk and
reward, nor did the introduction of potential volatility breach
any Plan provision.  Thus, the derivate impact of volatility on
the amount of participants' annual installment payments after
retirement -- which remain approximately equal, if not actually
equal -- also does not violate any Plan provision.  Despite
Plotnick and Kennedy's shared disappointment in the current
scheme, CSC's denial of benefits did not represent an abuse of or
unreasonable exercise of discretion.  Thus, he concludes that
summary judgment in CSC's favor was proper.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 8, 2017 Order is available at
https://is.gd/65E1ki from Leagle.com.

Matthew W.H. Wessler -- matt@guptawessler.com -- GUPTA WESSLER
PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellants.

Deborah Shannon Davidson, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, Chicago,
Illinois, for Appellees.

R. Joseph Barton, Kira Hettinger -- jbarton@cohenmilstein.com --
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Washington, D.C.; Deepak Gupta
-- deepak@guptawessler.com -- Rachel S. Bloomekatz --
rachel@guptawessler.com -- GUPTA WESSLER PLLC, Washington, D.C.,
for Appellants.

Christopher A. Weals -- christopher.weals@morganlewis.com --
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.


DEVON ENERGY: "Cowan" Suit Remanded to Oklahoma State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Steven P. Shreder of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Oklahoma granted the Plaintiff's Amended Motion to
Remand the case captioned CHUCK TRAVIS COWAN, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DEVON ENERGY
CORPORATION, and DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY, L.P. (including
affiliated predecessors and affiliated successors), Defendants,
Case No. CIV-16-510-SPS (E.D. Okla.).

The Plaintiff instituted the action in state court in Pittsburg
County, Oklahoma, in Case No. CJ-16-232, against the Defendants.
The Defendants removed the action based on diversity jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections1332 and 1441(b), 1446(a), and 1453,
pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA").  The Plaintiff
now seeks to have the case remanded to state court pursuant to the
"discretionary exception" of CAFA found in 28 U.S.C. Section
1332(d)(3).

In the case, the Court granted the parties a jurisdictional
discovery period to determine whether any of three issues in the
case warranted remand back to the District Court of Pittsburg
County, Oklahoma: (i) the jurisdictional amount (amount in
controversy must exceed $5 million); (iii) the mandatory exception
(if the putative class is comprised of greater than two-thirds
Oklahoma citizens); and (iii) the discretionary exception (if the
class is comprised of greater than one-third but less than two-
thirds Oklahoma citizens based on consideration of six factors).

In the Amended Motion to Remand, the Plaintiff asserts that all
six factors weigh in favor of remand, while the Defendants
contend, inter alia, that they did not weigh in favor of remand
and that any "neutral" factor should weigh against remand.  Prior
to the Court's ruling on the Plaintiff's Amended Motion to Remand,
the Defendants notified the Court that the Tenth Circuit had
accepted an appeal filed in a similar case, Speed v. JMA Energy
Co., L.L.C., Case No. 17-7040, and that the Tenth Circuit was
likely to issue a ruling fairly quickly on the issues.
Accordingly, the Court held a ruling in abeyance until the Tenth
Circuit issued its decision on Oct. 2, 2017.

In that decision, the Tenth Circuit disagreed with JMA Energy's
argument that a "neutral" factor should count against remand.  The
Tenth Circuit then discussed each of the factors in turn,
ultimately affirming the grant of remand by the District Court
based on the discretionary exception.  Unsurprisingly, the
Plaintiff asserted that he believed the facts in the case favored
remand more than even the factors in Speed, and requested that the
Court follow the Tenth Circuit in issuing an order of remand in
the case pursuant to the Discretionary Exception of CAFA.  In
light of the Tenth Circuit's recent decision and Devon's
withdrawal of opposition to remand, Judge Shreder agrees that
remand is appropriate in the case.

Accordingly, the Judge granted the Plaintiff's Amended Motion to
remand.  Although federal jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2), the Court exercises its discretion to
decline jurisdiction over the case based on the "interests of
justice" exception in 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(3).  Therefore,
the case is remanded to the District Court of Pittsburg County, in
the State of Oklahoma.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 8, 2017 Order is available at
https://is.gd/dAmxOb from Leagle.com.

Chuck Travis Cowan, Plaintiff, represented by Reagan E. Bradford -
- info@lanierlawfirm.com -- The Lanier Law Firm.

Chuck Travis Cowan, Plaintiff, represented by W. Mark Lanier, The
Lanier Law Firm, pro hac vice, Todd L. Grimmett, The Lanier Law
Firm, Reagan E. Bradford, The Lanier Law Firm, Todd L. Grimmett,
The Lanier Law Firm & W. Mark Lanier, The Lanier Law Firm, pro hac
vice.

Devon Energy Corporation, Defendant, represented by Mark D.
Christiansen -- mark.christiansen@mcafeetaft.com -- McAfee & Taft,
Andrew J. Morris -- andrew.morris@mcafeetaft.com -- McAfee & Taft
& Mary Quinn Cooper -- maryquinn.cooper@mcafeetaft.com -- McAfee &
Taft.

Devon Energy Production Company, L. P., Defendant, represented by
Mark D. Christiansen, McAfee & Taft, Andrew J. Morris, McAfee &
Taft & Mary Quinn Cooper, McAfee & Taft.


DIBOLL, TX: Pleas to Jurisdiction Order in "Hunt" Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WILLIAM PAUL HUNT AND ADE-WIFCO STEEL PRODUCTS INC.,
AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellants, v. CITY OF DIBOLL,
TEXAS, JOHN JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT MCCLAIN, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF DIBOLL, STEVE BAKER, IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CHIEF OF POLICE OF THE CITY OF DIBOLL, GERRY
BOREN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CITY MANAGER OF CITY OF DIBOLL,
ET AL, Appellees, Case No. 12-17-00001-CV (Tex. App.), Judge Greg
Neeley of the Court of Appeals of Texas for the Twelfth District,
Tyler, affirmed in part and reversed the trial court's order
granting pleas to the jurisdiction filed by the City, the City
officials, and American Traffic Solutions, Inc. and American
Traffic Solutions, LLC.

In 2006, the Diboll city council enacted ordinance 06-07, which
authorizes the use of red light cameras to capture red light
violations at roadway intersections.  A violation of this
ordinance is a criminal offense and carries a penalty of $100.  In
2014, the city council enacted ordinance 01-14, which tracks the
provisions of Chapter 707 of the Texas Transportation Code, and
provides a $75 civil penalty for red light violations captured by
a red light camera.

Ordinance 01-14 provides that (i) the registered owner of the
vehicle is responsible for the $75 penalty; and (ii) an individual
may contest liability by requesting an administrative hearing, the
timelines and procedures for which are set forth in the ordinance.
ATS, a private company, contracted with the City to implement and
operate Diboll's red light camera system.

Appellants brought an action, on their own behalf and on the
behalf of a putative class of individuals assessed red light
penalties by Diboll, pursuant to the Uniform Declaratory Judgment
Act ("UDJA") challenging the validity of ordinances 06-07 and 01-
14.  Alternatively, they sought a declaratory judgment that Baker,
McClain, and Boren, in their official capacities, acted ultra
vires by installing red light camera systems and collecting red
light camera penalties.

Appellants sought an injunction prohibiting the City and its
officials from operating red light camera systems and enforcing
red light penalties.  They also made a claim for reimbursement of
the red light penalties, or alternatively, a refund of penalties
paid under Article I, Section 17 of the Texas Constitution.  The
Appellants also sued ATS for fraud and violations of the Deceptive
Trade Practices Act ("DTPA").

The City, its officials, and ATS filed pleas to the jurisdiction
alleging the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to
hear Appellants' claims against them.  The trial court granted
both pleas to the jurisdiction and dismissed all of the
Appellants' claims against the City, its officials, and ATS, with
prejudice.  Consequently, the trial court did not rule on the
Appellants' petition for class certification or their motion for
summary judgment.  This appeal followed.

In Appellants' first issue, they contend the trial court erred in
granting the City's plea to the jurisdiction because (i) they were
not obligated to exhaust their administrative remedies, as
ordinance 06-07 is a criminal ordinance containing no
administrative remedies and ordinance 01-14 had not been published
at the time penalties were assessed; (ii) their claims are not
barred by immunity; and (iii) they have standing to bring their
claims because the City's subsequent publication of ordinance 01-
14 did not render their claims moot.  In their second issue, they
argue that the trial court erred when it granted ATS' plea to the
jurisdiction.

Judge Neeley finds that there was error in the judgment of the
trial court insofar as it granted the City's plea to the
jurisdiction with regard to (i) Appellants' claims for declaratory
and injunctive relief as to ordinance 01-14, (ii) ADE's claim for
reimbursement and its takings claim, and (iii) ADE's fraud claims
against ATS.

He concludes that the Appellants made no showing that enforcement
of ordinance 06-07 caused irreparable injury to personal or
property rights.  Consequently, the trial court lacked subject
matter jurisdiction to hear the Appellants' claims for declaratory
and injunctive relief against the City.  Therefore, the trial
court did not err in dismissing Appellants' claims challenging the
constitutionality of ordinance 06-07, a criminal ordinance.
Because ordinance 01-14 was not effective at the time the
Appellants were assessed the red light penalties, the Judge
concludes that the Appellants were not required to exhaust their
administrative remedies with respect to ordinance 01-14 prior to
seeking judicial relief.

Based on ADE's pleadings, Judge Neeley concludes that ADE pleaded
sufficient facts to confer jurisdiction upon the trial court
regarding its claim for reimbursement.  Thus, the trial court
erred in granting the City's plea to the jurisdiction with respect
to ADE's reimbursement claim.

Taking as true all evidence favorable to ADE and indulging every
reasonable inference and resolving any doubts in their favor, the
Judge concludes that ADE pleaded sufficient facts to establish a
connection between ATS's conduct and the alleged injury.  ADE was
not required to put on their case simply to establish
jurisdiction.  Thus, ADE has established standing to bring a fraud
claim against ATS.

And having determined that the Appellants pleaded sufficient facts
to establish standing to maintain a fraud claim against ATS, he
concludes that the trial court erred in granting ATS's plea to the
jurisdiction as to the Appellants' fraud claims against ATS.
Thus, he sustains Appellants' second issue in part.

For these reasons, Judge Neeley has overruled the Appellants'
first and second issues, in part, with regard to the trial court's
dismissal of their claims for declaratory and injunctive relief as
to ordinance 06-07, Hunt's reimbursement and takings claims
against the City of Diboll, the Appellants' ultra vires claims
against the City officials, their DTPA claims against ATS, and
Hunt's fraud claim against ATS.  Having sustained their first and
second issues in part, the Judge reversed the trial court's order
granting the City's plea to the jurisdiction with regard to (i)
the Appellants' claims for declaratory and injunctive relief as to
ordinance 01-14, (ii) ADE's claim for reimbursement and its
takings claim, and (iii) ADE's fraud claim against ATS.  He
remanded the cause for further proceedings consistent with his
Opinion.  He affirmed the trial court's order of dismissal in all
other respects.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 8, 2017 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/nHM2N5 from Leagle.com.

Thomas J. Williams, for American Traffic Solutions, LLC, Appellee.

Robert T. Cain, Jr. -- info@daviscrump.com -- Robert Alderman,
Jr., Erika Neill -- eneill@acnlaw.com -- Thomas J. Williams, for
City of Diboll, Texas, Appellee.

Thomas J. Williams, for American Traffic Solutions, Inc.,
Appellee.

Scott A. Stewart, Russell J. Bowman, for William Paul Hunt,
Appellant.

Russell J. Bowman, Scott A. Stewart, for ADE-WIFCO Steel Products
Inc. ("ADE"), Appellant.

Erika Neill, Robert Alderman, Jr., Robert T. Cain, Jr., for Gerry
Boren, Appellee.

Robert Alderman, Jr., Robert T. Cain, Jr., Erika Neill, for Steve
Baker, Appellee.

Robert T. Cain, Jr., Erika Neill, Robert Alderman, Jr., for John
McClain, Appellee.


EL MAR CONSULTING: "Thomas" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
Brian Thomas, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
employees, Plaintiff, v. El Mar Consulting, LLC, El Mar
Diversified, LLC, and Action Industries Inc., Defendants, Case No.
17-cv-10882 (E.D. La., October 19, 2017), seeks to recover
overtime wages owed, liquidated damages, reasonable and necessary
attorneys' fees, costs, expert fees, mediator fees, and out-of-
pocket expenses under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate a business management consultancy firm in
Lafayette, Louisiana where Thomas worked over 40 hours a week for
in over 11 weeks from 2015 to 2016 without overtime premium. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Charles J. Stiegler, Esq.
     STIEGLER LAW FIRM, LLC
     318 Harrison Ave., Suite 104
     New Orleans, LA 70124
     Tel: (504) 267-0777
     Fax: (504) 513-3084
     Email: charles@stieglerlawfirm.com

            - and -

     Dennis A. Clifford, Esq.
     THE CLIFFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
     712 Main Street, Suite 900
     Houston, TX 77002
     Tel: (713) 999-1833
     Fax: (866) 232-0999
     Email: dennis@cliffordemploymentlaw.com


EOS CCA: Taveras Files Suit in S. Dist. Florida
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed EOS CCA, Inc.  The case is
styled as Hansel Taveras, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EOS CCA, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:17-cv-24145-UU (S.D. Fla., November 10, 2017).

EOS CCA, headquartered in Norwell, Massachusetts, is a provider of
customer care and receivables management services. It is the U.S.
Receivables Management Division of the international EOS Group
based in Hamburg, Germany.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Craig B Sanders, Esq.
   SANDERS LAW, PLLC
   100 Garden CIty Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 281-7601
   Email: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


EQUIFAX GROUP: "Wong" Sues Over Data Breach, Claims Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie L. Wong, in behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Equifax, Inc. and Equifax Information Services LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-00489, (D. R.I., October 20, 2017),
seeks to recover actual and statutory damages, equitable relief,
restitution, reimbursement of out-of-pocket losses, other
compensatory damages, credit monitoring services with accompanying
identity theft insurance and injunctive relief including an order
requiring Equifax to improve its data security pursuant to the
federal Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Rhode Island Unfair
Trade Practice and Consumer Protection Act.

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

Plaintiffs claim to be victims of the data breach.

Equifax, Inc. and Equifax Information Services LLC are engaged in
the business of assembling, evaluating, and dispersing information
concerning consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer
reports to third parties upon request. [BN]

      Melody A. Alger, Esq.
      Christopher R. Alger, Esq.
      ALGER LAW LLC
      400 Westminster St., Suite 401
      Providence, RI 02903
      Telephone: (401) 277-1090
      Facsimile: (401) 277-1094
      Email: malger@algerlaw.com

             - and -

      Kevin Sharp, Esq.
      SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
      611 Commerce St., Suite 3100
      Nashville, TN 37203
      Telephone: (615) 434-7001
      Facsimile: (615) 434-7020
      Email: ksharp@sanfordheisler.com


ESURANCE INSURANCE: MSP Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC,
a Delaware entity, the Plaintiff, v. ESURANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, a
Foreign Profit Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2017-019593-
CA-01, was removed on Oct. 31, 2017 from the Circuit Court of the
Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida,
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-23989-DPG to
the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts three causes of action: Count I "Breach of
Contract for Failure to Pay PIP Benefits"; Count II "Breach of
Contract for Failure to Pay PIP Benefits [Conventional
Subrogation]"; and Count III "Breach of Contract for Failure to
Pay PIP Benefits [or in the Alternative, Equitable Subrogation".

