---

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


           Tuesday, November 21, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 230



                            Headlines

AICOM SOLUTIONS: Shimshon Class Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Clark-Russell Appeals Ruling to Ninth Circuit
ALBANY MOLECULAR: Rodak Files Suit Over Shady Merger Deal
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Appeals Ruling in "Sayles" Suit to 3rd Cir.
AMERICAN HONDA: Court Increases Pages of Bid to Dismiss Reply

ANTARES PHARMA: "Smith" Hits Share Price Drop from New Drug
BANK OF MAUMEE: Paciocco Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
BMW AG: "Kotha" Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
BOB EVANS: Miller Seeks to Enjoin Merger With Post Holdings
BUCCANEERS LIMITED: Cin-Q Can Intervene in $19.5MM Settlement

CONTRA COSTA, CA: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Harris" Suit
COTY INC: "Taylor" Sues Over Hair Coloring Side Effects
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Mayo Seeks to Recover Minimum, Overtime Wages
COMPUTER CREDIT: Faces "Mizrahi" Suit in E. Dist. New York
CRICKET COMMUNICATIONS: Court Denies Move to Intervene in "Bond"

DAVID YURMAN: Faces "Conner" Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
DIANA CONTAINERSHIPS: "Robinson" Suit Alleges Stock Manipulation
DENTSPLY SIRONA: Sued by Ryoo Dental for Sending Illegal Fax Ads
DONALD TRUMP: Faces Jewish Family Service Suit in W.D. Washington
EHARMONY INC: "Murphy" Suit Says Website Inaccessible to Blind

ENHANCED RECOVERY: Faces "Flournoy" Suit in S.D. Indiana
EQUIFAX INC: Accused by Southwick of Not Securing Consumer Data
EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Faces "Barrow" Suit in S.D. New York
EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Seeks Review of Order in "Munguia-Brown" Suit
FMA ALLIANCE: Faces "Mitchell" Suit in Eastern District New York

G & C AUTO BODY: Repair Technician's Suit Remand to State Court
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Powell Sues Over Breach of Duties Under ERISA
GGP INC: Williams Files Class Action in Colorado
HULCHER SERVICES: Grayson Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
HUNTLEIGH USA: Wage and Hour Suit Settlement Has Preliminary OK

INFUSION SOFTWARE: "McNamara" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wage
INTELIFI INC: Faces Suit in C. Dist. Cal. Over Consumer Report
JAY AMBANI HOSPITALITY: Faces "Lopez" Suit in Calif. Super. Ct.
KEHE FOOD: Court Approves Class Settlement in Sales Reps' Suit
LAKE NORMAN: Ross Wants to Recover Overtime Under FLSA and NYLL

LIBERTY MUTUAL: Consumer Fraud Suit Remanded to Wash. State Court
MDL 2455: $295MM Class Settlement Has Preliminary Approval
MDL 2796: "Leiser" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Calif.
METTERS INC: Ortiz Seeks to Recoup Wages, Benefits Under WARN Act
METROPOLITAN CASUALTY: MSP Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida

MODESTO, CA: Court Wants Supplement to Support Class Settlement
MONEX DEPOSIT: Faces "Bergeron" Class Suit Over "Atlas" Platform
MORRIS HATCHERY: Refuses to Pay Overtime Wages, Sanchez Alleges
NATURE'S WAY: Court Narrows Claims in "McDonnell"
NOVAN INC: Faces "Miriyala" Suit Over Misleading Reports

OLSEN HOTEL RESTAURANT: Gonzalez Files Suit in S.D. Florida
ON TIME MOVING: Pavon Suit Seeks to Recover Back Wages Under FLSA
PHOENIX CLOSURES: "Sutherlin" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
PNC BANK: Marsh Sues Over Unfair Practices on Home Mortgage Loans
PROSKAUER ROSE: Fifth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Dorrell" Suit

PURDUE PHARMA: Teachers' Fund Disputes Opioid Drug Benefits
RICCA GROUP: Faces Modern Hearing Solutions Suit in E.D. Penn.
RITECARE MEDICAL: Moyal Wellness Sues Over Sending of Junk Faxes
SANTA CLARA, CA: Thatcher Appeals N.D. Cal. Decision to 9th Cir.
SAP AMERICA: Elwell Files Class Action in Arizona

SEARCH ENGINE: Accused by "Sloatman" Class Suit of Violating TCPA
SENTRY CASUALTY: MSP Suit Removed to Southern District of Florida
SIRIUS XM: Faces "Meza" Class Suit Over Illegal Calls
SMARTFINANCIAL: "Sloatman" Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
SONIC CORP: Faces "MacKay" Suit in District of Arizona

SORAYA MOTOR: American Honda Wins Summary Judgment in "Singh"
ST. LOUIS, MO: Faces "Cody" Suit in E. Dist. Mo.
STATE COLLECTION: Court Certifies Class in "Spuhler" Suit
STATEWIDE COLLECTIONS: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
SYSTEM1 LLC: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Magee" Action Claims

TGINESIS LLC: Faces "Jacobs" Suit in New York Supreme Court
THOMSON REUTERS: Wins Summary Judgment in "Kidd" FCRA Suit
TRANS UNION: $8MM Class Settlement in "Patel" Has Prelim Approval
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Sued Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices
TRISTAR PRODUCTS: Suit Over Pressure Cooker Moved to Ohio Court

UNITED STATES: Ct. Denies Bid for Class Certification in "Limpin"
US AIRWAYS: Court Narrows Claims in Baggage Fee Suit
VANTIV INC: Faces "Macchia" Suit Over Proposed Worldpay Merger
WAYNE, MI: Faces "Woodall" Suit in E.D. of Michigan
WESTFIELD INSURANCE CO: MSP Recovery Suit Removed to S.D. Fla.

WHIRLPOOL CORP: Faces "Parsons" Suit Over Defective Water Filters
WILSON SPORTING: Faces "Alea" Suit in District of Arizona
WOODS COVE: Ohio App. Flips Dismissal of SAC in "Stewart"
ZOEK INC: Faces "Marks" Suit in Southern District of New York
ZURICH AMERICAN: Removes MSP Suit From 11th Cir. to S.D. Florida




                            *********


AICOM SOLUTIONS: Shimshon Class Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on March 24, 2017 styled Law
Offices of Shimshon Wexler, P.C., individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. AICOM
Solutions LLC d/b/a AICOM Corporation; Time Warner Cable LLC d/b/a
Spectrum; Time Warner Cable Media LLC; Charter Communications
Inc.; Charter Communications Operating LLC; and John Does 1-10,
Case No. 1:17-cv-01084 was transferred on November 6, 2017, from
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-08573-AKH to the
proceeding.

The case arises out of the Defendants' practice of sending
advertisements by facsimile in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Time Warner Cable LLC is a national provider of cable television,
internet, and digital telephone services.

AICOM Solutions LLC provides sales, marketing and account
management for Time Warner Cable. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel J. Cohen, Esq.
      THE LAKIN LAW FIRM P.C.
      300 Evans Avenue,
      Post Office Box 229
      Wood River, IL 62095
      Telephone: (618) 251-2483
      Facsimile: (618) 254-0193
      E-mail: danc@lakinlaw.com

         - and -

      James M. Smith, Esq.
      Julia Lynn Titolo, Esq.
      Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
      BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
      134 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1000
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 658-5500
      Facsimile: (312) 658-5555
      E-mail: James@classlawyers.com
              julia@classlawyers.com

         - and -

      C. Samuel Rael, Esq.
      OFFICE OF C. SAMUEL RAEL
      2221 Peachtree Street, Suite D114
      Atlanta, GA 30309
      Telephone: (404) 522-2555
      E-mail: samuelrael@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Catrina Celeste Creswell, Esq.
      Daniel Hart Gaynor, Esq.
      Ryan D. Watstein, Esq.
      KABAT CHAPMAN & OZMER LLP
      171 17th Street NW Suite 1550
      Atlanta, GA 30363
      Telephone: (404) 400-7300
      Facsimile: (404) 400-7333
      E-mail: ccreswell@kcozlaw.com
              dgaynor@kcozlaw.com
              rwatstein@kcozlaw.com


ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Clark-Russell Appeals Ruling to Ninth Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Jacquelynne M. Clark-Russell, Karra Lewis and Kevin
Lewis filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit titled
Jacquelynne Clark-Russell, et al. v. County of Alameda, Case No.
4:16-cv-04816-YGR, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Oakland.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District
Court issued an Order granting in part the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss the cases captioned ALFRED BANKS, ET AL. v. COUNTY OF SAN
MATEO; MICHAEL THATCHER, ET AL. v. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA; CHARLENE
HARRIS, ET AL. v. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA; and JACQUELYNNE M.
CLARK-RUSSELL, ET AL. v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, Case Nos. 16-CV-04455-
YGR, 16-CV-4781-YGR, 16-CV-4795-YGR, 16-CV-4816-YGR (N.D. Cal.).

The putative class actions have been brought by the Plaintiffs
against defendant counties of San Mateo, Santa Clara, Contra
Costa, and Alameda for alleged Sherman Act antitrust and Section
1983 violations related to exclusive grants of telephone servicing
contracts inside county prison facilities that have allegedly
resulted in grossly excessive commissions for these services.

The appellate case is captioned as Jacquelynne Clark-Russell, et
al. v. County of Alameda, Case No. 17-17274, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by December 4, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on January 3, 2018;

   -- Appellants Jacquelynne M. Clark-Russell, Karra Lewis and
      Kevin Lewis' opening brief is due on February 12, 2018;

   -- Appellee County of Alameda's answering brief is due on
      March 13, 2018; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants JACQUELYNNE M. CLARK-RUSSELL, KARRA LEWIS
and KEVIN LEWIS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Ronald Kaye, Esq.
          Barrett Stephen Litt, Esq.
          KAYE, MCLANE, BEDNARSKI & LITT, LLP
          234 East Colorado Boulevard
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 844-7660
          Facsimile: (626) 844-7670
          E-mail: rok@kmbllaw.com
                  blitt@kmbllaw.com

               - and -

          Michael Rapkin, Esq.
          Scott Rapkin, Esq.
          RAPKIN & ASSOCIATES, LLP
          723 Ocean Front Walk
          Venice, CA 90291
          Telephone: (310) 319-5465
          Facsimile: (310) 319-5355
          E-mail: MRapkin@RapkinEsq.com
                  scottrapkin@rapkinesq.com

               - and -

          Carol Strickman, Esq.
          LEGAL SERVICES FOR PRISONERS WITH CHILDREN
          360 62nd Street
          Oakland, CA 94618
          Telephone: (510) 547-4843
          E-mail: carol@prisonerswithchildren.org

Defendant-Appellee COUNTY OF ALAMEDA is represented by:

          Ryan Douglas Harvey, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
          633 W. 5th Street, Suite 4000
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 680-5119
          Facsimile: (213) 250-7900
          E-mail: ryan.harvey@lewisbrisbois.com


ALBANY MOLECULAR: Rodak Files Suit Over Shady Merger Deal
---------------------------------------------------------
Robert J. Rodak, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Thomas E. D'Ambra, David H.
Deming, Kenneth P. Hagen, Luis Gerardo Gutierrez Fuentes, Anthony
J. Maddaluna, Fernando Napolitano, William S. Marth, Kevin
O'connor, Felicia I. Ladin, The Carlyle Group, L.P., Carlyle
Investment Management L.L.C., Carlyle Partners VI, L.P., GTCR LLC,
GTCR Fund XI/A LP, GTCR Fund XI/C LP, GTCR Co-Invest XI LP, UIC
Parent Corporation, UIC Merger Sub, Inc. and Albany Molecular
Research, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-08107 (S.D.N.Y.,
October 20, 2017), seeks compensatory and/or rescissory damages,
including reasonable allowance for attorneys' and experts' fees
and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

Albany Molecular Research, Inc. will be acquired by the Carlyle
Group, L.P., Carlyle Investment Management L.L.C. and GTCR LLC.
Under the merger agreement, Albany will be acquired by Carlyle and
GTCR in exchange for $21.75 per share in cash.