Esurance Insurance Services, Inc. is an American insurance
company. It sells auto, home, motorcycle, and renters insurance
direct to consumers online and by phone.[BN]

Counsel for MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC:

          Gino Moreno, Esq.
          John H. Ruiz, Esq.
          MSP RECOVERY
          5000 SW 75th Ave Ste 400
          Miami, FL 33155
          E-mail: serve@msprecovery.com
                  gmoreno@msprecovery.com
                  jruiz@msprecovery.com


EXECTECH OF NORTHERN: "Dhesi" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Sarbjit Dhesi, and all others similarly-situated v. Exectech of
Northern California, LLC, and Does 1 through 10, Case No. 4:17-cv-
06430 (N.D. Calif., November 3, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

Plaintiff Sarbjit Dhesi is a resident of Contra Costa County,
California.

Defendant Exectech of Northern California, LLC is a consulting
firm, assisting dental offices in increasing their business
potential. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FENIX PARTS: "Beezley" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on January 12, 2017 captioned
Amanda Beezley, Thomas Weeks, Douglas Barnard, Keith B. White, and
Manny Paulo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Fenix Parts, Inc., Kent Robertson, Scott Pettit, BMO
Capital Markets Corp., Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated,
BB&T Capital Markets, and Barrington Research Associates, Inc.,
Case No. 2:17-cv-00233, was transferred on November 1, 2017, from
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-07896
to the proceeding.

The case alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act.

The Defendants own full service and self-service recycling yards
throughout the USA and Canada. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Erica Lauren Stone, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      34th Floor, 275 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 686-1060
      E-mail: estone@rosenlegal.com

         - and -

      Ex Kano Shirden Sams II, Esq.
      GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
      1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      E-mail: esams@glancylaw.com

         - and -

      Robert Vincent Prongay, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com

         - and -

      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA
      609 W. South Orange Avenue, Suite 2P
      South Orange, NJ 07079
      Telephone: (973) 313-1887
      E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


FORD MOTOR: Faces "Ruckel" Securities Class Suit in E.D. Michigan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL RUCKEL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, JAMES PATRICK HACKETT, ALAN
MULALLY, MARK FIELDS and ROBERT L. SHANKS, Case No. 4:17-cv-13536-
LVP-EAS (E.D. Mich., October 30, 2017), is a securities class
action brought on behalf of a class consisting of all persons
other than the Defendants, who purchased or otherwise acquired
Ford securities between February 18, 2014, and October 26, 2017,
both dates inclusive.

Founded in 1903, Ford is incorporated in Delaware and is
headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan.  Ford designs, manufactures,
and services cars and trucks.  The Company also provides vehicle-
related financing, leasing, and insurance through its subsidiary.
The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the
Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697-6484
          E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com


FTS USA: Appeals Class Certification Ruling to Supreme Court
------------------------------------------------------------
FTS USA, LLC, et al., Petitioners v. Edward Monroe, et al.,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Case
No. 17-637 (U.S., Oct. 31, 2017), is an appeal filed before the
United States Supreme Court from a lower court decision in a class
action, Case No. 14-6063 (6th Cir., June 21, 2017).[BN]

A Petition for a writ of certiorari has been filed. Response is
due November 30, 2017.

According to Justia Law, "Plaintiffs brought suit under the Fair
Labor Standards Act against their employer, FTS, a cable-
television business for which the plaintiffs work or worked as
cable technicians. The district court certified the case as an
FLSA collective action. FTS Technicians are paid pursuant to a
piece-rate compensation plan; each assigned job is worth a set
amount of pay, regardless of the amount of time it takes. FTS
Technicians are paid by applying a 0.5 multiplier to their regular
rate for overtime hours. They allege that FTS implemented a time-
shaving policy that required its employees to systematically
underreport overtime hours. A jury returned verdicts in favor of
the class, which the district court upheld. The Sixth Circuit
affirmed certification of the case as a collective action and a
finding that sufficient evidence supports the verdicts, but
reversed the calculation of damages. Following a remand by the
Supreme Court, for further consideration in light of Tyson Foods,
Inc. v. Bouaphakeo (2016), the Sixth Circuit held that Tyson does
not compel a different resolution; the court again affirmed
certification of the case as a collective action and that
sufficient evidence supports the jury's verdicts, and again for
recalculation of damages."

The Petitioners are represented by:

          Miguel A. Estrada, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          1050 Connecticut Ave.
          N.W. Washington, DC 20036


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Accused by "Sullivan" Suit of Violating ERISA
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN SULLIVAN, individually and on Behalf of a class of all
persons similarly situated and on behalf of the GE RETIREMENT
SAVINGS PLAN v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, GE ASSET MANAGEMENT
INCORPORATED, DMITRI STOCKTAN, CHERYL BEUCOCK, ANAND HARI, RALPH
RICHARD LAYMAN, DAN TOREY, DANIEL O. COLAO and JOHN DOES 1-25,
Case No. 1:17-cv-12123 (D. Mass., October 30, 2017), arises out of
the Defendants' alleged violation of Employee Retirement Income
Security Act's fiduciary laws and ERISA's prohibited transactions
regulations by offering and failing to follow five investment fund
options offered by the Plan, collectively ("GEAM Funds"): GE
Institutional International Equity Fund, GE Institutional
Strategic Investment Fund, GE RSP US Equity Fund, GE RSP US Income
Fund and GE Institutional Small Cap Equity Fund.

The Plan is a defined contribution retirement plan sponsored by
GE.  The primary purpose of the Plan is to allow Participants to
save for retirement.

General Electric Company is the sponsor of the Plan and its
Administrator.  GEAM was a wholly owned subsidiary of GE and
served as "investment advisor" to GEAM Funds offered to plan
participants.  The Individual Defendants were all executive
officers of GEAM and Trustees of the Plan during the Class
Period.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Esq.
          HUTCHINGS BARSAMIAN MANDELCORN, LLP
          110 Cedar Street, Suite 250
          Wellesley Hills, MA 02481
          Telephone: (781) 431-2231
          E-mail: thess-mahan@hutchingsbarasamian.com

               - and -

          Lee Squitieri, Esq.
          SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
          32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 421-6492
          Facsimile: (212) 421-6553
          E-mail: lee@sfclasslaw.com


HAN DYNASTY: "Eulalio" Seeks Withheld Tips, OT and Minimum Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Angeles Sanchez Eulalio and Ciro Gomez Espitia, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Han Dynasty
Upper West Side Corp., June Kwan, Mark Allan, Helen M. Kwan and
Han Chiang, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-08062, (S.D. N.Y., October
19, 2017), seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages and withheld
tips pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York
Labor Law, spread-of-hours, applicable liquidated damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

Defendants own, operate or control a Chinese restaurant located at
215 West 85th Street, New York, NY 10024, under the name "Han
Dynasty" where Plaintiffs were ostensibly employed by Defendants
as delivery workers. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
      New York, NY 10165
      Tel: (212) 317-1200


HOMELAND PATROL: "Gonzalez" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Frederick Gonzalez, and all others similarly-situated v. Homeland
Patrol Corp., Mirtha Cordero, and Augusto Cordero, Case No. 1:17-
cv-24080 (S.D. Fla., November 6, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Frederick Gonzalez is a resident of Miami-Dade County,
Florida. Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a security guard from
on or about October 23, 2008 through the present and ongoing.

Defendant Homeland Patrol Corp. is a security guard agency
offering services to the community, including unarmed uniformed
officers.

Individual Defendants own and manage Homeland Patrol.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Tel: (305) 865-6766
      Fax: (305) 865-7167
      E-mail: zabogado@aol.com


HP INC: Court Stays "Romero" Pending Settlement Ruling in "Wolf"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division, stayed the case, CARLOS
ROMERO, Plaintiff, v. HP INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-05415-
EJD (N.D. Cal.) until a decision is rendered regarding the
Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of the class action
settlement in Wolf v. Hewlett Packard Co.

The parties stipulated to stay the case until a decision is
rendered regarding Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of
the class action settlement in Wolf v. Hewlett Packard Co.  Judge
Davila directed the Clerk to administratively close the file.  The
parties will file a status report by Jan. 30, 2018.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 8, 2017 Order is available at
https://is.gd/JLHAjr from Leagle.com.

Carlos Romero is represented by Adrian Robert Bacon, Esq. --
abacon@toddflaw.com -- and Todd Michael Friedman, Esq. --
tfriedman@toddflaw.com -- LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.

HP, Inc. is represented by Erin E. McCracken, Esq. --
erin.mccracken@dbr.com -- Marshall Lee Benjamin Baker, Esq. --
marshall.baker@dbr.com -- and Michael James Stortz, Esq. --
michael.stortz@dbr.com -- DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP.



INTERMEX WIRE: Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Action Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
David Baesel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Intermex Wire Transfer, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-24001-
MGC (S.D. Fla., October 31, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendant's
practice of sending unsolicited text messages to the cellular
telephones of consumers throughout the nation and to obtain
redress, including injunctive relief, for all persons injured by
its conduct.

Intermex Wire Transfer, LLC operates a company that offers money-
transferring services and sends to consumers notification text
messages. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stefan Coleman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
      201 S. Biscayne Blvd., 28th floor
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (877) 333-9427
      Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
      E-mail: Law@StefanColeman.com
         - and -

      Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
      HIRALDO P.A.
      401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1400
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (877) 333-9427
      Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
      E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com


JOINT COMMISSION: Sued in West Va. Over Pain Management Standards
-----------------------------------------------------------------
City of Charleston, West Virginia, City of Huntington, West
Virginia, City of Kenova, West Virginia, and Town of Ceredo, West
Virginia, municipal corporations, and other municipal corporations
similarly situated v. The Joint Commission f/k/a The Joint
Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations, Joint
Commission Resources, Inc. d/b/a Joint Commission International,
Case No. 2:17-cv-04267 (S.D.W.V, November 2, 2017), arises out of
JCAHO's Pain Management Standards misinformation campaign about
the safety of opioids which led to an over-prescribing of opioids,
not only in terms of doses and necessity, but also in terms of
quantity.

The Defendants operate a not-for-profit organization that
accredits and certifies nearly twenty-one thousand health care
organizations and programs in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles R. "Rusty" Webb, Esq.
      THE WEBB LAW CENTRE, PLLC
      716 Lee St. E.
      Charleston, WV 25301
      Telephone: (304) 344-9322
      Facsimile: (304) 344-1157
      E-mail: rusty@rustywebb.com

         - and -

      W. Jesse Forbes, Esq.
      FORBES LAW OFFICES, PLLC
      1118 Kanawha Blvd., East
      Charles, WV 25301
      Telephone: (304) 343-4050
      Facsimile: (304) 343-7450
      E-mail: wjforbes@forbeslawwv.com
         - and -

      Paul D. Ellis, Esq.
      CITY ATTORNEY
      City of Charleston
      P.O. Box 2749
      Charleston, WV 25330
      Telephone: (304) 348-8031
      Facsimile: (304) 348-0770
      E-mail: paul.ellis@cityofcharleston.org

         - and -

      Scott A. Damron, Esq.
      CITY ATTORNEY
      City of Huntington
      P.O. Box 1659
      Huntington, WV 25717
      Telephone: (304) 696-4480
      Facsimile: (304) 696-5538
      E-mail: damrons@cityofhuntington.com

         - and -

      Dennis C. Taylor, Esq.
      Debra Price, Esq.
      TALCOTT FRANKLIN, P.C.
      831 Fourth Avenue, Suite 201
      Huntington, WV 25701
      Telephone: (304) 586-9847
      Facsimile: (800) 727-0659
      E-mail: dennis@talcottfranklin.com
              dee@talcottfranklin.com


JZJ SERVICES: "Clavel" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Miriam Clavel, and all others similarly-situated v. JZJ Services
LLC dba Spa Jolie, and Jodi Kauffman Perskin, Case No. 1:17-cv-
08520 (S.D. N.Y., November 3, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Miriam Clavel was continuously employed by Spa Jolie to
work as a non exempt esthetician for Defendants' day spa from 2010
to March 13, 2017, where her responsibilities included providing
customers with facial, body scrubs, liposuction therapy, cellulite
therapy treatments, and massages.

Defendants own and operate a day spa in New York.  [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin Cilenti, Esq.
      Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
      708 Third Avenue - 6th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Tel: (212) 209-393
      Fax: (212) 209-7102
      E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com


KEANE GROUP: "Castro" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
--------------------------------------------------
Omar Castro, and all others similarly-situated v. Keane Group,
LLC, Case No. 7:17-cv-00223 (W.D. Tex., November 4, 2017), is
brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiff Omar Castro worked as driver for the Defendant from
January 2017 to September 2017.

Defendant Keane Group, LLC is a national oil and gas services
company.  [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF
      CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC
      1340 N. White Chapel, Suite 100
      Southlake, TX 76092-4322
      Tel: (817) 416-5060
      Fax: (817) 416-5062
      E-mail: chris@crmlawpractice.com


KEYES COMPANY: Faces "Grigorian" Suit Alleging Violations of TCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARIAM GRIGORIAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. THE KEYES COMPANY, a Florida corporation,
Case No. 1:17-cv-23943-UU (S.D. Fla., October 27, 2017), arises
from the Defendant's alleged willful violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

The Keyes Company is a Florida for Profit Corporation with its
principal place of business located in Miami, Florida.  The
Defendant is one of the largest real estate brokerages in Florida,
and is a self-touted "leader in the real estate industry."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott A. Edelsberg, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Ostrow, Esq.
          Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
          1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525-4100
          Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
          E-mail: edelsberg@kolawyers.com
                  ostrow@kolawyers.com
                  kaufman@kolawyers.com

               - and -

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 400-4713
          E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com


KIMBERLY-CLARK: "Mattocks" Class Suit Transferred to S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed October 7, 2017, captioned Joseph
Mattocks, individually, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation; Kimberlyclark Worldwide,
Inc.; and Kimberly-Clark Global Sales, LLC, Case No. 3:17-cv-01397
was transferred November 1, 2017, from the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-08417-VM to the proceeding.

The case arises out of the Defendants' unlawful merchandising
practices with respect to their Scott(R) Naturals Flushable
Cleansing Cloths; Scott(R) Naturals Flushable Wipes; and Scott(R)
Naturals with Aloe Vera Flushable Wipes, which are offered for
sale in both soft packages and "pop-up tubs," as well as in refill
packages.