Defendants filed a proxy statement that failed to include
financial projections and valuations and that the deal locked out
other potential buyers for Albany, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Adam R. Shaw, Esq.
     BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
     30 South Pearl Street, 11th Floor
     Albany, NY 12207
     Telephone: (518) 434-0600
     Facsimile: (518) 434-0665
     Email: ashaw@bsfllp.com

            - and -

     Damien J. Marshall, Esq.
     BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
     575 Lexington Avenue, 7111 Floor
     New York, NY 10022
     Telephone: (212) 446-2300
     Facsimile: (212) 446-2350
     Email: dmarshall@bsfllp.com

            - and -

     Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     58 South Service Road, Suite 200
     Melville, NY 11747
     Telephone: (631) 367-7100
     Fax: (631) 367-1173
     Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com

            - and -

     Christopher H. Lyons, Esq.
     414 Union Street, Suite 900
     Nashville, TN 37219
     Telephone: (615) 244-2203
     Fax: (615) 252-3798
     Email: clyons@rgrdlaw.com


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Appeals Ruling in "Sayles" Suit to 3rd Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Allstate Insurance Co. filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit styled Samantha Sayles v. Allstate Insurance
Co., Case No. 3-16-cv-01534, in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
alleges that an auto insurance policy issued by Allstate under
which she was insured contains an "examination requirement" that
violates Section 1796 of Pennsylvania's Motor Vehicle Financial
Responsibility Law.

The appellate case is captioned as Samantha Sayles v. Allstate
Insurance Co., Case No. 17-3463, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent SAMANTHA SAYLES, Individually and on behalf
of all other similarly situated, is represented by:

          Charles Kannebecker, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF CHARLES KANNEBECKER
          104 West High Street
          Milford, PA 18337
          Telephone: (570) 296-6471
          Facsimile: (570) 296-2653
          E-mail: kannebecker@wskllawfirm.com

Defendant-Appellant ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO. is represented by:

          Marc E. Wolin, Esq.
          SAIBER LLC
          18 Columbia Turnpike, Suite 200
          Florham Park, NJ 07932
          Telephone: (973) 622-3333
          E-mail: mwolin@saiber.com


AMERICAN HONDA: Court Increases Pages of Bid to Dismiss Reply
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division, issued an Order increasing the
page limit of American Honda Motor, Co., Inc.'s Reply in Support
of Motion to Dismiss by Two Pages in the case captioned  LINDSEY
and JEFF ABERIN, DON AWTREY, CHARLES BURGESS, DANIEL CRINER, JARED
CROOKS, MARK GERSTLE, JOHN KELLY, YUN-FEI LOU, JOY MATZA, JORDAN
MOSS, DONALD TRAN, and MELISSA YEUNG, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated. Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN HONDA
MOTOR CO., INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-04384-JST (N.D.
Cal.).

Plaintiffs Lindsey and Jeff Aberin, Don Awtrey, Charles Burgess,
Daniel Criner, Jared Crooks, Mark Gerstle, John Kelly, Yun-Fei
Lou, Joy Matza, Jordan Moss, Donald Tran, and Melissa Yeung
(Plaintiffs), and Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (AHM),
stipulated to increase the page limit of AHM's Reply in Support of
Motion to Dismiss by two pages, from 15 pages to 17 pages.

Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Class Action Complaint
(SAC). The SAC includes 12 named Plaintiffs who seek to bring a
putative nationwide class action or, alternatively, putative
statewide subclasses for 8 different states.  The SAC includes
causes of action set out in 40 separate counts.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 26, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/ybqsbu8lfrom Leagle.com.

Mark Gerstle, Plaintiff, represented by Catherine Gannon,
catherineg@hbsslaw.com Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac
vice.

Mark Gerstle, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher A. Seeger --
cseeger@seegerweiss.com -- Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel
Leathers -- DLeathers@seegerweiss.com -- Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac
vice, David Brian Fernandes, Baron & Budd, P.C., James E. Cecch --
jcecchi@carellabyrne.com -- Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody &
Agnello, P.C., James C. Shah, Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah,
LLP, Lindsey H. Taylor -- ltaylor@carellabyrne.com -- Carella
Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., Mark Philip Pifko --
mpifko@baronbudd.com -- Baron & Budd, P.C., Roland K. Tellis --
rtellis@baronbudd.com -- Baron Budd, P.C., Scott Alan George --
sgeorge@seegerweiss.com -- Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, Stephen
A. Weiss -- sweiss@seegerweiss.com -- Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac
vice, Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Shana E. Scarlett --
shanas@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Yun-Fei Lou, Plaintiff, represented by Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Catherine Gannon, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher A. Seeger, Seeger Weiss
LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel R. Leathers, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac
vice, David Brian Fernandes, Baron & Budd, P.C., James E. Cecchi,
Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., James C. Shah,
Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP, Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella
Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., Mark Philip Pifko,
Baron & Budd, P.C., Roland K. Tellis, Baron Budd, P.C., Scott Alan
George, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, Stephen A. Weiss, Seeger
Weiss LLP, pro hac vice & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Lindsey Aberin, Plaintiff, represented by Shana E. Scarlett,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Catherine Gannon, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher A. Seeger, Seeger
Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel R. Leathers, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro
hac vice, David Brian Fernandes, Baron & Budd, P.C., James E.
Cecchi, Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., James
C. Shah, Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP, Lindsey H. Taylor,
Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., Mark Philip
Pifko, Baron & Budd, P.C., Roland K. Tellis, Baron Budd, P.C.,
Scott Alan George, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, Stephen A.
Weiss, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice & Steve W. Berman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Don Awtrey, Plaintiff, represented by Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Catherine Gannon, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher A. Seeger, Seeger Weiss
LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel R. Leathers, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac
vice, David Brian Fernandes, Baron & Budd, P.C., James E. Cecchi,
Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., James C. Shah,
Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP, Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella
Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., Mark Philip Pifko,
Baron & Budd, P.C., Roland K. Tellis, Baron Budd, P.C., Scott Alan
George, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, Stephen A. Weiss, Seeger
Weiss LLP, pro hac vice & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Daniel Criner, Plaintiff, represented by Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Catherine Gannon, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher A. Seeger, Seeger Weiss
LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel R. Leathers, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac
vice, David Brian Fernandes, Baron & Budd, P.C., James E. Cecchi,
Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., James C. Shah,
Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP, Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella
Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., Mark Philip Pifko,
Baron & Budd, P.C., Roland K. Tellis, Baron Budd, P.C., Scott Alan
George, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, Stephen A. Weiss, Seeger
Weiss LLP, pro hac vice & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

John Kelly, Plaintiff, represented by Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Catherine Gannon, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher A. Seeger, Seeger Weiss
LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel R. Leathers, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac
vice, David Brian Fernandes, Baron & Budd, P.C., James E. Cecchi,
Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., James C. Shah,
Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP, Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella
Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., Mark Philip Pifko,
Baron & Budd, P.C., Roland K. Tellis, Baron Budd, P.C., Scott Alan
George, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, Stephen A. Weiss, Seeger
Weiss LLP, pro hac vice & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Jordan Moss, Plaintiff, represented by Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Catherine Gannon, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher A. Seeger, Seeger Weiss
LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel R. Leathers, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac
vice, David Brian Fernandes, Baron & Budd, P.C., James E. Cecchi,
Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., James C. Shah,
Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP, Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella
Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., Mark Philip Pifko,
Baron & Budd, P.C., Roland K. Tellis, Baron Budd, P.C., Scott Alan
George, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, Stephen A. Weiss, Seeger
Weiss LLP, pro hac vice & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Donald Tran, Plaintiff, represented by Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Catherine Gannon, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher A. Seeger, Seeger Weiss
LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel R. Leathers, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac
vice, David Brian Fernandes, Baron & Budd, P.C., James E. Cecchi,
Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., James C. Shah,
Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP, Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella
Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., Mark Philip Pifko,
Baron & Budd, P.C., Roland K. Tellis, Baron Budd, P.C., Scott Alan
George, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, Stephen A. Weiss, Seeger
Weiss LLP, pro hac vice & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Melissa Yeung, Plaintiff, represented by Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Catherine Gannon, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher A. Seeger, Seeger Weiss
LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel R. Leathers, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac
vice, David Brian Fernandes, Baron & Budd, P.C., James E. Cecchi,
Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., James C. Shah,
Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP, Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella
Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., Mark Philip Pifko,
Baron & Budd, P.C., Roland K. Tellis, Baron Budd, P.C., Scott Alan
George, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, Stephen A. Weiss, Seeger
Weiss LLP, pro hac vice & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Jeff Aberin, Plaintiff, represented by Catherine Gannon, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher A. Seeger,
Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, Stephen A. Weiss, Seeger Weiss
LLP, pro hac vice & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice.

Jared Crooks, Plaintiff, represented by Catherine Gannon, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher A. Seeger,
Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, Stephen A. Weiss, Seeger Weiss
LLP, pro hac vice & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice.

Joy Matza, Plaintiff, represented by Catherine Gannon, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher A. Seeger,
Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, Stephen A. Weiss, Seeger Weiss
LLP, pro hac vice & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice.

Charles Burgess, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Christopher A.
Seeger, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Amanda M. Steiner, Terrell Marshall Law
Group PLLC, Brittany A. Madderra, Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC,
pro hac vice, Catherine Gannon, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
pro hac vice, Daniel R. Leathers, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice,
David Brian Fernandes, Baron & Budd, P.C., James E. Cecchi,
Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., James C. Shah,
Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP, Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella
Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., Mark Philip Pifko,
Baron & Budd, P.C., Roland K. Tellis, Baron Budd, P.C., Scott Alan
George, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, Stephen A. Weiss, Seeger
Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Toby James Marshall, Terrell Marshall
Law Group PLLC, pro hac vice.

American Honda Motor Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Livia M. Kiser -- LKISER@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP, Andrew
Jacob Chinsky -- ACHINSKY@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP, pro hac
vice, Eric B. Scwartz -- ESCHWARTZ@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP
& Michael Christian Andolina -- MANDOLINA@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley
Austin LLP, pro hac vice.


ANTARES PHARMA: "Smith" Hits Share Price Drop from New Drug
-----------------------------------------------------------
Randy Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Antares Pharma, Inc., Robert F. Apple and
Fred M. Powell, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-08945 (D. N.J., October
23, 2017), seeks to recover damages caused violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Antares develops pharmaceutical delivery systems, including
needle-free and mini-needle injector systems and transdermal gel
technologies. Antares's "Xyosted" was among its lead product
candidates. Its New Drug Application was submitted to the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration on December 21, 2016.

On October 12, 2017, the FDA identified deficiencies that preclude
the continuation of the discussion of labeling and post marketing
requirements/commitments for Xyosted. On this news, the company's
share price fell $1.41, or 37.80%, to close at $2.32 on October
13, 2017. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq.
      LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
      570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
      Newark, NJ 07102
      Telephone: (973) 623-3000
      Facsimile: (973) 623-0858
      Email: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com

             - and -

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

             - and -

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


BANK OF MAUMEE: Paciocco Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE PACIOCCO, On behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. BANK OF MAUMEE d/b/a Resolute Bank, Case No. 3:17-cv-
02296-JZ (N.D. Ohio, October 31, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid
wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Headquartered in Maumee, Ohio, Bank of Maumee is a federal savings
and loan association conducting business in the state of Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chris P. Wido, Esq.
          THE SPITZ LAW FIRM, LLC
          25200 Chagrin Boulevard, Suite 200
          Beachwood, OH 44122
          Telephone: (216) 291-4744
          Facsimile: (216) 291-5744
          E-mail: chris.wido@spitzlawfirm.com


BMW AG: "Kotha" Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------
The case captioned Kashivishnatha Kotha, Irving Cohen, Christopher
Kurek, And Dean Werner, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, v. BMW AG, BMW North America, LLC,
Volkswagen AG, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Audi AG, Audi of
America, Inc., Audi of America, LLC, DR. ING. H.C.F. Porsche AG,
Porsche Cars of North America, Inc., Bentley Motors Limited,
Daimler AG, Mercedes-Benz USA, Mercedes-Benz Vans, LLC, Mercedes-
Benz U.S. International, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-12836, (E.D.
Mich., August 28, 2017), was transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on October 23, 2017
under Case No. 17-cv-06039.