The Defendants operate a personal care corporation that produces
mostly paper-based consumer products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:


      Christopher Decker Moon, Esq.
      Naomi B. Spector, Esq.
      KAMBERLAW LLP
      9404 Genesee Avenue, Suite 340
      La Jolla, CA 92037
      Telephone: (310) 400-1051
      Facsimile: (212) 202-6364
      E-mail: cmoon@kamberlaw.com
              nspector@kamberlaw.com

         - and -

      Michael Thomas Fraser, Esq.
      THE FRASER LAW FIRM, P.C.
      4120 Douglas Blvd. 306-262
      Granite Bay, CA 95746
      Telephone: (888) 557-5115
      Facsimile: (866) 212-8434
      E-mail: mfraser@thefraserlawfirm.net

The Defendant is represented by:

      Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Esq.
      Timothy W. Loose, Esq.
      Theane E. Kapur, Esq.
      GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP
      333 South Grand Avenue
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 229-7804
      Facsimile: (213) 229-6804
      E-mail: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com
              tloose@gibsondunn.com
              tevangelis@gibsondunn.com

         - and -

      Andrew Santo Tulumello, Esq.
      GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, L.L.P.
      1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
      Washington, DC 20036-5303
      Telephone: (202) 955-8657
      Facsimile: (202) 530-9678
      E-mail: atulumello@gibsondunn.com


KOMAROV ENTERPRISES: "Martinez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
PABLA MARTINEZ, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly
situated, and as an "aggrieved employee" on behalf of other
"aggrieved employees" under the California Labor Code Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004, the Plaintiff, v. KOMAROV
ENTERPRISES, INC., a California corporation; and DOES l through
50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC680796 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Oct. 31, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages under the California
Labor Code.

The Plaintiff brings this class action based on alleged violations
of the California Labor Code, Industrial Welfare Commission Order,
and the Business and Professions Code against Defendants. The
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are liable to her and other
similarly situated current and former employees for unpaid wages
and other related relief. These claims are based on Defendants'
alleged failures to provide all meal periods, fairly compete,
provide accurate written wage statements, and timely pay final
wages upon termination of employment.

The Defendants' is doing business in apparel and textile
industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David G. Spivak, Esq.
          Caroline Tahmassian, Esq.
          THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
          16530 Ventura Blvd., Ste 312
          Enci.no, CA 91436
          Telephone (818) 582 3086
          Facsimile (818) 582 2561
          E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com
                  caroline@spivaklaw.com


LADY JANE'S: "Durr" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
------------------------------------------------
Tamika Durr, and all others similarly-situated v. Lady Jane's
Haircuts for Men Holding Company, LLC dba Lady Jane's Haircuts for
Men et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-00971 (S.D. Ohio, November 3, 2017),
is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Ohio overtime compensation statute.

Plaintiff Tamika Durr worked as a stylist at the Lady Jane's shop
on Henderson Road in Columbus from June to December 2016 and again
from June 2017 to the present.

Defendant Lady Jane's owns and operates retail shops throughout
the United States and its territories that sell haircuts and
grooming products for men.  [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
      Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
      Kevin M. McDermott, II, Esq.
      SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
      The Caxton Building
      812 E. Huron Rd., Suite 490
      Cleveland, OH  44114
      Tel: (440) 498-9100
      E-mail: jscott@ohiowagealawyers.com
              rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
              kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com

          - and -

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


LULAROE LLC: Accused by Haskett Suit of Operating Pyramid Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------------
LORA HASKETT, ASHLEY HEALY, JOCELYN BURKE-CRAIG, BRITTANY BIANCHI,
KERRY TIGHE-SCHWEGLER, Individually, and On Behalf of a Class of
Similarly Situated Individuals v. LULAROE, LLC d/b/a LULAROE, LLR,
INC., Case No. 5:17-cv-02212 (C.D. Cal., October 27, 2017), is
brought on behalf of a class of similarly injured fashion
consultants, seeking to hold the Defendants financially liable for
the alleged operation and promotion of a pyramid scheme.

LuLaRoe, LLC, doing business as LuLaRoe is, a California Limited
Liability Company located in Corona, California.  LLR, Inc., is a
Wyoming Corporation with its principal place of business located
in Thayne, Wyoming.

LLR's program requires Fashion Consultants to pay LLR anywhere
between $5,000-$8,000 for a Start Up Kit, which includes initial
inventory, the Plaintiffs say.  They contend that LLR perfectly
fits the pyramid scheme paradigm by requiring the Fashion
Consultants to purchase product from LLR in return for which they
receive (1) the right to sell a product and (2) the right to
receive, in return for recruiting other participants into the
program, bonuses which Fashion Consultants can only receive if
they have met their minimum monthly purchase requirement from
LLR.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Marc L. Godino, Esq.
          Mark S. Greenstone, Esq.
          Kara M. Wolke, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: mgodino@glancylaw.com
                  MGreenstone@glancylaw.com
                  kwolke@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Kevin Landau, Esq.
          Brett Cebulash, Esq.
          TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP
          80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1204
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (646) 873-7654
          Facsimile: (212) 931-0703
          E-mail: klandau@tcllaw.com
                  bcebulash@tcllaw.com
                  mgreaves@tcllaw.com


LUXOTTICA RETAIL: "Tenagila" Suit Moved from Florida to New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action lawsuit styled GRACELYNN TENAGILA,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
LUXOTTICA RETAIL NORTH AMERICA, an Ohio corporation d/b/a
LensCrafters, Case No. 2:17-cv-14311, was transferred on October
30, 2017, from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York (Brooklyn).  The New York District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:17-cv-06315-NGG-LB to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff and proposed class members are purchasers of
prescription eyeglasses from LensCrafters after being measured
using the Accufit(R) Digital Measurement System offered at
LensCrafters.  LensCrafters touts its Accufit system as providing
uniquely accurate measurements of the pupillary distance between
the customer's eyes to locate the optical centers of the eyeglass
lenses.

However, the Plaintiff alleges, LensCrafters cannot and does not
deliver what it promises.  Even assuming its Accufit system can
provide PD measurements down to a tenth of a millimeter, when it
manufactures prescription eyeglasses, LensCrafters uses decades-
old technology that still involves manual measurements that must
be rounded up to a full millimeter, the Plaintiff contends.

Luxottica Retail North America, doing business as LensCrafters, is
a citizen and resident of Ohio, which regularly does business in
Florida and all over the United States.  Headquartered in Mason,
Ohio, LensCrafters is a national eye care provider and
prescription eyeglass manufacturer maintaining over 950 locations
in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Theodore J. Leopold, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200
          Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
          Telephone: (561) 515-1400
          Facsimile: (561) 515-1401
          E-mail: tleopold@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Geoffrey A. Graber, Esq.
          Sally M. Handmaker, Esq.
          Andrew N. Friedman, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Ave. NW
          East Tower, 5th Floor
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
          E-mail: ggraber@cohenmilstein.com
                  shandmaker@cohenmilstein.com
                  afriedman@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Robert Gordon, Esq
          Steve Calamusa, Esq.
          GORDON & DONER
          4114 Northlake Blvd.,
          Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
          Telephone: (561) 799-5070
          Facsimile: (561) 799-4050
          E-mail: rgordon@fortheinjured.com
                  SCalamusa@ForTheInjured.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Alen H. Hsu, Esq.
          BLANK ROME LLP
          500 East Broward Blvd., Suite 2100
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33394
          Telephone: (954) 512-1811
          E-mail: ahsu@blankrome.com


MAALT SPECIALIZED: Hines Seeks to Recover Overtime for Pushers
--------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID HINES, ALBERT SAMARRIPA, JERRY WILKINS, JOSH SWAIN,
Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated under
29 USC 216(b) v. MAALT SPECIALIZED BULK, LLC, Case No. 6:17-cv-
00044-C (W.D. Tex., October 27, 2017), is brought to recover
compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs and Class Members are those persons, who are
current and former non-exempt employees, who worked for Maalt as
Pushers and were paid a salary, but no overtime for the hours
worked over forty (40) in each workweek.  Pushers are tasked with
ensuring the required sand is unloaded from the delivery truck.

Defendant Maalt Specialized Bulk, LLC, is a Texas limited
liability company.  The primary function of the Defendant's
business is the operation of sand mines, storage of sand, and
delivery of sand from its mines to wellheads.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Drew N. Herrmann, Esq.
          HERRMANN LAW, PLLC
          777 Main St., Suite 600
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 479-9229
          Facsimile: (817) 887-1878
          E-mail: drew@herrmannlaw.com


MARTIN'S FAMOUS: Smelser Questions Classification of Distributors
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID SMELSER, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals v. MARTIN'S FAMOUS PASTRY SHOPPE, INC., Case
No. 3:17-cv-01813 (D. Conn., October 30, 2017), challenges both
the classification of distributors as independent contractors and
the Defendant's denial to the Plaintiff and the Class of the
rights, obligations, privileges, and benefits owed to them as
employees.

Martin's Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., is a Pennsylvania corporation
with its principal place of business located in Chambersburg,
Pennsylvania.  The Company ships bakery and snack products to
warehouses where distributors, such as Plaintiff and members of
the proposed Class, arrive early in the morning and load their
vehicles with its products.

The Company employs "distributors" to deliver fresh baked goods to
its customers, which are primarily grocery stores, mass retailers
and fast food chains.  In addition to delivering Martin's products
to customers, distributors stock the products on store shelves and
assemble promotional displays designed and provided by
Martin's.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard A. Hayber, Esq.
          THE HAYBER LAW FIRM, LLC
          221 Main Street, Suite 502
          Hartford, CT 06106
          Telephone: (860) 522-8888
          Facsimile: (860) 218-9555
          E-mail: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Shawn J. Wanta, Esq.
          Dustin W. Massie, Esq.
          BAILLON THOME JOZWIAK & WANTA LLP
          100 South Fifth Street, Suite 1200
          Minneapolis, MN 5402
          Telephone: (612) 252-3570
          Facsimile: (612) 252-3571
          E-mail: sjwanta@baillonthome.com
                  dmassie@baillonthome.com


MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: Settlement in "Bacchi" Has Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Denise J. Casper of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts granted final approval to the class settlement in
the case, KAREN L. BACCHI, Plaintiff, v. MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Civil Action No. 12-11280-DJC (D.
Mass.).

Over five years ago, Bacchi brought the action against MassMutual
on behalf of a purported class of similarly situated MassMutual
policyholders asserting claims regarding MassMutual's safety fund
calculation, alleging that the company retained monies that it
should have distributed to policyholders as dividends.  After
several years of hard fought litigation between the parties and a
mediation that resulted in the proposed settlement, the Court
preliminarily granted approval of that settlement agreement and
certification of the class for this purpose, approved the
procedure for providing notice to the class of same and scheduling
a hearing for consideration of the final approval of the
settlement and determination of any fee awards.

After having preliminarily certified the class in the case
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and having preliminarily approved
the class action settlement, Judge Casper Court conducted a final
fairness hearing on July 27, 2017.

For all of the reasons previously stated in the Court's Order of
preliminary approval, and on the record at the March 29, 2017
hearing regarding same, Judge Casper finds that the proposed
settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate as required under Rule
23(e)(2).  Accordingly, she granted final approval to the class
settlement.

For all of the reasons previously stated in the Court's Order of
preliminary approval, and on the record at the March 29, 2017
hearing regarding same, the Judge certified the proposed
Settlement Class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) for the
purposes of the settlement.

Judge Casper also finds that the size of the common fund is
substantial and even with the subtraction of attorneys' fees will
benefit a large class of policyholders, who, as result of the Rule
23 mechanism and representation by Bacchi, the class
representative, and class counsel, did not have to initiate or
participate in the litigation to have their pro rata share of the
common fund as established under the terms of the settlement.
Thus, she awarded the requested $9,375,000 in attorneys' fees.

As to the litigation expenses of $1,533,575.85 that the class
counsel seeks, the Judge has reviewed the submission supporting
same.  She cannot say that such expenses, either in whole or in
any particular part, are unreasonable, particularly given the
course of contested litigation, the need to defend against
dispositive motions at two junctures, conduct extensive discovery
and the required engagement of experts given the complexity of the
claims and defenses here.  Accordingly, the Judge granted this
award of costs.

Finally, Judge Casper awarded Bacchi $3,000 in incentive award.
Such award is customary and appropriate in recognition of a named
plaintiff who has served, as is the case here, as the class
representative through extensive litigation and has assisted class
counsel, by, among other things, obtaining critical documents,
reviewing filings and otherwise assisting class counsel in the
prosecution of the case.  Moreover, the $3000 award sought here is
reasonable and more modest than awards sought in other matters.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 8, 2017 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Mm2AN5 from Leagle.com.

Karen L Bacchi, Plaintiff, represented by Jason B. Adkins, Adkins,
Kelston and Zavez, P.C..

Karen L Bacchi, Plaintiff, represented by John P. Zavez, Adkins,
Kelston and Zavez, P.C., Andrew S. Friedman -- afriedman@bffb.com
-- Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint, P.C., pro hac vice, F.
Paul Bland -- pbland@publicjustice.net -- Public Justice, pro hac
vice, Francis J. Balint, Jr., Bonnett Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint
-- fbalint@bffb.com -- P.C. & Mark A. Chavez, Chavez & Gertler,
pro hac vice.

Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company, Defendant,
represented by James R. Carroll -- james.carroll@skadden.com --
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Kurt Wm. Hemr --
kurt.hemr@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
& Alisha Quintana Nanda -- alisha.nanda@skadden.com -- Skadden,
Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP.

Babson Capital Management LLC, Movant, represented by Kurt Wm.
Hemr, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP.

Christina Chavez, Objector, represented by Mark F. Murphy, Mark
Murphy Law Offices, LLC, Mary T. Rahmes, Gianelli & Morris, ALC,
pro hac vice & Timothy Morris, Gianelli & Morris, ALC, pro hac
vice.

M.D. Michael D. Myers, Objector, represented by Mark F. Murphy,
Mark Murphy Law Offices, LLC.

Caroline Tucker, Objector, represented by Mardi Harrison --
mardi@SueTheBoss.com -- Law Office of Mardi Harrison, pro hac vice
& Elaine W. Sharp -- elaine@sharplaw.net -- Whitfield Sharp &
Sharp.


MC CABLE: Accused by "Vazquez" Suit of Not Paying OT Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
HECTOR VAZQUEZ & ANTHONY JIMENEZ, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. MC CABLE, LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-
04847-CDJ (E.D. Pa., October 30, 2017), accuses the Defendant of
violating the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum
Wage Act and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law by
failing to pay the Plaintiffs and others overtime compensation and
other wages, which were earned, due and owing.

MC Cable, LLC, is a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the state of Pennsylvania with a registered office in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Murphy, Esq.
          MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC
          Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000
          1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (267) 273-1054
          Facsimile: (215) 525-0210
          E-mail: murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com


MDL 2273: Court Narrows Claims in Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------------
Judge Lucy H. Koh of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division, granted in part and
denied in part Qualcomm's motion to dismiss and/or strike
the case, IN RE QUALCOMM ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 17-MD-
02773-LHK (N.D. Cal.).

In a separate action initiated on Jan. 17, 2017, FTC sued Qualcomm
in this Court, alleging that Qualcomm's course of conduct violated
Section 5 of the FTCA.  Subsequently, a number of lawsuits were
filed by consumers against Qualcomm.  These lawsuits generally
alleged that Qualcomm's conduct violated state and federal
antitrust and consumer protection laws.

In early 2017, the Plaintiffs in several lawsuits moved to
centralize pretrial proceedings in a single judicial district.  On
April 6, 2017, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
issued a transfer order selecting the undersigned judge as the
transferee court for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings in the multidistrict litigation arising out of
Qualcomm's allegedly anticompetitive conduct.

On May 11, 2017, the Court held a hearing to appoint interim lead
Plaintiffs' counsel.  Following this hearing, the Court issued an
order appointing interim Plaintiffs' Steering Committee and co-
lead Plaintiffs' counsel.  At a case management conference on May
25, 2017, the Court ordered the interim Plaintiffs' Steering
Committee to file a consolidated amended complaint by June 26,
2017.  In an order dated June 7, 2017, the Court granted a
stipulation to extend the deadline to July 11, 2017 to file a
consolidated amended complaint.  The Plaintiffs then filed the
instant Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("CCAC") on July 11,
2017.  The CCAC asserts two federal statutory claims and two
California statutory claims.

On Aug. 11, 2017, Qualcomm moved to dismiss and/or strike the
CCAC.  On Sept. 25, 2017, the Plaintiffs opposed Qualcomm's
motion, and filed a request for judicial notice in connection with
the opposition.  On Oct. 17, 2017, Qualcomm filed its reply.

The CCAC asserts two federal statutory claims and two California
statutory claims.  Specifically, the CCAC asserts (i) a claim
under the California Cartwright Act, (ii) a claim under Section 1
of the federal Sherman Act, (iii) a claim under Section 2 of the
federal Sherman Act, and (iv) a claim under the California Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL").

Qualcomm moves to dismiss the Plaintiffs' CCAC in its entirety.
First, Qualcomm argues that none of the Plaintiffs' claims may
proceed because they have not established that Qualcomm's conduct
caused them any antitrust injury.  Next, Qualcomm contends that
Plaintiffs have not established that they have Article III
standing to assert their claims related to Qualcomm's agreements
with Apple.  Finally, Qualcomm raises particular objections to
each of the Plaintiffs' causes of action.

Judge Koh granted the Plaintiffs' request for judicial notice of
Exhibits 1 through 5, not for the truth of the facts recited
therein, but for the existence of the opinion, which is not
subject to reasonable dispute over its authenticity.  Because
Qualcomm disputes facts contained within Exhibit 2, the Judge does
not take judicial notice of any facts in that document.

Taking the CCAC's allegations as true and making reasonable
inferences in the Plaintiffs' favor, the CCAC adequately alleges
that the Plaintiffs suffered antitrust injury because they
participate in the market where competition is being constrained.
Although the Plaintiffs also suffered injury in another market,
they do not merely declare injury.  The Plaintiffs connect the
injuries suffered to Qualcomm's conduct.  They provide their
position in the supply chain and describe why Qualcomm's surcharge
is passed down through the chain of distribution to them.
Accordingly, the Judge denied Qualcomm's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' CCAC for failure to plead antitrust injury.

Judge Koh also denied Qualcomm's motion to dismiss for lack of
Article III standing the Plaintiffs' claims to the extent those
claims rely on Qualcomm's agreements with Apple.  Qualcomm does
not identify any factual allegation or fact in the record that
contradicts the Plaintiffs' non-speculative assertion that
Qualcomm's exclusive dealing with Apple resulted in higher prices
for handsets.  The Plaintiffs allege that Qualcomm's rebates to
Apple constitute one piece of the overall alleged unlawful
behavior.  Because Qualcomm could continue its no-license-no-chips
policy, Apple could not use alternative suppliers and so was
forced to source modem chips exclusively from Qualcomm for all
iPad and iPhone products launched from October 2011 until
September 2016.  She says Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled
injury-in-fact stemming from Qualcomm's agreements with Apple.

The Judge further denied Qualcomm's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' Cartwright Act claim for failure to state a claim.
She rejects Qualcomm's contention that the Plaintiffs cannot plead
both a Sherman Act Section 2 claim and a Cartwright Act claim in
these circumstances.  Qualcomm cites no authority holding that
such claims cannot be pled together.  There is no perceived
inconsistency between the Plaintiffs' allegations that Qualcomm
both executed a scheme to pressure OEMs to adhere to unreasonable
and supra-competitive licensing terms and abused its monopoly
power in the relevant modem chips markets to force OEMs into
licenses with unfair and unreasonable terms.

Judge Koh finds that Qualcomm has not met its burden of showing
that the other states have an interest in having their laws
applied.  Thus, she says she needs not address which state's
interest would be most impaired if its policy were subordinated to
the law of another state.  Accordingly, the Judge denied
Qualcomm's motion to strike the Plaintiffs' nationwide class
allegations.

The Plaintiffs do not contest the applicability of Illinois Brick
and cannot establish that an exception applies.  Thus, they cannot
bring a damages claim under Section 1 or Section 2 of the Sherman
Act as a matter of law.  The Judge finds that granting the
Plaintiffs leave to amend their Sherman Act damages claims would
be futile, and she granted Qualcomm's motion to dismiss the
Sherman Act claims to the extent those claims seek damages with
prejudice.

Finally, the Judge denied Qualcomm's motion to dismiss and/or
strike Plaintiffs' UCL claim.  The Plaintiffs have adequately pled
antitrust injury.  Their nationwide class allegations should not
be stricken.

For these reasons, Judge Koh denied Qualcomm's motion to dismiss
(i) the Plaintiffs' CCAC for lack of antitrust injury, (ii) for
lack of Article III standing the Plaintiffs' claims to the extent
those claims rely on Qualcomm's agreements with Apple, (iii) the
Plaintiffs' Cartwright Act claim for failure to state a claim, and
(iv) the Plaintiffs' UCL claim.  She denied Qualcomm's motion to
strike the Plaintiffs' nationwide class allegations but granted
with prejudice Qualcomm's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
Sherman Act claims to the extent those claims seek damages.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 10, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/no2RA7 from Leagle.com.

Karen Stromberg, Plaintiff, represented by Carel Ale --
CAle@susmangodfrey.com -- Susman Godfrey L.L.P..

Karen Stromberg, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey Greg Lewis --
jlewis@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback L.L.P..

Samuel Roecker, Plaintiff, represented by Carel Ale, Susman
Godfrey L.L.P. & Jeffrey Greg Lewis, Keller Rohrback L.L.P..

Thomas Lammel, Plaintiff, represented by Carel Ale, Susman Godfrey
L.L.P. & Jeffrey Greg Lewis, Keller Rohrback L.L.P..

Mary Galloway, Plaintiff, represented by Carel Ale, Susman Godfrey
L.L.P. & Jeffrey Greg Lewis, Keller Rohrback L.L.P..

Danielle LaGrave, Plaintiff, represented by Carel Ale, Susman
Godfrey L.L.P. & Jeffrey Greg Lewis, Keller Rohrback L.L.P..

Thomas McMahon, Plaintiff, represented by Carel Ale, Susman
Godfrey L.L.P., Jeff D. Friedman -- jefff@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Mark P. Robinson, Jr., Robinson
Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis, Inc., Shana E. Scarlett --
shanas@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Steve W.
Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
pro hac vice.

Boardsports School LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Carel Ale,
Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Britt Ann Cibulka, Bleichmar Fonti & Auld,
LLP, Lesley Elizabeth Weaver, Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP, Mili G.
Desai, Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP & Robyn Rose English, Bleichmar
Fonti and Auld.

Patrick Benad, Plaintiff, represented by Carel Ale, Susman Godfrey
L.L.P., Gordon M. Fauth, Jr., Litigation Law Group, Jessica Moy,
Berman Tabacco, Nyran Rose Rasche, Cafferty Clobes Meriwether
Sprengel LLP, Rosanne L. Mah, Finkelstein Thompson & Todd Anthony
Seaver, Berman Tabacco.

Lindsey Carr, Plaintiff, represented by Carel Ale, Susman Godfrey
L.L.P., Eric L. Cramer, Berger & Montague, P.C., Joseph R. Saveri,
Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Kyla Jenny Gibboney, Joseph Saveri
Law Firm, Michael Jay Kane, Berger Montague PC, pro hac vice,
Nicomedes Sy Herrera, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Ruthanne
Gordon, Berger & Montague PC, pro hac vice & Ryan James McEwan,
Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc..

Qualcomm Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Richard J. Stark
-- rstark@cravath.com -- Cravath, Swaine and Moore LLP, pro hac
vice, Robert Addy Van Nest -- rvannest@keker.com -- Keker, Van
Nest & Peters LLP, Alexander Barnes Dryer -- adryer@keker.com --
Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, Antony L. Ryan -- aryan@cravath.com
-- Cravath, Swaine Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Asim M. Bhansali --
abhansali@keker.com -- Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, David Wade
Rizk -- drizk@keker.com -- Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, Eugene
Morris Paige -- EMP@kvn.com -- Keker & Van Nest Peters LLP, Gary
Andrew Bornstein, Cravath, Swaine and Moore, pro hac vice,
Geoffrey T. Holtz -- gholtz@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLP, Justina Kahn Sessions -- jsessions@keker.com --
Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, Nicole Peles -- npeles@cravath.com -
- Cravath, Swaine Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Nitin Jindal --
nitin.jindal@morganlewis.com -- Bingham McCutchen, Rachael
Catherine Chan -- rachael.chan@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis
and Bockius LLP, Richard S. Taffet --
richard.taffet@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro
hac vice, Robert Addy Van Nest, Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP,
Willard K. Tom -- willard.tom@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis, pro
hac vice & Yonatan Even -- yeven@cravath.com -- Cravath, Swaine
and Moore LLP, pro hac vice.

InterDigital, Inc., Movant, represented by Michael Brett Levin --
MLevin@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati A Professional
Corporation & Maura Lea Rees -- MRees@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati.

Jennifer Milici, 3rd party plaintiff, represented by Jennifer
Milici, Federal Trade Commission.

Intel Corporation, Miscellaneous, represented by Joseph J. Mueller
-- joseph.mueller@wilmerhale.com -- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale
and Dorr LLP, pro hac vice, Mark Albert Ford --
mark.ford@wilmerhale.com -- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr
LLP, pro hac vice, Mark Daniel Selwyn, Wilmer Cutler Pickering
Hale and Dorr LLP, Timothy Davis Syrett --
timothy.syrett@wilmerhale.com -- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
Dorr LLP, pro hac vice & William F. Lee --
william.lee@wilmerhale.com -- Wilmer Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP,
pro hac vice.

Nokia USA Inc., Miscellaneous, represented by Ryan W. Koppelman --
ryan.koppelman@alston.com -- Alston & Bird LLP.

Nokia Technologies OY, Miscellaneous, represented by Ryan W.
Koppelman, Alston & Bird LLP.

Apple Inc., Miscellaneous, represented by Edward Takashima --
etakashima@bsfllp.com -- Boies, Schiller, and Flexner LLP, Gabriel
R. Schlabach -- gschlabach@bsfllp.com -- Boies Schiller and
Flexner LLP & Meredith Richardson Dearborn -- mdearborn@bsfllp.com
-- Boies Schiller Flexner LLP.

T-Mobile USA, Inc., Miscellaneous, represented by Ellisen Shelton
Turner -- eturner@irell.com -- Irell & Manella LLP.

MediaTek USA Inc. and MediaTek Inc., Miscellaneous, represented by
Steven Christopher Holtzman -- sholtzman@bsfllp.com -- Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP.


MDL 2314: Parts of Internet Tracking Suit May be Filed Under Seal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled IN RE: FACEBOOK, INC. INTERNET TRACKING
LITIGATION, Case No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward
J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, granted the Plaintiffs'
administrative motion to file under seal portions of the Third
Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint.

On Aug. 25, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed the administrative motion.
The Defendant has submitted a declaration in support of that
administrative motion on Aug. 29, 2017.  Judge Davila has reviewed
the Plaintiffs' administrative motion and finds that the parties'
sealing request narrowly tailored and justified.  Therefore, he
granted the motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 8, 2017 Order is available at
https://is.gd/mmesM3 from Leagle.com.

Alexandria Parrish, Plaintiff, represented by Edward D. Robertson,
III --krobertson@bflawfirm.com -- BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON
GORNY.

Alexandria Parrish, Plaintiff, represented by Edward D. Robertson,
Jr., Bartimus Frickleton Robertson and Gorny, James Patrick
Frickleton -- jimf@bflawfirm.com -- BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON
GORNY, Jennifer L. Harwood, Keefe Bartels, 170 Monmouth Street,
Red Bank, NJ 07701,  pro hac vice, Mary Doerhoff Winter --
mwinter.bflawfirm.com -- Bartimus Frickleton Robertson and Gorny,
Paul R. Kiesel -- kiesel@kbla.com-- Kiesel Law LLP, Peter F.
Burns, Peter S. Mackey, Stephen M. Gorny, The Gorny Law Firm, LC,
4330Belleview Ave, Suite 200, Kansas City, MO 64111 Phone 816-756-
5071 & William Mitchell Cunningham, Jr.

Sharon Beatty, Plaintiff, represented by David A. Straite --
dstraite@kalanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Edward D.
Robertson, Jr., Bartimus Frickleton Robertson and Gorny, James
Patrick Frickleton, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON GORNY, Paul R.
Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP, Edward D. Robertson, III, BARTIMUS
FRICKLETON ROBERTSON GORNY, Jennifer L. Harwood, Keefe Bartels,
pro hac vice, Joel Grant Woods, Grant Woods PC, 1726 North Seventh
Street, Phoenix, AZ 85006 (Maricopa) Mary Doerhoff Winter,
Bartimus Frickleton Robertson and Gorny & Stephen M. Gorny, The
Gorny Law Firm, LC.

Brooke Rutledge, Plaintiff, represented by David Shelton, David
Shelton, PLLC, Edward D. Robertson, III, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON
ROBERTSON GORNY, Edward D. Robertson, Jr., Bartimus Frickleton
Robertson and Gorny, James Patrick Frickleton, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON
ROBERTSON GORNY, Jennifer L. Harwood, Keefe Bartels, pro hac vice,
Mary Doerhoff Winter, Bartimus Frickleton Robertson and Gorny,
Paul R. Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP & Stephen M. Gorny, The Gorny Law
Firm, LC.

Michael Singley, Plaintiff, represented by Alice London, Daniel W.
Bishop, II, Bishop London & Dodds PC, 3701 Bee Caves Rd, #200,
West Lake Hills, TX 78746 Edward D. Robertson, III, BARTIMUS
FRICKLETON ROBERTSON GORNY, Edward D. Robertson, Jr., Bartimus
Frickleton Robertson and Gorny, James Patrick Frickleton, BARTIMUS
FRICKLETON ROBERTSON GORNY, Jennifer L. Harwood, Keefe Bartels,
pro hac vice, Mary Doerhoff Winter, Bartimus Frickleton Robertson
and Gorny, Paul R. Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP & Stephen M. Gorny, The
Gorny Law Firm, LC.