Defendants have reportedly been secretly colluding with each other
since the 1990s on matters ranging from car development, gasoline
engines, diesel engines, brakes, transmissions, gearboxes, choices
of suppliers, emissions controls and even prices for parts. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

     Michael Cashman, Esq.
     Anne T. Regan, Esq.
     Nicholas S. Kuhlmann, Esq.
     HELLMUTH & JOHNSON, PLLC
     8050 West 78th Street
     Edina, MN 55439
     Tel: (952) 941-4005
     Fax: (952) 941-2337
     Email: mcashman@hjlawfirm.com
            aregan@hjlawfirm.com
            nkuhlmann@hjlawfirm.com

            - and -

     ROXANNE CONLIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     Roxanne Barton Conlin, Esq.
     3721 S.W. 61st St., Ste. C
     Des Moines, IA 50321
     Tel: (515) 283-1111
     Fax: (515) 282-0477
     Email: roxlaw@aol.com


BOB EVANS: Miller Seeks to Enjoin Merger With Post Holdings
-----------------------------------------------------------
DAVID MILLER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. BOB EVANS FARMS, INC., DOUGLAS N. BENHAM, CHARLES M.
ELSON, KEVIN M. SHEEHAN, MARY KAY HABEN, MICHAEL F. WEINSTEIN,
LARRY S. MCWILLIAMS, DAVID W. HEAD, PAUL S. WILLIAMS, KATHLEEN S.
LANE, J. MICHAEL TOWNSLEY, and EILEEN A. MALLESCH, Case No. 1:17-
cv-01538 (D. Del., October 31, 2017), seeks to enjoin the
Defendants from holding a stockholders vote on a proposed merger
and taking any steps to consummate the Proposed Merger unless, and
until, material information is disclosed to Bob Evans stockholders
sufficiently in advance of the vote on the Proposed Merger or, in
the event the Proposed Merger is consummated, to recover damages
resulting from the Defendants' violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

On September 18, 2017, the Board of Directors caused the Company
to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Post Holdings,
Inc., pursuant to which the Company's shareholders stand to
receive $77 in cash for each share of Bob Evans stock they own,
representing $1.5 billion in equity value.

Bob Evans is incorporated in Delaware and maintains its principal
executive offices in New Albany, Ohio.  The Individual Defendants
are directors and officers of the Company.

Bob Evans produces and distributes refrigerated and frozen food
items as well as premium pork sausage to various retail and
foodservice customers throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Van Gorder, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Telephone: (302) 482-3182
          E-mail: mvangorder@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
          James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 Third Ave., 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
                  jwilson@faruqilaw.com


BUCCANEERS LIMITED: Cin-Q Can Intervene in $19.5MM Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, issued an
Opinion granting Movants' Appeal and Remand the Case for Further
Proceedings in the case captioned TECHNOLOGY TRAINING ASSOCIATES,
INC., LARRY E. SCHWANKE, D.C., Individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, d.b.a.
Back to Basics Family Chiropractic, Plaintiffs-Appellees, CIN-Q
AUTOMOBILES, INC., MEDICAL & CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, INC.,
Intervenors-Appellants, v. BUCCANEERS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
Defendant-Appellee. No. 17-11710 (11th Cir.)

Cin-Q Automobiles, Inc., the movant in this case, filed a
complaint on behalf of a putative class, alleging that Buccaneers
Limited Partnership was responsible for unsolicited faxes that
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).  The two
sides litigated that case (the Cin-Q case) for three years, with
Medical & Chiropractic Clinic, Inc., eventually joining as a
second named plaintiff.

Technology Training Associates, Inc., and Larry E. Schwanke, based
on the same allegedly unlawful acts by Buccaneers, and soon after
doing so announced that they had reached a settlement with
Buccaneers disposing of their claims in exchange for nearly $20
million in damages.

The plaintiffs, represented by Bock Hatch, filed a class action
complaint in the current case about two months later. Two days
after that they filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval
of class action settlement. In the motion, the plaintiffs
announced that they had reached a settlement with Buccaneers under
which the class would receive up to $19.5 million in damages.

After the complaint and the motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement were filed in this case, the Cin-Q court stayed
consideration of the movant's class certification motion in that
case.

In the wake of those developments, the movants moved to intervene
in this case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2),
intervention as of right, and Rule 24(b)(2), permissive
intervention. They contended that this case was an example of a
reverse auction, in which a defendant picks out a plaintiff with
weaker claims and weaker counsel in an effort to negotiate a more
favorable settlement.

The district court denied the movants' motion to intervene.

Parties seeking to intervene under Rule 24(a)(2) must show that:
(1) their application to intervene is timely; (2) they have an
interest relating to the property or transaction which is the
subject of the action; (3) [they are] so situated that disposition
of the action, as a practical matter, may impede or impair their
ability to protect that interest; and (4) their interest is
represented inadequately by the existing parties to the suit.

The movants have met the minimal burden of showing that
plaintiffs' representation of their interests may be inadequate.
The circuit court held that a representative party's greater
willingness to compromise can impede it from adequately
representing the interests of a nonparty. That is the case here.
The plaintiffs have a greater incentive to settle because their
claims may be barred by the statute of limitations if they cannot
secure a waiver from Buccaneers, while the movants have no statute
of limitations issue.

Although the parties fiercely contest whether the plaintiffs'
claims are actually time barred, the risk that they could be gives
the plaintiffs a greater incentive to settle as compared to the
movants. Which is evidenced by the plaintiffs' getting a waiver of
the statute of limitations as part of the settlement.
More broadly, the record appears to show that the plaintiffs'
counsel, Bock Hatch, deliberately underbid the movants in an
effort to collect attorney's fees while doing a fraction of the
work that the movants' counsel did. If, as it appears, Bock Hatch
was indeed motivated by a desire to grab attorney's fees instead
of a desire to secure the best settlement possible for the class,
it violated its ethical duty to the class.  It is plain from the
record that during the negotiations the interests of the named
plaintiffs and of Bock Hatch were aligned with those of Buccaneers
and adverse to the movants' interests. Given that, the plaintiffs
cannot be expected to adequately represent the movants' interests.

The movants met Rule 24(a)(2)'s requirements.  Accordingly, the
Eleventh Circuit remands the case with instructions for the
district court to grant the movants' motion to intervene as of
right.

A full-text copy of the Eleventh Circuit's October 26, 2017 Order
is available at http://tinyurl.com/yc2cw5eqfrom Leagle.com.

Joseph H. Varner, III -- joe.varner@hklaw.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

Mark S. Mester -- mark.mester@lw.com -- for Defendant-Appellee.
Michael C. Addison, 400 North Tampa StreetSuite 1100Tampa, FL
33602- 4714 for Intervenor-Appellant.

Roman Martinez -- roman.martinez@lw.com -- for Defendant-Appellee.

Ryan Michael Kelly -- RYAN@KELLEYKELLYLAW.COM -- for Intervenor-
Appellant.

Daniel J. Cohen, 1310 Papin St, Ste 107, St. Louis, MO 63103-3142
for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Phillip Andrew Bock --  phil@classlawyers.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellee.

David Simon Cohen, One Buccaneer Place, Tampa, FL, 33607 for
Defendant-Appellee.

Ross M. Good -- rgood@andersonwanca.com -- for Intervenor-
Appellant.

Glenn L. Hara -- ghara@andersonwanca.com -- for Intervenor-
Appellant.

Kathleen P. Lally -- kathleen.lally@lw.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.


CONTRA COSTA, CA: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Harris" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Robert Freeze, Charlene Harris and Mary Kovach filed an
appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit styled Charlene
Harris, et al. v. Contra Costa County, Case No. 4:16-cv-04795-YGR,
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, Oakland.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District
Court issued an Order granting in part the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss the cases captioned ALFRED BANKS, ET AL. v. COUNTY OF SAN
MATEO; MICHAEL THATCHER, ET AL. v. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA; CHARLENE
HARRIS, ET AL. v. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA; and JACQUELYNNE M.
CLARK-RUSSELL, ET AL. v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, Case Nos. 16-CV-04455-
YGR, 16-CV-4781-YGR, 16-CV-4795-YGR, 16-CV-4816-YGR (N.D. Cal.).

The putative class actions have been brought by the Plaintiffs
against defendant counties of San Mateo, Santa Clara, Contra
Costa, and Alameda for alleged Sherman Act antitrust and Section
1983 violations related to exclusive grants of telephone servicing
contracts inside county prison facilities that have allegedly
resulted in grossly excessive commissions for these services.

The appellate case is captioned as Charlene Harris, et al. v.
Contra Costa County, Case No. 17-17273, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by December 4, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on January 3, 2018;

   -- Appellants Robert Freeze, Charlene Harris and Mary Kovach's
      opening brief is due on February 12, 2018;

   -- Appellee Contra Costa County's answering brief is due on
      March 13, 2018; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants CHARLENE HARRIS, ROBERT FREEZE and MARY
KOVACH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
are represented by:

          Ronald Kaye, Esq.
          Barrett Stephen Litt, Esq.
          KAYE, MCLANE, BEDNARSKI & LITT, LLP
          234 East Colorado Boulevard
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 844-7660
          Facsimile: (626) 844-7670
          E-mail: rok@kmbllaw.com
                  blitt@kmbllaw.com

               - and -

          Michael Rapkin, Esq.
          Scott Rapkin, Esq.
          RAPKIN & ASSOCIATES, LLP
          723 Ocean Front Walk
          Venice, CA 90291
          Telephone: (310) 319-5465
          Facsimile: (310) 319-5355
          E-mail: MRapkin@RapkinEsq.com
                  scottrapkin@rapkinesq.com

               - and -

          Carol Strickman, Esq.
          LEGAL SERVICES FOR PRISONERS WITH CHILDREN
          360 62nd Street
          Oakland, CA 94618
          Telephone: (510) 547-4843
          E-mail: carol@prisonerswithchildren.org

Defendant-Appellee CONTRA COSTA COUNTY is represented by:

          David Cameron Baker, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL
          651 Pine Street
          Martinez, CA 94553
          Telephone: (925) 335-1890
          E-mail: Cameron.Baker@cc.cccounty.us


COTY INC: "Taylor" Sues Over Hair Coloring Side Effects
-------------------------------------------------------
Tara Taylor, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Coty, Inc., The Procter & Gamble Company,
Inc., The Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Company, Inc., The
Procter & Gamble Distributing, L.L.C., Procter & Gamble Hair Care,
L.L.C., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-01359, (W.D. La., October 23,
2017), seeks damages and equitable remedies resulting from unjust
enrichment, fraud, breach of express and implied warranty and for
violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the Louisiana
Civil Code.

Procter and Gamble developed, designed, formulated, manufactured,
packaged, labeled, advertised, marketed, distributed and sold
Clairol hair dye products. Clairol Balsam Color brand was sold to
Coty, Inc. in July, 2015.

Said product line allegedly causes significant hair loss, skin and
scalp irritation, scalp burnings and blistering, severe
dermatitis, eye irritation and tearing, asthma, gastritis, renal
damage and/or failure, vertigo, tremors, convulsions and comas and
eczematoid contact dermatitis.

Plaintiff is represented by:

    Matthew B. Moreland, Esq.
      BECNEL LAW FIRM, LLC
      425 West Airline Highway, Suite B
      LaPlace, LA 70068
      Tel: (985) 536-1186
      Email: mmoreland@becnellaw.com

             - and -

      W. Lewis Garrison, Jr., Esq.
      Brandy Lee Robertson
      HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
      2224 First Avenue North
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 326-3336
      Facsimile: (205) 326-3332
      Email: wlgarrison@hgdlawfirm.com


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Mayo Seeks to Recover Minimum, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LONNIE MAYO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE CHEESECAKE FACTORY RESTAURANTS, INC. d/b/ a THE
CHEESECAKE FACTORY, Case No. 1:17-cv-03213-GLR (D. Md., November
1, 2017), is brought to recover alleged unpaid minimum and
overtime wages, liquidated damages, treble damages and interest.

The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., is a foreign business
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of
California.  The Company owns and operates The Cheesecake Factory,
an award-winning "casual dining" restaurant with more than 200
locations worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Katz, Esq.
          Christopher Bonk, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF GARY M. GILBERT ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          1100 Wayne Avenue, Suite 900
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Telephone: (301) 608-0880
          E-mail: dkatz@ggilbertlaw.com
                  cbonk@ggilbertlaw.com

               - and -

          Louis Pechman, Esq.
          Gianfranco J. Cuadra, Esq.
          Gregory Slotnick, Esq.
          PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC
          488 Madison Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 583-9500
          Facsimile: (212) 308-8582
          E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com


COMPUTER CREDIT: Faces "Mizrahi" Suit in E. Dist. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Computer Credit Inc.
The case is styled as Jennifer L Mizrahi, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Computer Credit Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-06611 (E.D. N.Y., November 13, 2017).

CCi was founded as an agency in 1972 to serve local physicians and
hospitals in the area with a low cost collection service.  CCi
pioneered the integration of collection software into the base
code of leading patient accounting products, giving hospitals
nationwide easy access to its services. [BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


CRICKET COMMUNICATIONS: Court Denies Move to Intervene in "Bond"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Maryland
issued a Memorandum and Order denying Michael Scott's Motion for
Intervention in the case captioned TIM BOND, on his own behalf and
on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. CRICKET
COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. MJG-15-923 (D.
Md.).

Cricket offered for sale and sold cellphones that operate
exclusively on a 3G CDMA (Code Division Multiple Access
technology) cellular network.  However, AT&T and Cricket had
decided to discontinue the CDMA network and require Cricket
customers to use AT&T's GSM cellular network.  The cellphones cost
hundreds of dollars each and were marketed as including
unsurpassed nationwide coverage.  But the cellphones sold by
Cricket cannot be transferred from the CDMA network to the GSM
network. The cellphones were also locked by Cricket so they cannot
be used on another cellphone service provider's network. In other
words, the cellphones became useless and worthless.

In the FAC, Bond alleged six causes of action:

   Count I - Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability
   Count II - Fraudulent Concealment
   Count III - Money Had and Received/Unjust Enrichment
   Count IV - Negligent Misrepresentation
   Count V - Maryland Consumer Protection Act
   Count VI - Fraud

Scott filed his lawsuit in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City.
Scott defines the class as all Maryland citizens who, purchased a
CDMA mobile telephone from Cricket which was locked for use only
on Cricket's CDMA network.  Scott raises a single claim for
violation of the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections
230, stemming from alleged breaches of express warranties and the
implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular
purpose.

Rule 24 creates two intervention alternatives, both subject to the
filing of a timely motion. The Rule distinguishes between
Intervention of Right" pursuant to Rule 24(a), and Permissive
Intervention pursuant to Rule 24(b).

In addition to being timely, the Fourth Circuit has explained that
an intervenor must, under Rule 24(a)(2), satisfy three additional
requirements: (1) it must demonstrate a sufficient interest in the
subject matter of the underlying action; (2) it has to prove that
the interest would be impaired if the intervention was not
allowed; and (3) it must establish that the interest is
inadequately represented by existing parties.

Permissive intervention under Rule 24(b)(2) gives the court
discretion to grant intervention when an applicant has a claim or
defense that shares with the main action a common question of law
or fact. Rule 24(b)(1)(B). In exercising its discretion, the court
must consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or
prejudice the adjudication of the original parties' rights.
Scott moves to intervene as of right, and alternately
permissively. Both Bond and Cricket contend that Scott's motion
for intervention is not timely.

Bond amended his Complaint to add an MMWA claim. Therefore, as of
February 10, 2017, Scott knew, or should have known, that Bond's
case included an MMWA cause of action, and as of February 24,
2017, Scott knew, or should have known, of the stipulation to lift
the stay in Bond's case in order to litigate the MMWA claim. Scott
could have intervened in February 2017, but chose to pursue his
own case in state court. Scott's case has since been removed again
to federal court, and on July 28, 2017, Scott amended his own
Complaint to add a proposed nationwide class. Scott now faces
motions to vacate the state court class certification, to compel
arbitration and to stay proceedings. It was not until August 24,
2017, after notice of the proposed settlement in Bond's case, that
Scott moved to intervene.

Under the circumstances of this case, Scott could have, and should
have, acted sooner. Upon review of the timeliness factors, the
Court finds that Scott's intervention motion was untimely and
shall exercise its discretion to deny the motion. Scott may, of
course, file objections to the proposed settlement in the ordinary
course if and when preliminary approval of the proposed settlement
is granted.

The bottom line is that intervention is being denied but Scott, as
a class member, may participate in further proceedings herein
relating to the settlement reached by Bond and Cricket.

Michael Scott's Motion to Intervene is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 26, 2017
Memorandum and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y9u82bzp
from Leagle.com.

Tim Bond, Plaintiff, represented by Cory L. Zajdel --
clz@zlawmaryland.com -- Z Law LLC.

Michael A Scott, Plaintiff, represented by Martin Eugene Wolf,
Gordon, Wolf & Carney, Chtd & Benjamin Howard Carney, Gordon, Wolf
& Carney, Chtd. 100 W. Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 100 Towson, MD
21204

Cricket Communications, LLC, Defendant, represented by John Edward
McCann, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Ann Marie Duffy, Mayer
Brown, Archis A. Parasharami, Mayer Brown LLP, Daniel R. Lanier,
Miles and Stockbridge PC & Lynn C. Schlie, Miles and Stockbridge
PC.


DAVID YURMAN: Faces "Conner" Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Conner, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons v. David Yurman Enterprises, LLC, Case
No. 1:17-cv-06439 (E.D.N.Y., November 6, 2017), is a civil rights
action against David Yurman for their failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired persons.

David Yurman Enterprises, LLC owns and operates David Yurman
Stores that provide to the public important and enjoyable goods
and services such as jewelry and watches. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dan Shaked, Esq.
      SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
      44 Court Street, Suite 1217
      Brooklyn, NY 11201
      Telephone: (917) 373-9128
      Facsimile: (718) 504-7555
      E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@Gmail.com


DIANA CONTAINERSHIPS: "Robinson" Suit Alleges Stock Manipulation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jimmie O. Robinson, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Diana Containerships Inc.,
Symeon P. Palios, Andreas Michalopoulos, Anastasios Margaronis,
Kalani Investments Limited, Murchinson Ltd. and Marc Bistricer,
Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-06160 (E.D. N.Y., October 23, 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 Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Diana is a global provider of shipping transportation services
through its ownership of container ships. It is traded on NASDAQ
under the ticker symbol "DCIX."

Diana engaged in manipulative share issuance/sales transactions
with Kalani Investments Ltd, underwriter and distributor of Diana
common stock, causing Diana to sell its common shares and
securities convertible into common shares at a significant
discount allowing Kalani to resell these shares into the market.
Diana would reverse split the stock, causing a certain number of
outstanding shares to be merged into a single share, and thereby
raising the price of Diana stock, says the complaint. Then Diana
would again sell securities to Kalani. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101-8498
      Tel: (619) 231-1058
      Fax: (619) 231-7423
      Email: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com

            - and -

     Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     58 South Service Road, Suite 200
     Melville, NY 11747
     Telephone: (631) 367-7100
     Fax: (631) 367-1173
     Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com


DENTSPLY SIRONA: Sued by Ryoo Dental for Sending Illegal Fax Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
RYOO DENTAL, INC. d/b/a RYOO DENTAL, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. DENTSPLY SIRONA, INC. d/b/a
DENTSPLY MAILLEFER and ENDOCO INC. d/b/a ULTIMATE DENTAL, Case No.
8:17-cv-01932 (C.D. Cal., November 1, 2017), alleges that the
Defendants violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by
transmitting unsolicited fax advertisements to the Plaintiff and
to the Class members without obtaining their prior express
invitation or permission and by not displaying the proper opt-out
notice.

Dentsply Sirona, Inc., doing business as Dentsply Maillefer, is a
Delaware corporation that is registered to transact business in
California and has its principal place of business in York,
Pennsylvania.  Dentsply Sirona is one of the largest dental supply
companies in the world, producing dental equipment, anesthetics,
implants and other supplies for sales to dental offices.

Endoco, Inc., doing business as Ultimate Dental, is a Tennessee
corporation with is principal place of business in Memphis,
Tennessee.  Ultimate Dental -- "a full service dental supply
company" -- has been an authorized dealer of Dentsply Maillefer
for years.  In addition to Dentsply Maillefer, Ultimate Dental is
also a distributor for five other Dentsply Sirona divisions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald J. Eisenberg, Esq.
          SCHULTZ & ASSOCIATES LLP
          640 Cepi Drive, Suite A
          Chesterfield, MO 63005
          Telephone: (636) 537-4645
          Facsimile: (636) 537-2599
          E-mail: reisenberg@sl-lawyers.com

               - and -

          Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq.
          Adam M. Tamburelli, Esq.
          MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
          29800 Agoura Road, Suite 210
          Agoura Hills, CA 91301
          Telephone: (818) 991-8080
          Facsimile: (818) 991-8081
          E-mail: ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com
                  atamburelli@marlinsaltzman.com


DONALD TRUMP: Faces Jewish Family Service Suit in W.D. Washington
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Donald Trump in his
official capacity as President of the United States. The case is
styled as Jewish Family Service of Seattle, Jewish Family Services
of Silicon Valley, Allen Vaught, Afkab Mohamed Hussein, John Doe
1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, John Doe 4, John Doe 5, John Doe 6 and
John Doe 7 individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Donald Trump in his official capacity as
President of the United States, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security, Elaine Duke in her official capacity as Acting Secretary
of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State, Rex W Tillerson in
his official capacity as Secretary of State, Office of the
Director of National Intelligence and Daniel Coats in his official
capacity as Acting Director of National Intelligence, Defendants,
Case No. 2:17-cv-01707 (W.D. Wash., November 13, 2017).

Donald John Trump is the 45th and current President of the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   David J. Burman, Esq.
   PERKINS COIE (SEA)
   1201 3RD AVE, STE 4900
   SEATTLE, WA 98101-3099
   Tel: (206) 359-8000
   Fax: (206) 359-9000
   Email: dburman@perkinscoie.com

      - and -

   Tyler S. Roberts, Esq.
   PERKINS COIE (SEA)
   1201 3RD AVE, STE 4900
   SEATTLE, WA 98101-3099
   Tel: (206) 359-6312
   Email: troberts@perkinscoie.com

      - and -

   Lauren Watts Staniar, Esq.
   PERKINS COIE (SEA)
   1201 3RD AVE, STE 4900
   SEATTLE, WA 98101-3099
   Tel: (206) 359-3316
   Email: LStaniar@perkinscoie.com


EHARMONY INC: "Murphy" Suit Says Website Inaccessible to Blind
--------------------------------------------------------------
James Murphy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. eHarmony, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-
08154, (Fla. Cir., October 23, 2017), seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief and compensatory damages under the Americans
with Disabilities Act and the New York State Human Rights Law.