Dana Howard, Plaintiff, represented by Edward D. Robertson, III,
BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON GORNY, Edward D. Robertson, Jr.,
Bartimus Frickleton Robertson and Gorny, James Patrick Frickleton,
BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON GORNY, Jennifer L. Harwood, Keefe
Bartels, pro hac vice, Mark Chandler Goldenberg, Goldenberg Heller
Antognoli and Rowland, Mary Doerhoff Winter, Bartimus Frickleton
Robertson and Gorny, Paul R. Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP, Stephen M.
Gorny, The Gorny Law Firm, LC & Thomas P. Rosenfeld --
tom@ghalaw.com -- Goldenberg Heller Antognoli and Rowland, P.C..
John Graham, Plaintiff, represented by Edward D. Robertson, III,
BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON GORNY, Edward D. Robertson, Jr.,
Bartimus Frickleton Robertson and Gorny, James Patrick Frickleton,
BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON GORNY, Jennifer L. Harwood, Keefe
Bartels, pro hac vice, Mary Doerhoff Winter, Bartimus Frickleton
Robertson and Gorny, Michelle L. Marvel, Bartimus, Frickleton,
Robertson & Gorny, Paul R. Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP & Stephen M.
Gorny, The Gorny Law Firm, LC.

David Hoffman, Plaintiff, represented by Edward D. Robertson, III,
BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON GORNY, Edward D. Robertson, Jr.,
Bartimus Frickleton Robertson and Gorny, Emily Ward Roark, Bryant
Law Center, James Patrick Frickleton, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON
ROBERTSON GORNY, Jennifer L. Harwood, Keefe Bartels, pro hac vice,
Mark P. Bryant -- lawteam@bryantpsc.com -- Bryant Law Center, Mary
Doerhoff Winter, Bartimus Frickleton Robertson and Gorny, Paul R.
Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP & Stephen M. Gorny, The Gorny Law Firm, LC.

Janet Seamon, Plaintiff, represented by Edward D. Robertson, III,
BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON GORNY, Edward D. Robertson, Jr.,
Bartimus Frickleton Robertson and Gorny, James Patrick Frickleton,
BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON GORNY, Jennifer L. Har wood, Keefe
Bartels, pro hac vice, L.J. Hymel, Mary Doerhoff Winter, Bartimus
Frickleton Robertson and Gorny, Michael Reese Davis, Hymel Davis
and Petersen, LLC, Paul R. Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP, Richard P.
Ieyoub, Ieyoub Law Firm, LLC, 3741 Hwy 1 S Port Allen, LA 70767-
5814 West Baton Rouge Parish, Stephen M. Gorny, The Gorny Law
Firm, LC & Tim P. Hartdegen.

Chandra L. Thompson, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Stephan
Lyskowski, Edward D. Robertson, III, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON
GORNY, Edward D. Robertson, Jr., Bartimus Frickleton Robertson and
Gorny, James Patrick Frickleton, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON
GORNY, Jennifer L. Harwood, Keefe Bartels, pro hac vice, Mary
Doerhoff Winter, Bartimus Frickleton Robertson and Gorny, Paul R.
Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP & Stephen M. Gorny, The Gorny Law Firm, LC.

Facebook Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Gutkin --
jgutkin@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Kyle Christopher Wong --
kylewong99@yahoo.com -- Cooley LLP, Matthew Dean Brown --
brownmd.cooley.com -- Cooley LLP & Adam Christopher Trigg --
atrigg@be-law.com -- Cooley LLP.


MDL 2741: "Bailey" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on October 11, 2017, titled John
Bailey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:17-cv-00367, was
transferred on October 31, 2017, from the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Iowa to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (San Francisco). The District
Court Clerk assigned 3:17-cv-06299-VC to the proceeding.

The case asserts product-liability claims.

The Bailey case is being consolidated with MDL 2741. The lead case
is 3:16-md-02741-VC.

Monsanto Company is a multinational agricultural biotechnology
corporation based in St. Louis, Missouri. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard W. Schulte, Esq.
      WRIGHT & SCHULTE, LLC
      865 S. Dixie Dr.
      Vandalia, OH 45377
      Telephone: (937) 435-7500
      Facsimile: (937) 435-7511
      E-mail: rschulte@yourlegalhelp.com


MONTEREY FINANCIAL: Faces "Cintron" Suit in New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed Monterey Financial Services,
Inc.  The case is styled as Lazarao Cintron, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Monterey
Financial Services, Inc. doing business as: Monterey Collections,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-11538-JMV-CLW (D. N.J., November 10,
2017).

Monterey Financial provides receivables financing solutions. It
offers consumer finance programs for clients offering retail sales
and flex pay plans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   MELISSA ANN PIRILLO, Esq.
   SANDERS LAW PLLC
   100 GARDEN CITY PLAZA, SUITE 500
   GARDEN CITY, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 203-7601
   Email: mpirillo@sanderslawpllc.com


SMG HOLDINGS: Fails to Pay Overtime & Minimum Wages, McCarty Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHAWN MCCARTY and FABIAN GUERRERO, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. SMG HOLDINGS, I, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; SMG HOLDINGS, II, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; SMG, a general partnership; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 4:17-cv-06232-KAW (N.D. Cal.,
October 27, 2017), accuses the Defendants of failure to, among
other things, provide required meal and rest periods, and pay
overtime and minimum wages.

SMG Holdings I, LLC, is a limited liability company organized and
existing under the laws of the state of Delaware, and conducts
business in the state of California.  SMG Holdings II, LLC, is a
limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of
the state of Delaware, and conducts business in the state of
California.  SMG Holdings I and SMG Holdings II are two partners
comprising SMG and maintaining 50% ownerships of SMG.  SMG is a
general partnership under the laws of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania.  The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants
are unknown to the Plaintiffs at this time.

The Defendants were the joint employers of the Plaintiffs and
class members.  The Defendants operate large venues throughout the
state of California, including in the cities of Stockton,
California and San Francisco, California, including convention
centers, arenas and theaters.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          Dalia Khalili, Esq.
          Irina Kirnosova, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531-1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
          E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
                  dkhalili@maternlawgroup.com


NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Bid to Stay Discovery in "Allen" Suit Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division granted the
Defendants' Joint Motion to Stay Discovery in the case, JOHN DALE
ALLEN, Plaintiff, v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE, et al.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-561 (S.D. Ohio).

In December 2016, the Plaintiff, a citizen of Ohio, filed a
purported nationwide class action against the Defendants.  In his
2016 Complaint, the Plaintiff claimed that the Defendants violated
the Stored Communication Act when Defendant Nationwide allegedly
issued a "bad check" that was subsequently refused by Defendant JP
Morgan.  On May 9, 2017, the Court dismissed that case for failure
to state a claim on which relief may be granted.

Following the Court's ruling, the Plaintiff filed the instant case
in state court alleging an identical set of facts and purporting
to bring another nationwide class action against the Defendants.
He claims that the Defendants are liable for fraudulent
conversion, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, and breach of
fiduciary duty arising from a one-day delay in cashing the
Plaintiff's insurance check, during which time Defendant JP Morgan
allegedly benefited from the overnight federal funds rate to
accrue interest on Defendant Nationwide's check.

On June 27, 2017, the Defendants removed the matter to federal
court pursuant to the provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act
of 2005 ("CAFA").  On Sept. 5, 2017, the Defendants filed their
Joint Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.  On the same day, they
also filed their Joint Motion to Stay Discovery pending
disposition of the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.  The
Plaintiff did not file a Response to the instant Motion.

According to their arguments, resolution of the Defendants' Motion
for Judgment on the Pleadings will likely dispose of the entire
case.  Adjudication of the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
prior to the parties' engaging in discovery could, therefore,
preserve both judicial and party resources.  Moreover, the case
remains in its infancy.  The Court has yet to convene a
Preliminary Pretrial Conference, and, thus, no case schedule has
been established in this matter.  Finally, the Court cannot
discern how the short stay contemplated by Defendants will unduly
prejudice or tactically disadvantage Plaintiff.

Judge Preston Deavers finds that the Defendants have carried their
burden to show that a limited stay of discovery is appropriate
under the circumstances presented in the case.  She, therefore,
exercises its discretion to conclude that a temporary stay pending
resolution of the Defendants' Joint Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings is warranted.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 8, 2017 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/lxkve0 from Leagle.com.

John Dale Allen, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Albert Grant Lin -- albert.lin@icemiller.com -- Ice Miller &
Kristina S. Dahmann -- kristina.dahmann@icemiller.com -- Associate
Columbus.

JPMorgan Chase & Co., Defendant, represented by Michael N. Ungar -
- mungar@ulmer.com -- Ulmer and Berne LLP, Alexander M. Andrews --
aandrews@ulmer.com -- Ulmer & Berne LLP & David D. Yeagley --
dyeagley@ulmer.com -- Ulmer & Berne LLP.


NEULION INC: "Daas" Class Suit Transferred to Nevada
----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on September 12, 2017, styled Hasan
Daas, Brad Grier, Wesley Inman, Matt Leboeuf, Damian Luna, Lloyd
Trushel, Mark White, and Dongsheng Liu, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. Neulion, Inc., and Zuffa,
LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-06944, was transferred on November 1, 2017
from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-02767-RFB-VCF to
the proceeding.

The case is a consumer protection class action lawsuit against the
Defendants based on the Defendants' defective live streaming
services rendered in connection with the August 26, 2017, boxing
matches at T-Mobile Arena in Las Vegas, Nevada, including the
matches between Floyd Mayweather, Jr. and Conor McGregor.

Neulion, Inc. specializes in digital video broadcasting and live
and on demand streaming for some of the country's biggest brands.

Zuffa, LLC offers sports promotional services and engages in the
promotion of mixed martial arts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Innessa Melamed Huot, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 983-9330
      Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
      E-mail: ihuot@faruqilaw.com

The Defendant Neulion, Inc.is represented by:

      Jura Christine Zibas, Esq.
      WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER LLP
      150 East 42nd Street
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 915-5756
      Facsimile: (212) 490-3038
      E-mail: jura.zibas@wilsonelser.com

The Defendant Zuffa, LLC is represented by:

      Jeffrey S. Jacobson, Esq.
      KELLEY DRYE & WARREN, LLP
      101 Park Avenue
      New York, NY 10178
      Telephone: (212) 808-7800
      Facsimile: (212) 808-7897
      E-mail: jjacobson@kelleydrye.com

         - and -

      Philip R. Erwin, Esq.
      CAMPBELL & WILLIAMS
      700 S. 7th St.
      Las Vegas, NV 89101
      Telephone: (702) 382-5222
      Facsimile: (702) 382-0540
      E-mail: Perwin@campbellandwilliams.com


NFP PROPERTY: Camacho Files Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NFP Property &
Casualty Services, Inc. The case is styled as Jason Camacho, on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NFP
Property & Casualty Services, Inc, NFP of New York Insurance
Agency, Inc., NFP Brokerage Insurance Services, Inc. and NFP
Insurance Services, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-08785 (S.D.
N.Y., November 11, 2017).

The Defendants are in the insurance business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Naresh M. Gehi, Esq.
   Law Offices of N. M. Gehi, P.C.,
   118-21 Queens Boulevard, Ste. 411
   Forest Hills, NY 11375
   Tel: (718) 263-5999
   Fax: (718) 263-1685
   Email: nmgehi@gmail.com


NRT NEW YORK: Faces "Camacho" Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NRT New York LLC.
The case is styled as Jason Camacho, and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NRT New York LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-08786 (S.D. N.Y., November 11, 2017).

NRT New York LLC, doing business as Citi Habitats, a brokerage
company, sells and rents residential development properties in New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Naresh M. Gehi, Esq.
   Law Offices of N. M. Gehi, P.C.,
   118-21 Queens Boulevard, Ste. 411
   Forest Hills, NY 11375
   Tel: (718) 263-5999
   Fax: (718) 263-1685
   Email: nmgehi@gmail.com


OCULAR THERAPEUTIX: "Caraker" Suit Transferred to Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on July 12, 2017 captioned Dylan
Caraker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Ocular Therapeutix, Inc., Amarpreet Sawhney, George
Migausky, Andrew Hurley, and Eric Ankerud, Case No. 2:17-cv-05095
was transferred on November 2, 2017, from the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey to the U.S. District Court  for the
District of Massachusetts. The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:17-cv-12146-GAO to the proceeding.

The case alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act.

Ocular Therapeutix, Inc. a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on
the development and commercialization of therapies for diseases
and conditions of the eye using its proprietary hydrogel platform
technology in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bruce Daniel Greenberg, Esq.
      LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
      Two Gateway Center
      12th Floor
      Newark, NJ 07102
      Telephone: (973) 623-3000
      E-mail: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Ryan M. Chabot, Esq.
      WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
      7 World Trade Center
      250 Greenwich Street
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (212) 295-6302
      E-mail: ryan.chabot@wilmerhale.com


OMEGA PROTEIN: "Franchi" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Franchi, and all others similarly-situated v. Omega Protein
Corporation, Gary R. Goodwin, Bret D. Scholtes, Stephen C. Bryan,
Michael N. Christodolou, Celeste A. Clark, David H. Clarke, David
A. Owen, David W. Wehlmann, Cooke Inc., and Alpha MergerSub, Inc.,
Case No. 2:17-cv-02805 (D. Nev., November 6, 2017), is brought
against the Defendants for violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on October
6, 2017, pursuant to which Omega Protein Corporation will be
acquired by Cooke Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Alpha
MergerSub, Inc.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Proxy Statement omits material
information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which
renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading.

The Plaintiff is the owner of Omega common stock.

Defendant Omega is a nutritional products company that develops,
produces, and delivers nutrition products throughout the world to
improve the nutritional integrity of foods, dietary supplements,
and animal feeds. The Company operates in two primary industry
segments: animal nutrition and human nutrition.

Individual Defendants are officers and directors of Omega.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael J. Gayan, Esq.
      KEMP, JONES & COULTHARD LLP
      Wells Fargo Tower, 17th Floor
      3800 Howard Hughes Parkway
      Las Vegas, NV 89169
      Tel: (702) 385-6000


OPEN DOOR: Court Stays "Conde" Suit Pending Ruling in "Morris"
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case CARLOS CONDE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. OPEN DOOR
MARKETING, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-04080-KAW (N.D.
Cal.), Judge Kandis A. Westmore of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California granted the Defendants' motion to
join 2020's motion to compel arbitration, and stayed Defendant
2020's motion to compel arbitration pending the Supreme Court's
decision in the Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris appeal.

The Plaintiffs the putative class and collective action against
Defendants 2020 Communications, Inc, Open Door, Larry Clark, and
Jerrimy Farris, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA") and various California labor laws on Sept. 8, 2015.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants to promote free cell
phones and wireless service plans for low-income individuals who
meet the plans' requirements.  They allege that they were
misclassified as independent contractors, resulting in the
Defendants failing to pay them minimum wage, overtime, expenses,
and all wages due at the time of termination, as well as failing
to provide itemized wage statements.

Until October 2014, Defendant 2020 contracted directly with
individuals to promote wireless service plans and cellular phones
as "Sales Representatives."  To become a Sales Representative,
individuals were required to execute a Mutual Arbitration
Agreement ("2020 MAA").  The 2020 MAA required that all disputes
and claims between Sales Representatives and Defendant 2020 -- as
well as Defendant 2020's subsidiaries, affiliates, directors,
employees, or agents -- be arbitrated.