Defendant owns and operates www.eharmony.com, an online dating
service. Plaintiff is legally blind and claims that the website is
not accessible to the blind. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Faces "Flournoy" Suit in S.D. Indiana
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Enhanced Recovery
Company, LLC. The case is styled as Sheri Flournoy, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-04207-
WTL-TAB (S.D. Ind., November 13, 2017).

Enhanced Recovery provides business process outsourcing services
that include recovery, outsourcing, and market research.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
   MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
   1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
   Ocean, NJ 07712
   Tel: (732) 695-3282
   Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


EQUIFAX INC: Accused by Southwick of Not Securing Consumer Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARY JANE SOUTHWICK, SETH REAMS, SARAH HAMM, JULIAN WILSON, and
CORINICE WILSON, Oklahoma State consumers, individually, and on
behalf of others v. EQUIFAX, INC., EQUIFAX WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS,
INC. a/k/a TALX Corporation, Case No. 5:17-cv-01184-HE (W.D.
Okla., November 1, 2017), alleges that the data breach at Equifax
occurred because Equifax failed to implement adequate security
measures to safeguard consumers' data.

On September 7, 2017, Equifax advised the general public that
information that it collected on behalf of over 143 million
consumers was the subject of a data breach, in which unauthorized
individuals accessed the personal and credit information of those
individuals.

Equifax Inc. is a multi-billion dollar Georgia corporation that
provides credit information services to millions of businesses,
governmental units, and consumers across the globe.  Equifax
operates through various subsidiaries including Equifax
Information Services, LLC, and Equifax Consumer Services, LLC aka
Equifax Personal Solutions aka PSOL.  Equifax Workforce Solutions,
Inc., provides human resource, payroll, and tax management
solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          C. Austin Reams, Esq.
          REAMS LAW
          9208 North Kelley Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73131
          Telephone: (405) 285-6878
          Facsimile: (405) 840-1164
          E-mail: austin@reams.law



EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Faces "Barrow" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equinox Holdings,
Inc.  The case is styled as Hassan Barrow, on behalf of those
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Equinox Holdings, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-08821 (S.D. N.Y., November 13, 2017).

The Defendant operate fitness centers and spas providing personal
training, yoga instruction, massage and other personal services in
locations throughout the United States, including the State of
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Seeks Review of Order in "Munguia-Brown" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants EQR-Woodland Park A Limited Partnership, EQR-Woodland
Park B Limited Partnership, ERP Operating Limited Partnership,
Equity Residential and Equity Residential Management, LLC, filed
an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Javanni
Munguia-Brown, et al. v. Equity Residential, et al., Case No.
4:16-cv-01225-JSW, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Oakland.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Nov. 3, 2017, the Hon.
Jeffrey S. White entered an order certifying:

   1. a Standard Late Fee Class of:

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

   2. a Woodland Park Preexisting Lease Class of:

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

The appellate case is captioned as Javanni Munguia-Brown, et al.
v. Equity Residential, et al., Case No. 17-80233, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents JAVANNI MUNGUIA-BROWN, on behalf of others
similarly situated; ANGELINA MAGANA, on behalf of others similarly
situated; NORMA RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of others similarly situated;
and DAVID BONFANTI, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          William C. Jhaveri-Weeks, Esq.
          Linda M. Dardarian, Esq.
          Laura L. Ho, Esq.
          GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO
          300 Lakeside Drive
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 763-9800
          Facsimile: (510) 835-1417
          E-mail: wjhaveriweeks@gbdhlegal.com
                  ldardarian@gbdhlegal.com
                  lho@gbdhlegal.com

               - and -

          Craig Nicholas, Esq.
          Alex Tomasevic, Esq.
          NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
          225 Broadway
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 325-0492
          E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
                  atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org

               - and -

          Jason H. Tarricone, Esq.
          COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES IN EAST PALO ALTO
          1861 Bay Road
          East Palo Alto, CA 94303
          Telephone: (650) 326-6440
          Facsimile: (866) 688-5204
          E-mail: jason@clsepa.org

Defendants-Petitioners EQUITY RESIDENTIAL, a real estate
investment trust; ERP OPERATING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a
partnership; EQUITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, LLC; EQR-WOODLAND PARK
A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; and EQR-WOODLAND PARK B LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
are represented by:

          Aaron Thomas Winn, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS LLP
          750 B Street
          San Diego, CA 92101-4681
          Telephone: (619) 744-2222
          Facsimile: (619) 744-2201
          E-mail: atwinn@duanemorris.com

               - and -

          Craig White, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP
          191 North Wacker Drive, Suite 3100
          Chicago, IL 60606-1901
          Telephone: (312) 416-6207
          E-mail: cwhite@bakerlaw.com


FMA ALLIANCE: Faces "Mitchell" Suit in Eastern District New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FMA Alliance, Ltd.
The case is styled as Christina Mitchell, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FMA Alliance, Ltd.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-06617 (E.D. N.Y., November 13, 2017).

FMA Alliance is a privately owned receivables management company
originally formed in 1983 and headquartered in Houston, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
   Joseph H. Mizrahi Law, P.C.
   337 Avenue W, Suite 2f
   Brooklyn, NY 11223
   Tel: (917) 299-6612
   Fax: (347) 665-1545
   Email: jmizrahilaw@gmail.com


G & C AUTO BODY: Repair Technician's Suit Remand to State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order granting Plaintiff's Motion to Remand
and denying the Motion for Attorney's Fees in the case captioned
JACOB DIDIER, Plaintiff, v. G & C AUTO BODY, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 17-cv-04482-HSG (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Jacob Didier filed this putative class action against
Defendant G & C Auto Body, Inc. in Sonoma Superior Court.
Plaintiff alleges that he worked for Defendant as an automotive
repair technician and that Defendant erroneously classified him
and other automotive technicians as independent contractors.
Plaintiff further alleges that  the Internal Revenue Service
issued a determination, finding that Defendant had misclassified
workers as independent contractors for purposes of federal
employment taxes (SS-8 Determination).

A case may arise under federal law for the purpose of 28 U.S.C.
Section 1331 in two discreet circumstances.  First, a case arises
under federal law when federal law creates the cause of action
asserted. Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 257 (2013). Second, and as
relevant for the Court's analysis in this case, the Supreme Court
has also identified a "special and small category" of cases in
which arising under jurisdiction still lies for causes of action
asserted under state law.

Here, the Court lacks federal question jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. Section 1331. Plaintiff does not allege any federal cause
of action. Moreover, his fraud claims do not meet the four-part
test that must be satisfied to find that state law causes of
action arise under federal law.

The substantial requirement is also not met because the federal
issues presented are not sufficiently important to the federal
system as a whole. See Gunn, 568 U.S. at 260-61. To the contrary,
Plaintiff's fraud claims are highly fact-specific and turn on what
information a reasonable person would want to know before signing
an agreement releasing legal claims. Whether Defendant should have
informed Plaintiff about the SS-8 Determination does not alter the
fundamental nature of IRS determinations or federal tax law more
broadly.

The assertion of federal question jurisdiction in this case would
disrupt the federal-state balance approved by Congress if based on
the premise that all state law claims may be heard in federal
court if they merely reference a federal statute or agency
determination. Therefore, the Court holds that Plaintiffs' state-
law causes of action do not arise under federal law.

Accordingly, removal of this case was inappropriate because it
could not have been filed originally in federal court.  Since the
Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action, remand
is required.  However, the Court declines Plaintiff's request for
attorney fees under Section 1447(c) because Defendant's arguments
asserting federal question jurisdiction under the four-part test
from Gunn and Gable, while unpersuasive, are not objectively
unreasonable.

The Court grants Plaintiff's motion to remand the case to the
Sonoma Superior Court and denies Plaintiff's motion for attorneys'
fees.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 26, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/ybbwv5pkfrom Leagle.com.

Jacob Didier, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey E. Beeson --
jeff@beesonterhorst.com --  Beeson Terhorst LLP.

Jacob Didier, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Anthony Terhorst,
Sr., Beeson Terhorst LLP, 510 Bercut Dr Ste V, Sacramento, CA,
95814

G & C Auto Body, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian Samuel Fong
-- bfong@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter Hampton,
John David Ellis -- jellis@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard, Mullin,
Richter & Hampton LLP, Krista Stevenson Johnson --
ksjohnson@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter &
Hampton LLP & Babak G. Yousefzadeh --
byousefzadeh@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton LLP.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Powell Sues Over Breach of Duties Under ERISA
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY POWELL, FRANK MAGLIOCCA, KELVIN DOUGLAS, and MELINDA
STUBBLEFIELD, 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 STOCKTON, CHERYL BEACOCK, ANAND HARI, RALPH RICHARD LAYMAN,
DAN TOREY, DANIEL O. COLAO and JOHN DOES 1-25, Case No. 1:17-cv-
12139 (D. Mass., November 1, 2017), is brought pursuant to the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act against the fiduciaries of
the Plan for breaches of the ERISA-imposed fiduciary duties.

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 Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          155 Federal Street, Suite 400
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 398-5600
          Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
          E-mail: jason@blockesq.com

               - and -

          R. Joseph Barton, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          1735 20th St NW,
          Washington DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 734-7046
          E-mail: jbarton@blockesq.com

               - and -

          Mark C. Gardy, Esq.
          Orin Kurtz, Esq.
          GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
          Tower 56
          126 East 56th Street
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 905-0509
          Facsimile: (212) 905-0508
          E-mail: mgardy@gardylaw.com
                  okurtz@gardylaw.com


GGP INC: Williams Files Class Action in Colorado
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GGP, Inc.  The case
is styled as Christopher Williams and Marty Davis, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GGP,
Inc., GGP Operating Partnership, LP, GGP Nimbus, LP, GGP Limited
Partnership, General Growth Management, Inc., General Growth
Services, Inc, GGP Jordan Creek LLC, Oakbrook Anchor Acquisition
LLC and Park Meadows Mall LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02723-
STV (D. Colo., November 14, 2017).

GGP Inc. is a publicly-traded real estate investment trust that
invests in shopping centers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are presented by:

   Benjamin James Sweet, Esq.
   Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter LLP
   1133 Penn Avenue
   5th Floor
   Pittsburgh, PA 15222
   Tel: (412) 322-9243
   Fax: (412) 231-0246
   Email: bsweet@carlsonlynch.com

HULCHER SERVICES: Grayson Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
DEVIN GRAYSON, ERIC RAMMELSBURG, & JOEY LUMAN v. HULCHER SERVICES
INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-02636 (D. Kan., October 31, 2017), is
brought as:

   (a) a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act to
       recover alleged unpaid overtime wages owed to the
       Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated employees
       employed by the Defendant; and

   (b) a Rule 23 class action under various state laws for
       failure to pay wages pursuant to state/federal law, for
       breach of contract, and for unjust enrichment/quantum
       meruit.

Hulcher Services Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of
the state of Delaware, with its principal place of business
located in Denton, Texas.  Hulcher is a service contractor to
railroads, general industry and government.

According to its Web site, Hulcher owns and operates 29 locations
in the United States, where the Plaintiffs and the putative class
members were employed.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew E. Osman, Esq.
          Kathryn S. Rickley, Esq.
          OSMAN & SMAY LLP
          8500 W. 110th St., Suite 330
          Overland Park, KS 66210
          Telephone: (913) 667-9243
          Facsimile: (866) 470-9243
          E-mail: mosman@workerwagerights.com
                  krickley@workerwagerights.com

               - and -

          Sean M. McGivern, Esq.
          GRAYBILL & HAZLEWOOD, LLC
          218 N. Mosley St.
          Wichita, KS 67202
          Telephone: (316) 266-4058
          Facsimile: (316) 462-5566
          E-mail: sean@graybillhazlewood.com


HUNTLEIGH USA: Wage and Hour Suit Settlement Has Preliminary OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, issued an Order granting Parties' Stipulated
Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement in
the case captioned ALIN MUSE, an individual, Plaintiff, v.
HUNTLEIGH USA CORPORATION, a foreign corporation; RICHARD SPORN,
an individual; DIANE GALFORD, an individual, Defendants, Case No.
2:16-cv-00357-RSL (W.D. Wash.).