In October 2014, Defendant 2020 and the Individual Defendants
allegedly jointly created Open Door as a 'spin off' company from
20/20.  From that point on, Sales Representatives would contract
directly with Defendant Open Door rather than Defendant 2020.  The
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants were engaged in a joint
employer relationship during this time.  In January 2016,
Defendant Open Door began using an independent contractor
agreement that includes a mandatory arbitration provision.

On Aug. 24, 2017, the Defendants filed the instant motion to
compel arbitration by opt-in Plaintiffs Huntley, Moody, Sims,
Sweeney, and Trujillo.  On July 17, 2017, Defendant 2020 requested
that the five opt-in Plaintiffs arbitrate their claims, attaching
copies of the signed MAAs.  On Sept. 28, 2017, Defendants Open
Door, Farris, and Clark filed a motion for joinder to Defendant
2020's motion to compel arbitration, requesting that any relief
ordered by the Court to Defendant 2020 pursuant to Defendant
2020's Motion to Compel and Dismiss be ordered in favor of the ODM
Defendants as well.

Judge Westmore granted Defendants Open Door's, Farris's, and
Clark's motion to join Defendant 2020's motion to compel
arbitration, and stayed Defendant 2020's motion to compel
arbitration, pending the Supreme Court's decision in the Morris
appeal.  The Judge finds, however, that the Plaintiffs have failed
to establish waiver, and that Gentry v. Superior Court does not
invalidate the arbitration agreement.  She also concludes that
assuming that the motion to compel arbitration is granted, the
2020 MAA cannot be enforced as to Defendant Open Door, but that it
may be enforced against Defendants Farris and Clark for actions
prior to opt-in Plaintiffs contracting directly with Defendant
Open Door in October 2014, at which point a new employment
relationship began based on different facts and a different
contract.

The parties are directed to inform the Court in a joint status
update once the Supreme Court issues a ruling on the Morris
appeal.  At that point, the Court will issue a ruling on the
outstanding question of whether the arbitration agreement is
invalid per Morris and the NLRA, and determine whether arbitration
can be compelled.  In the meantime, Judge Westmore stayed the case
with respect to the five opt-in Plaintiffs, as well as any other
opt-in Plaintiffs who have signed an arbitration agreement, and
would be subject to a motion to compel arbitration.  She set a
case management conference for Dec. 5, 2017 at 1:30 p.m.  The case
management conference statement is due by Nov. 28, 2017.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 8, 2017 Order is available at
https://is.gd/vMf1fx from Leagle.com.

Carlos Conde, Plaintiff, represented by Harold Lichten --
hlichten@llrlaw.com -- Lichten and Liss-Riordan P.C..

Carlos Conde, Plaintiff, represented by Jill Stephanie Kahn --
jkahn@llrlaw.com -- Lichten and Liss-Riordan P.C., Michael Louis
Freedman -- mfreedman@rbgg.com -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. &
Matthew David Carlso -- mcarlson@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-
Riordan, P.C..

Shikwana Jennings, Plaintiff, represented by Harold Lichten,
Lichten and Liss-Riordan P.C., Jill Stephanie Kahn, Lichten and
Liss-Riordan P.C., Michael Louis Freedman, Lichten & Liss-Riordan,
P.C. & Matthew David Carlson, Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C..

Lisa Drake, Plaintiff, represented by Harold Lichten, Lichten and
Liss-Riordan P.C., Jill Stephanie Kahn, Lichten and Liss-Riordan
P.C., Michael Louis Freedman, Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. &
Matthew David Carlson, Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C..

Open Door Marketing, LLC, Defendant, represented by Kristin
Alexandria Smith -- ksmith@fosteremploymentlaw.com -- Foster
Employment Law & Michael Leslie Thompson --
mthompson@lehrmiddlebrooks.com -- Lehr Middlebrooks Vreeland and
Thompson, P.C..

Larry Dale Clark, Defendant, represented by Kristin Alexandria
Smith, Foster Employment Law & Michael Leslie Thompson, Lehr
Middlebrooks Vreeland and Thompson, P.C..

20/20 Communications, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher
William Decker, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC & Wendy
V. Miller, Ogletree Deakins Law Firm, pro hac vice.

Jerrimy Farris, Defendant, represented by Kristin Alexandria
Smith, Foster Employment Law & Michael Leslie Thompson, Lehr
Middlebrooks Vreeland and Thompson, P.C..


PAIGE HOSPITALITY: Faces "Camacho" Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Paige Hospitality
Group, LLC. The case is styled as Jason Camacho, on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Paige Hospitality
Group, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-08788 (S.D. N.Y., November
11, 2017).

Paige Hospitality Group was created in 2008 with the opening of
critically acclaimed and much beloved high-end bar and lounge The
Ainsworth.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Naresh M. Gehi, Esq.
   Law Offices of N. M. Gehi, P.C.,
   118-21 Queens Boulevard, Ste. 411
   Forest Hills, NY 11375
   Tel: (718) 263-5999
   Fax: (718) 263-1685
   Email: nmgehi@gmail.com


PARTS AUTHORITY: Johnson Appeals Arbitration Ruling to 2nd Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maurice Johnson, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated persons, the Plaintiff - Appellant v., Parts Authority,
LLC; Parts Authority Inc.; Parts Authority Laurel Avenue LLC;
Parts Authority Partners Franklin Ave LLC; Parts Authority
Southern LLC; Parts Authority-WAW LLC; Parts Authority District of
Columbia LLC; Parts Authority Arizona LLC; Parts Authority Georgia
LLC; Parts Authority Metro LLC; PA Austin LLC; and Yaron
Rosenthal, the Defendant - Appellees, Case No. 17-3525 (2nd Cir,
Oct. 31, 2017), is an appeal filed before the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit, from a lower court decision in
a class action, Case No. 16-cv-6852 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 30, 2017).

On December 12, 2016, Plaintiff initiated this action, asserting
claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Sec.
201, et seq., and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), N.Y. Lab. Law
Sections 190, et seq., 650, et seq.

In a September 2017 court ruling, Chief District Judge Dora L.
Irizarry adopted, in part, a report and recommendation to the
extent that Plaintiff is compelled to arbitrate this matter and
modified only to the extent that rather than stay this action, it
is to be closed administratively, with leave to reopen should any
party wish to contest the arbitrator's decision.

Attorneys for Plaintiff - Appellant:

          Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP,
          FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
          445 Hamilton Avenue
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 298 3284

Attorneys for Defendant - Appellees:

          Sharon P. Stiller, Esq.
          ABRAMS, FENSTERMAN, FENSTERMAN,
          EISMAN, FORMATO, FERRARA & EINIGER, LLP
          160 Linden Oaks
          Rochester, NY 14625
          Telephone: (585) 218 9999


PEET'S OPERATING: Faces "Camacho" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Peet's Operating
Company, Inc. The case is styled as Jason Camacho, on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Peet's
Operating Company, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-08782 (S.D.
N.Y., November 10, 2017).

Peet's Operating Company, Inc. was founded in 1984. The company's
line of business includes the retail sale of specialized foods
such as eggs, poultry, health foods, spices, herbs, coffee, and
tea.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


PERCHERON FIELD: Court Narrows Claims in "Boyington"
----------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ERIC BOYINGTON, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PERCHERON FIELD
SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:14-cv-90 (W.D. Pa.), Judge
Kim R. Gibson of the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.

The case is a hybrid collective/class action brought under the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the Pennsylvania Minimum
Wage Act ("PMWA").  The Plaintiffs are current and former Right of
Way Agents ("ROW Agents") for Percheron.  They allege that
Percheron improperly classified them as overtime-exempt employees
and, thus, seek backpay for non-payment of overtime wages,
liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under
the FLSA.

Most relevant to the present Motion, the Court denied the
Defendant's Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement by Memorandum
Opinion and Order of June 14, 2015.  Shortly thereafter, on July
13, 2015, the Defendant filed its Motion for Reconsideration or,
in the Alternative, for Permission to File an Interlocutory
Appeal, which the Court denied by Memorandum Opinion and Order of
March 24, 2016.

The Court granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Conditionally Certify
an FLSA Collective and to Facilitate Notice by Memorandum Opinion
and Order of June 16, 2015.  However, the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification filed on March 31, 2017 -- but not scheduled
to be fully briefed until Nov. 15, 2017 -- remains pending before
the Court.

The Defendant also filed two motions to strike on Oct. 16, 2017,
asking the Court to strike numerous declarations submitted by the
Plaintiffs in support of their Motion for Class Certification.
These motions to strike -- the disposition of which could affect
the Court's ruling on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification -- await responsive briefing by the Plaintiffs and
are not yet ripe for disposition.

The present Motion for Partial Summary Judgment was filed on Oct.
14, 2016.  Briefing concluded on the Motion on Nov. 28, 2016.  In
their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter judgment as a matter of law on two discrete issues:
(i) whether the Defendant made a judicial admission that the
Defendant misclassified the ROW Agents as overtime exempt prior to
Dec. 31, 2014; and (iii) whether the Second Affirmative Defense
asserted in the Defendant's Amended Answer must be dismissed under
the law of the case doctrine.

Judge Gibson finds that the Defendant has clearly and
unequivocally made multiple formal concessions that it
misclassified Boyington and other ROW Agents as exempt employees
under the FLSA and PMWA.  And, by their Defense Counsel's
unequivocal admission that Percheron acknowledges that it is
liable for misclassification prior to Dec. 31, 2014, leaving the
key factual dispute for the whole litigation to be the question of
hours worked.  Clearly, this judicial admission directly precludes
the defense of an overtime exemption and, thus, granting summary
judgment is appropriate under Rule 56.

After considering the sworn declarations of the only two persons
participating in the settlement discussions on the phone, the
Judge unambiguously held that the purported settlement agreement
is unenforceable because, as a matter of law, this purported
agreement lacks sufficiently definite terms.  The Court also
denied Defendant's prior request to reconsider that ruling.  Under
the law of the case doctrine, the Court's prior decision as to the
lack of definite terms and unenforceability of the purported
settlement agreement was made as a matter of law and governs that
same issue throughout the case.  The Judge will not reconsider
this matter that has already been decided in a prior decision and
reconsidered in a separate prior decision.  Moreover, no
extraordinary circumstances exist to justify revisiting or
overturning the Court's prior decision.

For these reasons, Judge Gibson granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment to the extent that it asks for summary
judgment regarding the judicial admission made by the Defendant
and precluded the affirmative defense of the existence of an
overtime exemption prior to Dec. 31, 2014.  However, this grant of
summary judgment applies only to Boyington and the opt-in
Plaintiffs who are presently litigants before the Court.

The Judge also granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment in regard to the Second Affirmative Defense of the
Amended Answer and dismisses the Second Affirmative Defense with
prejudice.  In any and all other regards, he denied the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.  In particular,
he cannot and will not preemptively decide whether the Defendant's
judicial admission regarding its misclassification of the ROW
Agents as overtime exempt employees applies to hypothetical future
parties or whether issue preclusion extends the Court's judgment
to future cases or parties.  A corresponding order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 8, 2017 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/GIni8Q from Leagle.com.

ERIC BOYINGTON, Plaintiff, represented by John R. Linkosky --
Linklaw@comcast.net.

ERIC BOYINGTON, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph H. Chivers,
Andrew J. Horowitz -- andrew.horowitz@obermayer.com -- Obermayer
Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel, LLP, Bruce C. Fox --
bruce.fox@obermayer.com -- Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP
& Jeffrey B. Cadle.

MARY BETH GARNER, Plaintiff, represented by John R. Linkosky,
Joseph H. Chivers, Andrew J. Horowitz, Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell &
Hippel, LLP & Bruce C. Fox, Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel
LLP.

JOHN HUBBS, Plaintiff, represented by John R. Linkosky, Joseph H.
Chivers, Andrew J. Horowitz, Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel,
LLP & Bruce C. Fox, Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP.

JAYME ROWE, Plaintiff, represented by John R. Linkosky & Joseph H.
Chivers,

JAYME ROWE, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew J. Horowitz,
Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel, LLP & Bruce C. Fox, Obermayer
Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP.

TONJA TUCKER, Plaintiff, represented by John R. Linkosky, Joseph
H. Chivers, Andrew J. Horowitz, Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell &
Hippel, LLP & Bruce C. Fox, Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel
LLP.

LESLIE WELDEN, Plaintiff, represented by John R. Linkosky, Joseph
H. Chivers, Andrew J. Horowitz, Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell &
Hippel, LLP & Bruce C. Fox, Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel
LLP.

BRADLEY WRIGHT, Plaintiff, represented by John R. Linkosky, Joseph
H. Chivers, Andrew J. Horowitz, Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell &
Hippel, LLP & Bruce C. Fox, Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel
LLP.

PERCHERON FIELD SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, represented by Brittany
A. Fink -- bfink@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Robert W.
Pritchard -- rpritchard@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, Brian M.
Hentosz -- bhentosz@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C.,
Christopher Michalski -- cmichalski@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson, Jill M. Weimer -- jweimer@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson, P.C. & Sarah J. Miley -- smiley@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson, P.C..

PERCHERON FIELD SERVICES, LLC, Counter Claimant, represented by
Brian M. Hentosz, Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Brittany A. Fink,
Littler Mendelson, P.C..

ERIC BOYINGTON, Defendant, represented by John R. Linkosky &
Joseph H. Chivers.

PERCHERON FIELD SERVICES, LLC, Counter Claimant, represented by
Brian M. Hentosz, Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Brittany A. Fink,
Littler Mendelson, P.C..

PERCHERON FIELD SERVICES, LLC, Counter Defendant, represented by
Brian M. Hentosz, Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Brittany A. Fink,
Littler Mendelson, P.C..


REMINGTON ARMS CO: "Wilson" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Premiums
--------------------------------------------------------------
Duane Wilson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Remington Arms Co., LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 17-cv-00686 (E.D. Ark., October 20, 2017), seeks declaratory
judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment
interest, civil penalties and costs, including reasonable
attorneys' fees as a result of Defendant's failure to pay overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of forty hours per week
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage
Act.

Defendant is involved in the manufacture and sale of firearms and
other firearms parts and supplies through several manufacturing
and production facilities in the country where Wilson was employed
by Defendant as a production worker at their manufacturing and
production facility in Lonoke, Arkansas. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Chris Burks, Esq.
      Josh Sanford, Esq.
      SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
      One Financial Center
      650 S. Shackleford Suite 411
      Little Rock, AR 72211
      Telephone: (501) 221-0088
      Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
      Email: chris@sanfordlawfirm.com
             josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


ROCKWELL COLLINS: "Sharpenter" Suit Seeks to Block Sale to UTC
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ted Sharpenter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Rockwell Collins, Inc., Anthony J.
Carbone, Chris A. Davis, Ralph E. Eberhart, John A. Edwardson,
Richard G. Hamermesh, David Lilley. Robert K. Ortberg, Andrew J.
Policano, Cheryl L. Shavers, Jeffrey L. Turner, John T. Whates,
United Technologies Corporation and Riveter Merger Sub Corp.,
Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-00113 (N.D. Iowa, October 20, 2017),
seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with
them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the
acquisition of Rockwell Collins, Inc. by affiliates of United
Technologies Corporation; rescinding it and setting it aside or
awarding rescissory damages in the event defendants consummate the
merger; costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for
attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further relief
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Pursuant to the terms of the merger agreement, shareholders of
Rockwell will receive $93.33 in cash and a portion of a share of
United Technologies common Stock having a value equal to the
quotient obtained by dividing $46.67 by the average of its volume-
weighted average prices per share of United common stock on the
New York Stock Exchange for each of the 20 consecutive trading
days ending immediately prior to the closing date, subject to a
two-way 7.5% collar centered on United Technology's August 22,
2017 closing share price of $115.69.

Defendants filed a proxy statement that failed to include
financial projections and valuation analyses performed by its
financial advisor, J.P. Morgan Securities, LLC, including earnings
before income tax, depreciation, free cash flow and unlevered free
cash flow, the necessary line item projections for shareholders to
consider, the complaint says.

Rockwell supplies cabin interior products and services to aircraft
manufacturers and airlines; designs, produces and supports
communications and aviation systems for commercial and military
customers; as well as information management services through
voice and data communication networks and solutions worldwide.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Tel: (302) 295-531
      Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
      Email: bdl@rl-legal.com

             - and -

      Kimberley K. Baer, Esq.
      BAER LAW OFFICE
      838 5th Avenue
      Des Moines, IA 50309
      Tel: (515) 279-2000
      Fax: (515) 279-2137
      Email: kbaer@baerlawoffice.com

             - and -

      RM LAW PC
      1055 Westlakes Dr., Suite 300
      Berwyn, PA 19312
      Tel: 324-6800


SKECHERS USA: Pension Fund Sues Over Share Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------------
Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Skechers U.S.A.,
Inc., Robert Greenberg and David Weinberg, Defendants, Case No.
17-cv-08107 (S.D.N.Y., October 20, 2017), seeks compensatory
damages including interest, reasonable costs and expenses incurred
including counsel fees and expert fees, rescission or a rescissory
measure of damages and such equitable/injunctive or other relief
for violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Skechers designs, develops, and markets footwear for men, women,
and children. Skechers repeatedly touted the strength of customer
demand within the domestic wholesale segment, which the Company
claimed would spur continued sales growth. However, Defendants
failed to disclose that its domestic wholesale customers took
early receipt of fall 2015 inventory, causing them to delay
receipt of and, in some cases, cancel pending orders scheduled for
delivery in the second half of 2015 rendering the company's
Domestic Wholesale growth rate unsustainable. On news of this,
Skechers common stock fell $14.55 per share, or 31.50 percent, to
close on October 23, 2015 at $31.64 per share.

Plaintiff is a pension fund that purchased Skechers common stock
between April 23, 2015 and October 22, 2015, at artificially-
inflated price and lost substantially.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
     Eric J. Belfi, Esq.
     Francis P. McConville, Esq.
     LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
     140 Broadway
     New York, NY 10005
     Tel: (212) 907-0700
     Email: ckeller@labaton.com
            ebelfi@labaton.com
            fmcconville@labaton.com


SENTINEL INSURANCE: MSP Recovery Suit Removed to S.D. Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action docketed as MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC,
Plaintiff, v. Sentinel Insurance Company, Ltd., Defendant, Case
No. 17-019414, (Fla. Cir., August 9, 2017), is removed to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
on October 20, 2017 under Case No. 17-cv-23864.

MSP claims reimbursement of medical expenses of Sentinel
policyholders who were also Medicare beneficiaries.

Plaintiffs are Medicare Advantage Organizations that provide
Medicare benefits to Medicare-eligible beneficiaries enrolled
under the Medicare Advantage program. These Medicare beneficiaries
were simultaneously covered by insurance policies issued by
Defendants, which made Defendants the primary payers for the
medical bills, services, and items paid by Plaintiffs and the
Class Members. The Plaintiffs paid for the medical items or
treatment even though the Defendants were responsible for paying
those expenses under their no-fault insurance policies and the
Medicare Secondary Payer provisions of Medicare, says the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Frank Carlos Quesada, Esq.
      John Hasan Ruiz, Esq.
      MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM
      5000 SW 75th Avenue, Suite 400
      Miami, FL 33155
      Tel: (305) 614-2222
      Fax: (866) 582-0907
      Email: fquesada@msprecovery.com
             jruiz@msprecovery.com

Sentinel is represented by:

      Kendall B. Coffey, Esq.
      Scott A. Hiaasen, Esq.
      COFFEY BURLINGTON, P.L.
      2601 South Bayshore Drive, Penthouse One
      Miami, FL 33133
      Telephone: (305) 858-2900
      Facsimile: (305) 858-5261
      Email: kcoffey@coffeyburlington.com
             shiaasen@coffeyburlington.com
             lperez@coffeyburlington.com
             service@coffeyburlington.com

             - and -

      Kim Rinehart, Esq.
      Benjamin Diessel, Esq.
      WIGGIN AND DANA, LLP
      One Century Tower
      P.O. Box 1832
      New Haven, CT 06508
      Telephone: (203) 498-4363
      Facsimile: (203) 782-2889
      Email: krinehart@wiggin.com
             bdiessel@wiggin.com


SOUTHERN AUTO: "Baroldy-Romo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond Baroldy-Romo, and all others similarly-situated v.
Southern Auto Detail, LLC, and Avis Budget Group, Inc., dba Avis
Rent a Car System, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-04397 (N.D. Ga., November
3, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiff Raymond Baroldy-Romo worked as a driver for Defendants
in Fulton County, Georgia.

Defendant Southern Auto Detail, LLC is an automobile detailing
company, providing detailing services to its clients in the
Atlanta Metropolitan area, including Avis Budget Group, Inc.

Defendant Avis Budget Group, Inc. dba Avis Rent a Car System, LLC
is a leading provider of mobility solutions, providing car rental
services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      600 N Pine Island Road, Suite 400
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Tel: (954) 327-3013
      E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com


STEPHEN EINSTEIN: Faces "Pezzica" Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed Stephen Einstein &
Associates, P.C.  The case is styled as Adrian Pezzica,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Stephen Einstein & Associates, P.C., Defendant, Case
No. 1:17-cv-08769 (S.D. N.Y., November 10, 2017).

Stephen Einstein & Associates, P.C. was established in 1989 as a
law firm focused on a creditor rights, collections, litigation and
real estate.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


SYLVIE SHAIN: Accused by Ramos of Invading Privacy Under TCPA
-------------------------------------------------------------
CAROLINE RAMOS, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SYLVIE SHAIN, CHELSEA KIRK, JEFF LASSANKE,
MICHELLE MORALES, MAIC ORDONEZ, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Case No. 2:17-cv-07906 (C.D. Cal., October 28, 2017), alleges that
the Defendants negligently contacted the Plaintiff on her cellular
telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
thereby, invading her privacy.

SYLVIE SHAIN, CHELSEA KIRK, JEFF LASSANKE, MICHELLE MORALES, and
MAIC ORDONEZ are campaigners and are, therefore, a "person" as
defined by 47 U.S.C. Section 153(39).  The true names and
capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the
Plaintiff.  The Defendants conducted business in the state of
California and in the County of Los Angeles.  The Defendants'
headquarters is located in Los Angeles, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Meghan E. George, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, 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: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  mgeorge@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com


SYNGENTA SEEDS: "Gauntt" Class Suit Transferred to Kansas
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on October 16, 2017, titled Chep R.
Gauntt, brings this action individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Syngenta
AG, Syngenta Crop Protection AG, Syngenta Corporation, Syngenta
Crop Protection, LLC, and Syngenta Biotechnology, Inc., Syngenta
AG, Crop Protection AG, Syngenta Corp, Crop Protection LLC, and
Syngenta Biotech, Case No. 4:17-cv-05166, was transferred on
November 1, 2017 from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Washington to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Kansas. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-
02637-JWL-JPO to the proceeding.

The case asserts product-liability claims.

The Defendants operate a global agribusiness enterprise that
develops and sells genetically modified corn seeds. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James S. Rogers, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JAMES S. ROGERS
      1500 4th Avenue, Suite 500
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 621-8525
      E-mail: jsr@jsrogerslaw.com


TAISHAN GYPSUM: Faces "Allman" Class Suit Over Defective Drywall
----------------------------------------------------------------
James and Tamera Allman, et al., individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Taishan Gypsum Co., Ltd. f/k/a
Shandong Taihe Dongxin Co., Ltd.; Tai'an Taishan Plasterboard Co.,
Ltd.; Beijing New Building Materials Public Limited Co.; Beijing
New Building Materials (Group) Co., Ltd.; China National Building
Material Co., Ltd., Case No. 2:17-cv-00051-BR (D.N.C., November 2,
2017), is an action for damages as a result of the Defendants'
role in the design, manufacture, importing, distributing,
delivery, supply, marketing, inspecting, installing, or sale of
defective drywall.

The Defendants, together with affiliates and actual or apparent
agents, manufactured, sold, distributed, marketed and placed
within the stream of commerce gypsum drywall. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Michael Malone, Esq.
      HENDREN, REDWINE & MALONE, PLLC
      4600 Marriott Drive, Suite 150
      Raleigh, NC 27612
      Telephone: (919) 420-7867
      Facsimile: (919) 420-0475
      E-mail: mmalone@hendrenmalone.com


TAYLOR SMITH: Vanardo Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime & Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
OTIS VANARDO, Individually and On Behalf of All Similarly Situated
Persons v. TAYLOR SMITH CONSULTING, LLC, Case No. 4:17-cv-03291
(S.D. Tex., October 30, 2017), arises under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, brought both as an individual action and
collective action to recover alleged unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, and attorney's fees.

Taylor Smith Consulting, LLC, is a Texas limited liability company
that employed the Plaintiff.  Taylor Smith provides business
solutions to emerging and established companies to assist them in
their efforts to gain greater operational efficiencies and
increased customer satisfaction levels.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
          THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
          2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
          Houston, TX 77018
          Telephone: (713) 868-3388
          Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
          E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com

               - and -

          Vijay Pattisapu, Esq.
          THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
          2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
          Houston, TX 77018
          Telephone: (713) 868-3388
          Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
          E-mail: vijay@buenkerlaw.com


TD AMERITRADE: "Antczak" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
Marianne Antczak, and all others similarly-situated v. TD
Ameritrade Clearing, Inc., TD Ameritrade, Inc., TD Ameritrade
Investment Management, LLC, Ultimate Financial Investments, LLC
and Bridget A. Fernandez, Case No. 2:17-cv-04947 (E.D. Pa.,
November 3, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for breach of
fiduciary duty, negligence and breach of contract in violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Plaintiff Marianne Antczak is a senior citizen residing in
Cinnaminson, Burlington County, New Jersey.

Defendant TD Ameritrade Clearing, Inc. is incorporated in Delaware
with its principal place of business located in Omaha, Nebraska.
TD Clearing is regularly engaged in the business of clearing
trades as a broker/dealer via U.S. mail, telephone, and the
internet.

Defendant TD Ameritrade Investment Management, LLC is incorporated
in Delaware, it is the investment advisor in the family of TD
Ameritrade companies.  TD Advisory has its principal place of
business located in Omaha, Nebraska and is regularly engaged in
the business of a licensed IA via U.S. mail, telephone, and the
internet.

Defendant TD Ameritrade, Inc. is incorporated in Delaware with its
principal place of business located in Omaha, Nebraska.  TD
Ameritrade is regularly engaged in the business of trading
securities as a broker/dealer via U.S. mail, telephone, and the
internet.

Defendant Ultimate Financial Investments, LLC as an investment
advisor from on or about June 21, 2012 until sometime in 2014.

Defendant Bridget A. Fernandez was the Chief Compliance Officer
and Chief Executive Officer/Manager of UFI.  Ms. Fernandez was
also the only RIA of UFI's IA business and the only registered
principal of its BD business during the entire existence of UFI.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Theodor A. Swansen, Esq.
      TASWANSEN LLC
      334 Queen St., RH 1
      Philadelphia, PA 19147
      Tel: (215) 260-8469
      E-mail: swansenllc@gmail.com


TITLE SOURCE: Bid for Conditional Class Cert. Held in Abeyance
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SOM SWAMY, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TITLE SOURCE, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. C 17-01175 WHA (N.D. Cal.), Judge William
Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California held in abeyance the Plaintiff's motion for conditional
certification and denied his motion for a protective order.

The Defendant is a national real estate valuation company that
works with lenders to evaluate properties and refinance loans.
From May 2013 to May 2017, Swamy worked as a Title Source
appraiser, driving to various locations in the San Francisco Bay
Area to conduct physical inspections of his assigned properties
and write reports on them, which he forwarded to his manager
electronically.  Swamy alleges that he worked approximately 50
hours per week on average during his employment with the
Defendant, except during weeks when he was not working due to sick
leave or vacation.  He further alleges that Title Source did not
pay him or other appraisers overtime wages, and kept no records of
their work hours.

In April 2017, Swamy brought a putative collective action under
the FLSA, alleging that he and other appraisers were misclassified
as exempt employees and were not paid overtime despite working
more than 40 hours per week.  Additionally, he brought a putative
class action on behalf of a class of California appraisers
alleging violations of California wage and labor laws.

Shortly after Swamy filed suit, Title Source's CEO, Jeff
Eisenshtadt hosted four conference calls with Title Source staff
appraisers during which he informed them of, and discussed this
lawsuit with them.  Swamy contends that the phone calls were
conducted for the purpose of intimidating and dissuading the
potential Class Members from pursuing their FLSA rights, and seeks
a protective order prohibiting Title Source from having any
further communication with its staff appraisers regarding this
lawsuit, and additionally seeks to send a corrective notice to all
putative class members.

Swamy additionally seeks conditional certification of his FLSA
collective action on behalf of all "staff appraisers" who he
alleges were misclassified as exempt from overtime pay, and as a
result are owed back wages.  He defines this putative collective
as all staff appraisers that worked for the Defendant at any time
from three years prior to the date the Court authorizes notice to
the present.  He further seeks production of the names, dates of
employment, last known addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth,
and email addresses for each class member, and approval of his
proposed opt-in notice.

Given the late date at which Swamy has applied for conditional
certification, and its proximity to the last day to seek class
certification of his related California labor law claims, Judge
Alsup finds that no conditional certification or opt-in notice is
necessary at this time and agrees that it will be cleaner and less
confusing to send a single mailing in early 2018.  Accordingly, he
held in abeyance Swamy's motion for certification of his putative
FLSA collective.  Swamy will renew his motion for certification of
his collective action claims by no later than Jan. 18, 2018 or the
date on which he seeks class certification for his putative
California class action, whichever comes first.

Because the content of the communications at issue is largely
undisputed, the question is whether the phone calls were
misleading, intimidating, or otherwise improper.  The Judge finds
that they were not, and therefore no corrective statement or ban
on communication is required.  Title Source did not ask its
employees to opt out of the suit, or offer a misleading
interpretation of how the suit might affect them, which would tend
to elicit opt outs.  Rather, Title Source's CEO stated that the
company planned to fight the suit, and believed it lacked merit,
but that employees would not be punished or retaliated against for
joining the suit.