Pursuant to Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c), the Court conditionally
certifies, for settlement purposes only, the following Settlement
Class:

     All employees of the Defendants who are alleged to have been
either Hospitality Workers or Transportation Workers and who
worked one or more hours within the City of SeaTac at any time
during the time period from January 1, 2014, to February 14, 2016,
and who were paid less than the prevailing minimum wage prescribed
by City of SeaTac Ordinance 7.45.050, i.e., a base rate of $15.00
per hour in 2014 and $15.24.

The Court finds that the program of Class Notice and the manner of
its dissemination is the best practicable notice under the
circumstances and is reasonably calculated to apprise the
Settlement Class of the pendency of this Action and their right to
object to or exclude themselves from the Settlement Class.
The Court further finds that the Class Notice program is
reasonable, that it constitutes due, adequate and sufficient
notice to all persons entitled to receive notice and that it meets
the requirements of due process and CR 23. The Court accordingly
approves the Notice.

Persons in the Settlement Class will possess the right to opt out
by sending a written request to a designated address within thirty
(30) days after the Notice Deadline. All Settlement Class Members
who do not opt out in accordance with the terms set forth herein
will be bound by all determinations and judgments in the Action.

The Final Hearing, is scheduled on February 22, 2018 at 8:30 a.m.
in Courtroom 15106 at the United States Courthouse, 700 Stewart
Street, Seattle, WA 98101.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 26, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/y9cjdvmtfrom Leagle.com.

Alin Muse, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel R. Whitmore, 2626 15th
Ave W, Seattle, WA 98119, USA

Alin Muse, Plaintiff, represented by Duncan Calvert Turner,
BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC & Mark A. Trivett, BADGLEY MULLINS
TURNER PLLC, 19929 Ballinger Way NE, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98155
Huntleigh USA Corporation, Defendant, represented by John B.
Renick, MCMAHON BERGER, renick@mcmahonberger.com, pro hac vice,
Kenneth J. Diamond -- ken@winterbauerdiamond.com -- WINTERBAUER &
DIAMOND Stephen B. Maule -- maule@mcmahonberger.com --  MCMAHON
BERGER, pro hac vice & Vanessa B. Chambers --
vanessa@winterbauerdiamond.com --  WINTERBAUER & DIAMOND.
Richard Sporn, Defendant, represented by Kenneth J. Diamond,
WINTERBAUER & DIAMOND.

Diane Galford, Defendant, represented by Kenneth J. Diamond,
WINTERBAUER & DIAMOND.


INFUSION SOFTWARE: "McNamara" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wage
------------------------------------------------------------------
MARY MCNAMARA, Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. INFUSION SOFTWARE INC., an Arizona corporation, CLATE
MASK and CHARISSE MASK, a married couple; CURTIS SMITH and JANE
DOE SMITH, a married couple; HAL HALLADAY and GINA CALDWELL
HALLADAY, a married couple; KEITH REED, a married man, Case No.
2:17-cv-04026-SPL (D. Ariz., October 31, 2017), seeks to recover
alleged unpaid overtime at the rate of one-and-one-half times
their regular rate of pay for all time worked in excess of 40
hours in a given workweek pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Infusion Software Inc. is a Delaware corporation doing business in
Arizona.  The Individual Defendants are owners, officers or agents
of the Company.  Infusion provides sales and marketing software.
The Company offers integrate systems for CRM management, marketing
and sales automation, and online sales.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brad A. Denton, Esq.
          Timothy F. Coons, Esq.
          DENTON PETERSON, P.C.
          1930 N. Arboleda Road, Suite 200
          Mesa, AZ 85213
          Telephone: (480) 325-9900
          Facsimile: (480) 325-9901
          E-mail: Brad@DentonPeterson.com
                  Timothy@DentonPeterson.com


INTELIFI INC: Faces Suit in C. Dist. Cal. Over Consumer Report
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Intelifi, Inc.  The
case is styled as John Doe, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Intelifi, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 2:17-cv-08249 (C.D. Cal., November 13, 2017).

Intelifi is a consumer reporting agency. Plaintiff applied for
employment with Marshall Electronics and signed an authorization
allowing Marshall to obtain a consumer report about him from
Intelifi.  Marshall withdrew its employment offer because of
information provided by Intelifi.  He was never provided a copy of
the said report. [BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


JAY AMBANI HOSPITALITY: Faces "Lopez" Suit in Calif. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jay Ambani
Hospitality, Inc. The case is styled as Maria Lopez, individually,
and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Jay Ambani Hospitality, Inc., a California
Corporation, Stockdale Hotel Group, LLC, a California Limited
Liability Company and OM STI Mai Hospitality, LLC, a California
Limited Liability Company, Defendants, Case No. BCV-17-102656
(Cal. Super. Ct., November 14, 2017).

Jay Ambani Hospitality, Inc. is located in Bakersfield, CA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
   410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
   Glendale, CA 91203
   Tel: 818-265-1020


KEHE FOOD: Court Approves Class Settlement in Sales Reps' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, Southern District of California,
issued an Order granting Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of
Class Action Settlement in the case captioned ERIK SANTANA, an
individual, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated
and the general public, Plaintiffs, v. KeHe FOOD DISTRIBUTORS,
INC., an Illinois corporation; and DOES 1 through 100 inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 15cv2963-LAB (DHB) (S.D. Cal.).

The Court finds that Plaintiff has satisfied the standards and
applicable requirements for final approval of this class action
settlement under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Court finds that the Settlement has been reached as a result
of non-collusive arm's-length negotiations after sufficient
discovery, investigation and research. The Court also finds that
settlement at this time will avoid additional substantial costs,
as well as the delay and risks that would be presented by the
further prosecution of the litigation. The Court has reviewed the
benefits that are being granted as part of the Settlement and
recognizes their significant value to Class Members. The Parties
to the Settlement Agreement are hereby directed to effectuate the
Settlement according to its terms.

The Court previously conditionally certified the Class for
settlement purposes. The Court grants final certification
approval, for settlement purposes, to the Class, consisting of:

     All persons who are or have been employed as Field Sales
Representatives and/or Field Sales associates (or similar titles)
by KeHe Distributors, Inc. in the State of California from
November 16, 2011 through January 18, 2017.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has satisfied the standards and
applicable requirements for final approval of this class action
settlement under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Court finds that the Settlement has been reached as a result
of non-collusive arm's-length negotiations after sufficient
discovery, investigation and research. The Court also finds that
settlement at this time will avoid additional substantial costs,
as well as the delay and risks that would be presented by the
further prosecution of the litigation.

The Court confirms the Law Offices of Thomas D. Rutledge and
Thomas D. Rutledge, and the Law Offices of J.D. Henderson and J.D.
Henderson as Class Counsel in the action.

The parties have allocated $5,000 towards the release of PAGA
claims. The sum of $5,000 will be paid to the California Labor and
Workforce Development Agency for the release of PAGA claims, in
accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 26, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/y7o8jll3from Leagle.com.

Erik Santana, Plaintiff, represented by J.D. Henderson --
jdlaw@charter.net --  The Law Offices of J.D. Henderson.

Erik Santana, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas D. Rutledge --
thomasrutledgelaw@gmail.com --  Law Office of Thomas D Rutledge.
Kehe Food Distributors, Inc., Defendant, represented by Steve Lou
Hernandez --  shernandez@btlaw.com -- Barnes & Thornburg LLP.


LAKE NORMAN: Ross Wants to Recover Overtime Under FLSA and NYLL
---------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW ROSS v. LAKE NORMAN ENTERPRISES, LLC and NICHOLAS MINERVA,
Case No. 1:17-cv-06332 (E.D.N.Y., October 31, 2017), is brought on
behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated alleging
that pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law, they are entitled to recover from the Defendants: (1)
unpaid overtime wages, (2) liquidated damages, (3) prejudgment and
post-judgment interest; and (4) attorneys' fees and costs.

Lake Norman Enterprises, LLC, is a commercial excavation company
located in Hauppauge, New York.  Nicholas Minerva is the owner,
officer, director and/or managing agent of Lake Norman.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Brown, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC.
          136-20 39th Ave., Suite 10G
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353-8588
          E-mail: wbrown@hanglaw.com


LIBERTY MUTUAL: Consumer Fraud Suit Remanded to Wash. State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for Western District of
Washington, Seattle, granted Plaintiff's Motion to Remand the case
captioned STAN SCHIFF, M.D. PH.D, Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL
FIRE INSURANCE CO., et al., Defendant, Case No. C17-914 MJP (W.D.
Wash.) to the King County Superior Court.

This is a class action over reductions Defendants Liberty Mutual
Fire Insurance Company and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company have
made to bills from health care providers for services rendered to
accident victims covered by personal injury protection policies
(PIP).

Plaintiff alleges Liberty Mutual reduces bills for PIP coverage to
the 80th percentile of charges, regardless of whether the
reductions are reasonable or not. This lawsuit claimed that this
practice violates state law on PIP coverage requiring Liberty
Mutual to provide coverage for all reasonable medical expenses"
and also violates the Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA).

Liberty Mutual argues, without citation to authority, that it can
manufacture federal question jurisdiction by asserting a future
affirmative defense from a settlement in a separate class action
to which Plaintiff was not a party. The Court rejects this
attempted evasion of CAFA; federal jurisdiction is determined at
the time of removal, not by future events.  The class claim here
is based on Washington law and is not removable.

Liberty Mutual asserts that a substantial question of federal law
is necessarily raised" by its affirmative defense that federal due
process binds the members of Plaintiff's class to a judgment
entered in another class action matter from Illinois.

Liberty Mutual's due process argument is not in actual dispute.
Defendant argues that, at a later date, it will move to dismiss
the class claim based on the Lebanon agreement, at which point the
class here may make a due process response, which Defendant then
argues would be irrelevant. Liberty Mutual fails to identify any
other due process issue besides the Lebanon settlement which is in
actual dispute. It is entirely unclear what the actual dispute
might be.

The issue which Defendant presents a potential due process
challenge of a state court class action settlement agreement does
not represent a substantial issue for the federal system. Liberty
Mutual cites to no case which has so held, instead relying on a
full faith and credit argument that makes little sense.

Liberty Mutual argues that it must only prove that there is more
than $75,000 at issue by a preponderance of the evidence, citing
in support a U.S. District Court CAFA case in which the complaint
failed to state that less than $75,000 was at issue. To call this
inadequate would be an understatement. Defendant compounds this
shortcoming by speculating on the amount of fees which might be
incurred by Plaintiff on his individual claim, in a district where
the judges adhere to the rule that only fees as of removal are
considered.

Defendant fails to prove to a legal certainty that Plaintiff's
individual claim exceeds $75,000 and thus its proof of diversity
jurisdiction fails.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 26, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/ycgs9uqefrom Leagle.com.

Stan Schiff, M.D. Ph.D., Plaintiff, represented by Cynthia J.
Heidelberg -- cheidelberg@bjtlegal.com -- BRESKIN JOHNSON &
TOWNSEND PLLC.

Stan Schiff, M.D. Ph.D., Plaintiff, represented by David Elliot
Breskin -- dbreskin@bjtlegal.com -- BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND
PLLC.

Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co., Defendant, represented by John
Michael Silk -- silk@wscd.com -- WILSON SMITH COCHRAN & DICKERSON,
Marc Fuller -- mfuller@velaw.com -- VINSON & ELKINS, pro hac vice
& Russell R. Yager -- ryager@velaw.com -- VINSON & ELKINS, pro hac
vice.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by John
Michael Silk, WILSON SMITH COCHRAN & DICKERSON, Marc Fuller,
VINSON & ELKINS, pro hac vice & Russell R. Yager, VINSON & ELKINS,
pro hac vice.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Counter Claimant, represented by
John Michael Silk, WILSON SMITH COCHRAN & DICKERSON, Marc Fuller,
VINSON & ELKINS, pro hac vice & Russell R. Yager, VINSON & ELKINS,
pro hac vice.

Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co., Counter Claimant, represented
by John Michael Silk, WILSON SMITH COCHRAN & DICKERSON, Marc
Fuller, VINSON & ELKINS, pro hac vice & Russell R. Yager, VINSON &
ELKINS, pro hac vice.

Stan Schiff, M.D. Ph.D., Counter Defendant, represented by Cynthia
J. Heidelberg, BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND PLLC & David Elliot
Breskin, BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND PLLC.


MDL 2455: $295MM Class Settlement Has Preliminary Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of
Class Settlement and Approval of Notice Plan in the case captioned
IN RE: STERICYCLE, INC., STERI-SAFE CONTRACT LITIGATION, Case No.
13 C 5795, MDL No. 2455 (N.D. Ill.).

The Court holds that the Settlement Agreement is clearly entitled
to preliminary approval, with all relevant considerations having
been anticipated by the parties and dealt with in totally
responsible fashion.

Garden City Group, LLC, is designated as the Class Action
Settlement Administrator.  Paragraph 12 identifies the Class
Period as running from March 8, 2003 through the Preliminary
Approval date of October 26, 2017.

The proposed Settlement Amount is set at $295 million (including
all costs) if the conditions for final approval of the Settlement
Agreement.  Paragraph D specifies that best efforts are to be
exercised to begin payments to Class Members within 180 days after
the Final Effective Date, with those best efforts to continue
looking toward a completion of such payments within 270 days after
the Final Effective Date.

Service Awards to be paid to individual plaintiffs for their time
and effort expended in the course of this litigation up to a
maximum of the greater of (1) $5,000 and (2) $100 per hour.
Paragraph IV.B provides that the maximum fees awardable to Hagens
Berman, subject to Court approval, may amount to $40 million,
together with out-of-pocket costs up to a maximum of $2.8 million.
Although the Court has not yet had the parties' input looking
toward such a fee award, something that would take place only
after final approval and the implementation of the Settlement
Agreement, it is noteworthy that the $40 million potential maximum
would amount to 13.6% of the $295 million Settlement Amount, which
compares very favorably with the frequently approved fee awards in
other class action matters ranging in the 30% through 33% range.

$175,000 (an amount that may be increased if necessary) is
allocated to pay for the Notice and Administrative Costs required
to move the action forward, with that amount to be increased if it
proves necessary.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 26, 2017 Opinion
and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y9hk9svlfrom
Leagle.com.

In re Stericycle, Inc., Sterisafe Contract Litigation, represented
by Raymond J. Etcheverry -- retcheverry@parsonsbehle.com --
Parsons, Behle & Latimer.

In re Stericycle, Inc., Sterisafe Contract Litigation, represented
by Richard H. Middleton, Jr., The Middleton Firm, LLC. 107 East
Gordon Street   Savannah, GA 31401   912.234.1133

In re Stericycle, Inc., Sterisafe Contract Litigation, represented
by Cory D. Sinclair -- csinclair@parsonsbehle.com -- Parsons Behle
& Latimer, pro hac vice, Elinor Hart Murarova --
EHart@duanemorris.com -- Duane Morris LLP, Juliette P. White --
jwhite@parsonsbehle.com -- Parsons Behle & Latimer, pro hac vice,
Mark A. Glick -- mglick@parsonsbehle.com -- Parsons Behle &
Latimer, pro hac vice & Paul Evans Chronis, Duane Morris LLP.

Lyndon Veterinary Clinic, PLLC, Plaintiff, represented by Steve W.
Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
Daniel J. Kurowski -- dank@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP & Elizabeth A. Fegan -- beth@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Harry C. Midgley, III, Plaintiff, represented by Barry L. Davis,
Thornton Davis & Fein & Nanci Rachel Schanerman, Thornton, Davis &
Fein, P.A., Brickell BayView Centre80 South West 8th Street Suite,
2900 Miami, FL 33130

Anesthesia & Pain Medicine, P.A., Plaintiff, represented by Barry
L. Davis, Thornton Davis & Fein & Nanci Rachel Schanerman,
Thornton, Davis & Fein, P.A..

Doctors Outpatient Surgery Center of Jupiter, L.L.C., Plaintiff,
represented by Barry L. Davis, Thornton Davis & Fein & Nanci
Rachel Schanerman, Thornton, Davis & Fein, P.A..

COCHRANTON VETERINARY HOSPITAL, Plaintiff, represented by Steve W.
Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Joseph G. Sauder --
jgs@mccunewright.com -- McCuneWright, LLP & Katrina Carroll --
kcarroll@litedepalma.com -- Lite DePalma Greenberg LLC.

Michael J. Brucker, M.D., P.C., Plaintiff, represented by Michael
Andrew Mcshane -- mmcshane@audetlaw.com -- Audet & Partners LLP,
pro hac vice, Aaron Scott Chait, Wexler Wallace LLP, Dana Marie
Isaac, Audet & Partners Llp, Kenneth A. Wexler, Wexler Wallace
LLP, 55 W Monroe St Suite 3300, Chicago, IL 60603  & Robert Kinney
-- rkshelquist@locklaw.com -- Shelquist, Lockridge Grundal Nauen &
Holstein PLLP.

Sassan Alavi, M.D., Plaintiff, represented by Allison F. Borts,
Gordon & Rees LLP & Michael David Scully, Gordon & Rees Llp, 101
W. Broadway, suite 2000 San Diego, California 92101, pro hac vice.

Stericycle, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kathleen Patricia
Lally --  kathleen.lally@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP & Mark
Steven Mester -- mark.mester@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP.

Stericycle Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel J. Brady,
Hagerty & Brady & Michael A. Brady, Hagerty & Brady, 516 W
Washington St, Sandusky, OH 44870, USA

Stericycle Specialty Waste Solutions, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Michael A. Brady, Hagerty & Brady.

Service List, represented by Raymond J. Etcheverry --
retcheverry@parsonsbehle.com -- Parsons, Behle & Latimer, Stephen
P. Fogerty -- fogerty@halloransage.com -- Halloran & Sage, Adam J.
Levitt -- alevitt@dlcfirm.com -- Dicello Levitt & Casey LLC,
Allison F. Borts -- aborts@gordonrees.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP,
Arthur H. Stroyd, Jr., Del Sole Cavanugh Stroyd LLC, 3 Ppg Pl Ste
600, Pittsburgh, PA 15222, Barry L. Davis, Thornton Davis & Fein,
1221 Brickell Ave, #1600, Miami, FL 33131, Benjamin F. Johns --
BenJohns@chimicles.com -- Chimicles & Tikellis LLP, Brooks Eason -
- beason@bakerdonelson.com -- BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL &
BERKOWITZ, PC, Charles Ferrier Zimmer, II, Davillier Law Group,
LLC, 935 Gravier Stree, Suite 1702, New Orleans, LA, 70112-2454
pro hac vice, Cory D. Sinclair -- csinclair@parsonsbehle.com --
Parsons Behle & Latimer, pro hac vice, Danielle Alexis Denkmann,
Gordon & Rees, LLP, 1 N Franklin St Ste 800, Chicago, IL 60606,
Elinor Hart Murarova -- ehart@duanemorris.com -- Duane Morris LLP,
Eric J. O'Bell, Gauthier, Houghtaling & Williams, 3500 North
Hullen Street Metairie, Louisiana 70002, Erik A. Christiansen --
echristiansen@parsonsbehle.com -Parsons Behle & Latimer, Garth
Wojtanowicz -- garthw@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro,
pro hac vice, Heather Elizabeth Gibson- hgibson@gibsonhealth-
law.com -- Law Office of Heather Gibson, P.C., James H. Ryan --
jryan@robertsonryan.com -- Gordon & Rees, LLP, Jason Robert
Harrington, Harrington & Gokhale, PLLC, 303 5th Ave Rm 1302, New
York, NY, 10016-6646, John S. Hughes, Wallace and Graham, P.A.,
525 N. Main St., Salisbury, NC 28144, Lisa Von Eschen --
lvoneschen@lkfirm.com -- Lamb and Kawakami, LLP, Matthew Schechter
-- mschechter@mcmanislaw.com -- McManis Faulkner, Michael J. Saltz
-- info@jrsnd.com --  Jacobsen Russell Saltz & Fingerman LLP, Mona
Lisa Wallace, 525 N. Main St., Salisbury, NC 28144, Wallace And
Graham, P.A., Nicole Griffin Farrell, Parsons Behle & Latimer, 201
S Main St Ste 1800, Salt Lake City, UT 84111, Paul Evans Chronis -
- pechronis@duanemorris.com --
Duane Morris LLP, Raymond J. Etcheverry --
retcheverry@parsonsbehle.com -- Parsons, Behle & Latimer, Samuel
D. Gregory -- sdgregory@bakerdonelson.com -- BAKER, DONELSON,
BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC, Sarah Byer Miller, Bass, Berry
& Sims, 150 3rd Ave S Ste 2800, Nashville, TN, 37201-2017, Scott
A. Bursor -- scott@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A., Thomas M.
Sobol -- tom@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, W.
Brantley Phillips, Jr., Bass Berry & Sims PLC, 150 3rd Ave S Ste
2800, Nashville, TN, 37201-2017, William Davis Frye --
dfrye@bakerdonelson.com -- BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL &
BERKOWITZ, PC & Yitzchak Kopel -- ykopel@bursor.com -- Bursor &
Fisher, P.A., pro hac vice.


MDL 2796: "Leiser" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on September 25, 2017 captioned
Bennett Leiser, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. BMW AG; BMW North America, LLC; Volkswagen AG;
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.; Audi AG; Audi of America, Inc.;
Audi of America, LLC; DR. ING. H.C. F. Porsche AG; Porsche Cars
North America, Inc.; Bentley Motors Limited; Daimler AG; Mercedes-
Benz USA, LLC; Mercedes-Benz Vans, LLC; Mercedes-Benz U.S.
International, Case No. 9:17-cv-81067 was transferred on November
3, 2017, from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (San Francisco). The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:17-cv-06429-CRB to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation No.
2796. The lead case is 3:17-md-02796-CRB.

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:

      Keith Andrew Goldbaum, Esq.
      FRIEDMAN ROSENWASSER & GOLDBAUM
      5355 Town Center Road, Suite 801
      Boca Raton, FL 33486-1092
      Telephone: (561) 395-5511
      Facsimile: 368-9274
      E-mail: goldboca@aol.com


METTERS INC: Ortiz Seeks to Recoup Wages, Benefits Under WARN Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS ORTIZ and VICTOR VALERIO, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. METTERS INC. d/b/a METTERS
INDUSTRIES, INC., Case No. 6:17-cv-01879-PGB-DCI (M.D. Fla.,
November 1, 2017), is a proposed class action for collection of
unpaid wages and benefits for 60 calendar days pursuant to the
Workers Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988.

The Defendant is liable under the WARN Act for the failure to
provide the Plaintiffs and the other similarly situated former
employees at least 60 days' advance notice of their termination as
required by the WARN Act, the Plaintiffs contend.

Metters Inc. operates a manufacturing facility, which has several
locations, including but not limited to, a facility in located in
Orlando, Florida, which employs hundreds of employees.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Chad A. Justice, Esq.
          BLACK ROCK TRIAL LAWYERS
          201 S Westland Avenue
          Tampa, FL 33606
          Telephone: 813-254-1777
          Facsimile: 813-254-3999
          E-mail: chadjustice@blackrocklaw.com


METROPOLITAN CASUALTY: MSP Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action lawsuit styled MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS,
SERIES LLC, a Delaware entity v. METROPOLITAN CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY, a Foreign Profit Corporation, Case No. 2017-018979-CA-01,
was removed on October 31, 2017, from the 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-23982-KMW to
the proceeding.