Moreover, a corrective notice is unnecessary because, should the
Plaintiff prevail on his certification motion in January, he will
then have an opportunity to clarify the scope and purpose of the
suit, and provide putative class members with other necessary
information for them to make a decision about the suit.
Accordingly, the Judge denied Swamy's motion for a protective
order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 10, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/no2RA7 from Leagle.com.

Som Swamy, Plaintiff, represented by Lorrie T. Peeters --
lpeeters@caffarelli.com -- Caffarelli & Associates Ltd..

Som Swamy, Plaintiff, represented by Don J. Foty --
dfoty@kennedyhodges.com -- Kennedy Hodges, LLP, pro hac vice,
Galvin B. Kennedy -- gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com -- Kennedy Hodges,
LLP & William Marshall Hogg, Kennedy Hodges, LLP.

Title Source, Incorporated, Defendant, represented by James Milton
Nelson -- nelsonj@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig LLP, Adil Mansoor
Khan -- khanad@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Jeffrey B.
Morganroth -- jmorganroth@morganrothlaw.com -- Morganroth and
Morganroth PLLC, Lindsay Erin Hutner -- hutnerl@gtlaw.com --
Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Mark David Kemple -- kemplem@gtlaw.com --
Greenberg Traurig, Michelle L. DuCharme -- ducharmem@gtlaw.com --
Greenberg Traruig, LLP & Peter S. Wahby -- wahbyp@gtlaw.com --
Greenberg Traurig, LLP.


TOTAL PHARMACY: Sued by Bobo's Drugs Over Violations of TCPA
------------------------------------------------------------
BOBO'S DRUGS, INC. d/b/a DAVIS ISLANDS PHARMACY, individually and
as the representatives of a class of similarly-situated persons v.
TOTAL PHARMACY SUPPLY, INC. and LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case
No. 8:17-cv-02553-JSM-AAS (M.D. Fla., October 30, 2017), alleges
that the Defendants have sent advertisements by facsimile in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the
regulations the Federal Communications Commission has prescribed
thereunder.

Total Pharmacy Supply, Inc., is a Texas corporation with its
principal place of business in Arlington, Texas.  Total Pharmacy
is a wholesale distributor of pharmacy supplies, including forms,
prescription packaging, dispensing supplies, and durable medical
equipment.

Lexmark International, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in Miami, Florida.  Lexmark is a
provider of printing and imaging products, including hardware,
toner cartridges, and software products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          134 N. LaSalle St., Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658-5500
          Facsimile: (312) 658-5555
          E-mail: phil@bockhatchllc.com


TRIBECA RESTAURANT: Mendoza Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ISIDRO MENDOZA, JOEL FELIX NICOLAS, JOEL MARQUEZ FLORES, JOSUE
MARTINEZ ROMANO, JUAN OLIVARES, RIGOBERTO SEBASTIAN RIVERA, DANIEL
SILVA GARCIA, ABRAHAM GUTIERREZ OLIVARES, JOSE ANTONIO ROMERO,
PEDRO OZIEL NAVARRETE-CARINO, HORWIN VENTURA, JESUS VIDALS RAMOS,
DANIEL BONILLA GALINDO, RICARDO TRUJILLO GOMEZ, MIGUEL AMASTAL,
CARLOS VIDALS RAMOS, and HUGO PAZOS FLORES individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. TRIBECA RESTAURANT LLC
(d/b/a BENARES) (f/k/a BALUCHI'S), RAKESH AGGARWAL, INDER SINGH,
GURVINDER SAHNI, RANJIT SINGH, YOGEETA SAHNI, and SUKHDEV SINGH,
Case No. 1:17-cv-08337 (S.D.N.Y., October 29, 2017), alleges that
the Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage or overtime compensation
for the hours that they worked.

Tribeca Restaurant LLC, doing business as Benares and formerly
known as Baluchi's, is a domestic corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the state of New York.  The Individual
Defendants serve or served as owners, managers, principals or
agents of Tribeca.

The Defendants own, operate, and/or control an Indian restaurant
located at 45 Murray Street, in New York City, under the name
Benares.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
          E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com


TRISTAR PRODUCTS: "Pinon" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on May 10, 2017, captioned Edwina
Pinon, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated v. Tristar Products, Inc., Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No.
1:16-cv-00331 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-02298-SO to the proceeding.

The case asserts product-liability claims.

Tristar Products, Inc. manufactures and sells home appliances,
fitness equipment, sports gear, and health and beauty products.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Meghan E. George, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 S. Beverly Dr., #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
              mgeorge@toddflaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Pamela M. Ferguson, Esq.
      Shawn Adrian Toliver, Esq.
      Mark Francis Ram, Esq.
      LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD AND SMITH LLP
      333 Bush Street, Suite 1100
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 438-6638
      Facsimile: (415) 434-0882
      E-mail: Pamela.Ferguson@lewisbrisbois.com
              Shawn.Toliver@lewisbrisbois.com


         - and -

      Melissa C. McLaughlin, Esq.
      VENABLE LLP
      Ste. 2100, 2049 Century Park, E
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 229-9900
      Facsimile: (310) 229-9901
      E-mail: mcmclaughlin@venable.com


VANTIV INTEGRATED: "Turnell" Wants OT Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christa Turnell, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Vantiv Integrated Payments, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-02504, (D. Colo., October 19, 2017),
seeks to recover monetary damages, liquidated damages, interest
and costs, including attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, Colorado's Wage Act and Colorado's Minimum
Wage Order.

Vantiv operates a call center facility at 150 Mercury Village
Drive, Durango Colorado where Turnell worked as a call center
agent. Vantiv failed to pay them for the 10 to 15 minutes it took
them to boot up their computers and log on to programs. This pre-
shift boot-up procedure was required before the agent could make
or answer customer calls. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David H. Grounds, Esq.
      Molly E. Nephew, Esq.
      JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
      444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
      St. Paul, MN 55101
      Phone: (612) 436-1800
      Fax: (612) 436-1801
      Email: dgrounds@johnsonbecker.com
             mnephew@johnsonbecker.com


VOLKSWAGEN AG: "Sharma" Suit Transferred to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on August 21, 2017 styled Gaurav
Sharma and Baily Brownell, individually, and on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen AG;
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.; Audi AG; Audi of America, LLC;
Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG; Porsche Cars of North America, Inc.;
Daimler AG; Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC; Mercedes-Benz U.S.
International, Inc.; Mercedes-Benz Vans, LLC; Bayerische Motoren
Werke AG; and BMW of North America, LLC, Case No. 3:17-cv-01678,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:17-cv-06298-CRB to the proceeding.

The case arises out of the conspiracy to unlawfully inflate prices
and increase maintenance costs for diesel passenger vehicles
manufactured and sold by Defendants.

The Defendants are in the business of developing, manufacturing,
and selling cars and motorcycles worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David S. Casey Jr., Esq.
      CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA BLATT AND PENFIELD LLP
      110 Laurel Street
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 238-1811
      Facsimile: (619) 544-9232
      E-mail: dcasey@cglaw.com


VOLVO CARS: Bid to Dismiss "Laurens" Warranty Suit Partly Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Harry D. Leinenweber of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denied the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the case, XAVIER LAURENS and KHADIJA
LAURENS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs, v. VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Corporation, and VOLVO CAR USA, LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 16 C
4507 (N.D. Ill.).

The dispute centers on the mileage capability of the Volvo Model
XC90 T8, a plug-in hybrid sport utility vehicle capable of being
operated solely on battery power.  The Plaintiffs allegedly read
certain press release advertisements issued under the name of
VCUSA prior to their placing an order for the T8.  These releases
stated that at the push of a button the driver can switch to quiet
and emission-free city driving on pure electric power where the
range will be about 40 kilometers and touted the vehicle's pure
electric mode.

The Plaintiffs claim that they relied on this information when
they decided to order the T8 (which commanded a $20,000 premium
over the non-hybrid CX 90), when they made a down payment of
$1,000, and again eight months later when they paid the $83,495
balance due.  They claim that they purchased the T8 both for the
lessened environmental impact and the gas savings.

Unfortunately, after taking possession of the new T8, the
Plaintiffs found that it was only able to travel 8 to 10 miles on
a single electric charge.  Due to this discrepancy between the
advertised mileage and the actual mileage achieved, they were
unable to operate the car in normal daily travel without using
gasoline.

They returned the T8 to their Volvo dealer so that the dealer
could determine the reason for the large mileage discrepancy.  The
dealer initially pointed out to them that the "sticker" on the new
Volvo claimed that the T8 had only a 13-mile electric driving
range rather than the 25-mile range promised in the advertising
material.  The dealer then tested the T8 by driving at no more
than 40 mph, with all safety features and the heat turned off, and
was able to achieve a distance of between 14 and 18 miles.

Based on this, the Plaintiffs bring a four-count putative class
action consisting of Count I, Violation of the Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act ("CFA"); Count II, Common Law Fraud; Count III, Breach
of Express Warranty; and Count IV, Unjust Enrichment.  They bring
all four counts on behalf of a national class of buyers of the
Volvo T8.  The Defendants have moved to dismiss for failure to
state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).

Judge Leinenweber denied the Motion to Dismiss Count I as to VCUSA
but granted as to VCNA without prejudice; denied as to both the
Defendants the Motion to Dismiss Count II is denied as to both
Defendants; denied the Motion to Dismiss Counts III and IV.

The Judge says the Defendants are partially correct.  While Rule 8
applies to Count I under the CFA for unfair conduct or practices,
Rule 9(b) applies to Count II, Common Law Fraud.  Consequently,
with respect to Count I, the only question is whether the
allegations raise a right to relief above the speculative level.
With respect to VolvoUSA, whose name is on the press release, the
Plaintiffs appear to have satisfied Rule 9(b).  However, the
Complaint fails to satisfy Rule 9(b) with regard to VCNA.  The
Plaintiffs claim that VCNA can be held liable because of its
corporate affiliation with VCUSA (it was VCUSA's sole member).
However, this is not sufficient under Rule 9(b).

For Count III, the Judge finds that the "promise" that a driver
would be able to drive 25 miles on a single charge is subject to
proof and could therefore constitute an express warranty.  If, in
fact, the T8 could only achieve 8 to 10 miles, as opposed to 25,
this could be considered a violation of an express warranty, and
the allegation clearly rises above the speculative level.

Finally, Judge Leinenweber finds that the basis for the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the unjust enrichment claim is their
argument that the Plaintiffs have not been able to allege a claim
under the CFA.  Insofar as the Court has not dismissed the CFA
claim, he denied in relevant part the Motion to Dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 8, 2017 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/Vmn3rO from Leagle.com.

Xavier Laurens, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph J. Siprut --
jsiprut@siprut.com -- Siprut PC.

Xavier Laurens, Plaintiff, represented by Todd Lawrence McLawhorn
-- todd@mcllegal.com -- Siprut PC.

Xavier Laurens, Plaintiff, represented by Ke Liu --
kliu@siprut.com -- Siprut Pc.

Khadija Laurens, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph J. Siprut,
Siprut PC, Todd Lawrence McLawhorn, Siprut PC & Ke Liu, Siprut Pc.

Volvo Cars of North America, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Jennifer L. Ilkka -- jilkka@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP,
Robert Alan Roth -- rroth@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP & Henry
Pietrkowski, Reed Smith LLP.

Volvo Car USA, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jennifer L. Ilkka,
Reed Smith LLP, Robert Alan Roth, Reed Smith LLP & Henry
Pietrkowski -- hpietrkowski@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP.


WAL-MART STORES: "Forbes" Suit Alleges Civil Rights Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Forbes, Lisa O'Brien, Lou Ann Hawes, Linda Ray, Judith
Danneman, Bridgette Bramley, and Edna Remington, and all others
similarly-situated v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No. 9:17-cv-
81225 (S.D. Fla., November 6, 2017), is brought against the
Defendant for violations of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964.

The Plaintiffs seek to correct unlawful employment practices that
discriminate on the basis of gender and to provide appropriate
relief to female employees who were adversely affected by such
practices.

Defendant Wal-Mart has engaged in, and continues to engage in,
unlawful gender discrimination by (1) denying female employees
equal opportunities for promotion to certain management and
management-track positions; (2) denying female employees equal pay
for hourly retail store positions; and (3) denying female
employees equal pay for certain salaried management positions,
asserts the complaint.

Plaintiff Kathleen "Kathie" Forbes is a female resident of Pasco
County, Florida. She was employed by both Wal-Mart and Sam's Club
during her employment between 1990 until 2006, and worked during
that period in Club 6448, which is in Sam's Club Region 6, in
addition to Wal-Mart Store 1085, which is in Wal-Mart Region 10.

Plaintiff Lisa O'Brien is a female resident of Pasco County,
Florida. She was employed by Sam's Club from 1997 until 2006, and
worked during that period in Clubs 6448 and 6408, both of which
are in Sam's Club Region 6.

Plaintiff Lou Ann Hawes is a female resident of Brevard County,
Florida. She was employed by Wal-Mart from 1999 until April 2000,
and worked during that period in Store 649, which is in Wal-Mart
Region 10.

Plaintiff Linda Ray is a female resident of Seminole County,
Florida. She was employed by Wal-Mart from 1996 until 2004, and
worked during that period in Store 1374, which is in Wal-Mart
Region 10.

Plaintiff Judith Danneman is a female resident of Carroll County,
Georgia. She was employed by Wal-Mart from 1990 until 2000, and
worked during that period in Store 1589, 1389, Store 1436, and
Store 1541, which are all in Wal-Mart Region 10.

Plaintiff Bridgette Bramley is a female resident of Marion County,
Florida. She was employed by Wal-Mart from 1999 until 2003, and
worked during that period in Store 579, which is in Wal-Mart
Region 46.

Plaintiff Edna Remington is a female resident of Marion County,
Florida. She was employed by Wal-Mart from 1993 until 2003, and
worked during that period in Store 613 and Store 1182, which are
both in Wal-Mart Region 10.

Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with
stores throughout Florida. Its corporate headquarters is located
in Bentonville, Arkansas. In Florida, Wal-Mart operates retail
stores doing business as Wal-Mart Discount Stores, Wal-Mart
Supercenters, and Sam's Clubs. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Cathleen Scott, Esq.
      Lindsey Wagner, Esq.
      SCOTT WAGNER AND ASSOCIATES, P.A.
      250 S. Central Blvd., #104
      Jupiter, FL 33458
      Tel: (561) 653-0008
      E-mail: CScott@scottwagnerlaw.com
              LWagner@scottwagnerlaw.com

          - and -

      Joseph M. Sellers, Esq.
      Christine E. Webber, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
      1100 New York Ave NW, Suite 500 West
      Washington, DC 20005
      Tel: (202) 408-4600
      Fax: (202) 408-4699
      E-mail: JSellers@cohenmilstein.com
              Cwebber@cohenmilstein.com

          - and -

      Leslie M. Kroeger, Esq.
      Diana L. Martin, Esq.
      Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
      2925 PGA Blvd Ste 200
      Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
      Tel: (561) 515-1400
      E-mail: LKroeger@cohenmilstein.com
              DMartin@cohenmilstein.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  * * *