The primary basis alleged for the Plaintiff's Complaint, appearing
in its very first paragraph, is that "Defendant failed to fulfill
its statutory-mandated duty under the Medicare Secondary Payer
('MSP') laws to reimburse Medicare Advantage Organizations
('MAOs') for medical treatment and expenses paid by Plaintiff and
the putative Class Members . . . on behalf of Medicare
beneficiaries who entered into a settlement with Defendant."

According to the Plaintiff, under "the MSP laws, MAOs are, by law,
secondary payers for any medical expenses that are also covered by
the terms and conditions of a primary policy," and Defendant's no-
fault automobile insurance policies provide for primary coverage
for medical bills incurred as the result of an auto accident.

The Plaintiff claims to be the assignee of "numerous MAOs" that
paid Medicare benefits on behalf of Defendant's insureds, referred
to in the Complaint as Medicare beneficiaries, who were allegedly
insureds under Defendant's no-fault policies.  The Plaintiff has
alleged that the Defendant was primarily responsible for the
payment of these insureds' Medicare expenses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gino Moreno, Esq.
          John H. Ruiz, Esq.
          MSP RECOVERY
          5000 SW 75th Avenue, Suite 400
          Miami, FL 33155
          Telephone: (305) 614-2222
          E-mail: gmoreno@msprecovery.com
                  jruiz@msprecovery.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Angel A. Cortinas, Esq.
          Jonathan H. Kaskel, Esq.
          GUNSTER
          600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3500
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 376-6000
          Facsimile: (305) 376-6010
          E-mail: acortinas@gunster.com
                  jkaskel@gunster.com


MODESTO, CA: Court Wants Supplement to Support Class Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, Eastern District of California,
issued an Order requiring submission of supplemental in support of
stipulation and proposed Order for approval of settlement
agreement and dismissal with prejudice in the case captioned
MICHAEL CHARLES BEIDLEMAN, on behalf of himself and all similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF MODESTO, Defendants,
No. 1:16-cv-01100-DAD-SKO (E.D. Cal.).

This is an action brought by plaintiff Michael Charles Beidleman
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated against
defendant the City of Modesto. In his complaint, plaintiff alleges
that he and the putative class members were denied proper
compensation in violation of the provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) when defendant failed to include all
statutorily required forms of compensation in the regular rate of
pay used to calculate plaintiffs' overtime compensation.

The parties stipulated that the Settlement Agreement contains a
fair and just negotiated resolution to the current dispute between
the parties in this case. The court has no reason to doubt that
representation by counsel in light of the fact that the settlement
was achieved by way of a court supervised settlement conference,
presided over by a magistrate judge of this court. However, the
parties' stipulation provides no factual representations or
analysis as to why this settlement agreement is a fair and
reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute.

The parties are directed to supplement their stipulation for
approval and dismissal by way of declaration(s), briefing or both,
addressing the fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness of the
settlement.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 26, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/yav73oeefrom Leagle.com.

Michael Charles Beidleman, Plaintiff, represented by Ace Thomas
Tate -- atate@mastagni.com  -- Mastagni Holstedt, APC.

Michael Charles Beidleman, Plaintiff, represented by David Emilio
Mastagni, Mastagni Holstedt, APC, 1912 I Street, Sacramento, CA
95811 & Isaac Sean Stevens -- istevens@mastagni.com --  Mastagni
Holstedt

City of Modesto, Defendant, represented by Arthur A. Hartinger --
ahartinger@publiclawgroup.com -- Renne Sloan Holtzman Sakai, LLC &
Kevin P. McLaughlin -- kmclaughlin@publiclawgroup.com -- Renne
Sloan Holtzman Sakai LLP.


MONEX DEPOSIT: Faces "Bergeron" Class Suit Over "Atlas" Platform
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bradley Bergeron, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Monex Deposit Company, Monex Credit Company,
Newport Services Corporation, Louis Carabini, and Michael
Carabini, Case No. 8:17-cv-01968 (C.D. Cal., November 6, 2017),
arises from the Defendants' false and misleading advertisements
and other marketing communications made from July 16, 2011,
through March 31, 2017, which misrepresented purported benefits
and downplayed or concealed the significant risks associated with
investing in precious metals through Monex's off-exchange "Atlas"
trading platform.

The Defendants operate an investment service company located at
4910 Birch Street, Newport Beach, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert G. Loewy, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT G. LOEWY, P.C.
      20 Enterprise, Suite 310
      Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
      Telephone: (949) 468-7150
      Facsimile: (949) 242-5105
      E-mail: rloewy@rloewy.com

         - and -

      Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
      Geoffrey C. Jarvis, Esq.
      Meredith L. Lambert, Esq.
      KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
      280 King of Prussia Road
      Radnor, PA 19087
      Telephone: (610) 667-7706
      Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
      E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
              gjarvis@ktmc.com
              mlambert@ktmc.com

         - and -

      Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
      Mark J. Dearman, Esq.
      Jason H. Alperstein, Esq.
      Ricardo J. Marenco, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 750-3000
      Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
      E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
              mdearman@rgrdlaw.com
              jalperstein@rgrdlaw.com
              rmarenco@rgrdlaw.com


MORRIS HATCHERY: Refuses to Pay Overtime Wages, Sanchez Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALFONSO SANCHEZ and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(b) v. MORRIS HATCHERY, INC., EDWARD G. MORRIS, Case No. 1:17-
cv-24020-DPG (S.D. Fla., November 1, 2017), accuses the Defendants
of willfully and intentionally refusing to pay the Plaintiff's
overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Morris Hatchery, Inc., is a corporation that regularly transacts
business within Dade County.  Edward G. Morris is a corporate
officer, owner or manager of the Defendant Corporation.

The Company regularly purchased and resold eggs from other
hatcheries and/or other farmers during the relevant time period
and regularly purchased hatched turkeys from other farmers for
immediate resale.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NATURE'S WAY: Court Narrows Claims in "McDonnell"
-------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, issued an Opinion and Order granting
in part and denying in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the
second amended complaint in the case captioned ANGEL McDONNELL,
Plaintiff, v. NATURE'S WAY PRODUCTS, LLC, Defendant, No. 16 C 5011
(N.D. Ill.).

McDonnell, a resident of Plainfield, Illinois, purchased Women's
Alive on several occasions in CVS and Walgreens stores in Joliet
and Plainfield, Illinois.  Women's Alive is one of a number of
vitamin supplements manufactured and sold by Nature's Way.
Women's Alive includes vitamin C in the form of ascorbic acid as a
significant ingredient. Although the ascorbic acid is manufactured
outside of the United States, the Women's Alive label states both
on the bottom of the box and the bottle that it is "Made in USA."

But pursuant to the Federal Trade Commission's guidelines
concerning domestic source representations, because the product
contains foreign-sourced vitamin C, Nature's Way should qualify
the Made in USA statement. McDonnell relied on the representation
that Women's Alive was made in the USA when buying the supplement
because she prefers to purchase goods made in the United States
instead of imported goods and she believed that the vitamins
contained in the supplement did not originate from foreign
sources.

Nature's Way produces an additional 69 other products, listed in
the second amended complaint, which use ascorbic acid or other
unspecified ingredients not made in the United States but are
nonetheless marketed as Made in USA.

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) challenges the sufficiency
of the complaint, not its merits. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In
considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court accepts
as true all well-pleaded facts in the plaintiff's complaint and
draws all reasonable inferences from those facts in the
plaintiff's favor.

To state an ICFA claim, McDonnell must allege (1) a deceptive or
unfair act or practice by Nature's Way, (2) Nature's Way's intent
that McDonnell rely on the deceptive or unfair practice, (3) the
deceptive or unfair practice occurred in the course of conduct
involving trade or commerce, and (4) Nature's Way's deceptive or
unfair practice caused McDonnell actual damage.

The Court does not find the cases Nature's Way cites in support of
its renewed argument to compel a different result. The Court
already distinguished Demedicis v. CVS Health Corp. in its prior
opinion, finding that although McDonnell's allegations are
relatively bare-boned, they cure the issue identified in
Demedicis, where the plaintiff did not even allege that, but for
the alleged deception, he would not have purchased the Supplements
or that the supplements were more expensive because they were
marked Made in U.S.A. No. 16-cv-5973, 2017 WL 569157, (N.D. Ill.
Feb. 13, 2017).

The Court disagrees with the Sabo v. Wellpet, LLC, court, which
imposed a more stringent pleading standard on the plaintiff,
noting he did not plead that he actually paid more for the
purchased products because he believed them to be American-made
and requiring a factual foundation for his estimation of their
worth at the pleading stage.

Therefore, the Court stands by its prior Opinion finding McDonnell
has adequately pleaded pecuniary injury and turns to Nature's
Way's remaining arguments.

Nature's Way argues that the Court does not have personal
jurisdiction over it for McDonnell's claims related to sales of
Women's Alive outside of Illinois and the sale of other Nature's
Way products referenced in paragraphs 22 and 24 of the second
amended complaint both within and outside of Illinois because
McDonnell never bought these products, having only bought Women's
Alive in Illinois.

McDonnell responds that specific personal jurisdiction exists in
Illinois because Nature's Way has purposely chosen to market
mislabeled products in Illinois.

Personal jurisdiction comes in two forms: general and specific.
The Court need not address general jurisdiction, because McDonnell
only contends that the Court has specific jurisdiction over
Nature's Way for her multi-state and non-Women's Alive claims.
Specific jurisdiction exists when the defendant purposefully
directs its activities at the forum state and the alleged injury
arises out of those activities. The Court looks to the defendant's
suit-related conduct and its connection to the forum state; a
defendant's relationship with a plaintiff or third party, standing
alone, is an insufficient basis for jurisdiction.
Additionally, a state may not assert specific jurisdiction over a
non-resident's claim where the connection to the state is based on
the defendant's conduct in relation to a resident plaintiff, and
not the non-resident plaintiff.  The mere fact that other resident
plaintiffs" took defendant's drugs in the state and sustained the
same injuries as non-resident plaintiffs did not provide the
required connection between the forum and the specific claims at
issue for the Court to exercise jurisdiction over the non-
residents' claims against defendant.

The Court grants in part and denies in part Nature's Way's motion
to dismiss. The Court dismisses McDonnell's claims related to the
products listed in paragraphs 22 and 24 of the second amended
complaint without prejudice. The Court dismisses Count 5 of the
second amended complaint, which encompasses all claims on behalf
of prospective class members in Florida, Michigan, Minnesota,
Missouri, New Jersey, New York, and Washington, without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 26, 2017 Opinion
and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/yddmqqgjfrom
Leagle.com.

Angel McDonnell, Plaintiff, represented by Wesley W. Barnett --
wbarnett@davisnorris.com -- Davis & Norris, LLP.

Angel McDonnell, Plaintiff, represented by Dargan Maner Ware --
dware@davisnorris.com -- Davis & Norris Llp, Gerald Jonathan
Bekkerman, Taxman, Pollock, Murray & Bekkerman, LLC, 225 W.
Wacker, Suite 1750, Chicago, IL 60606, Michael Jeffrey Gunderson -
- lawyer@chicago.com -- The Gunderson Law Firm, LLC & John E.
Norris --  jnorris@davisnorris.com -- Davis & Norris, LLP.

Nature's Way Products LLC, Defendant, represented by Donald L.
Mrozek -- dmrozek@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson, Barry
Francis MacEntee -- bmcentee@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw &
Culbertson & Joel David Bertocchi -- jbertocchi@hinshawlaw.com --
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.


NOVAN INC: Faces "Miriyala" Suit Over Misleading Reports
--------------------------------------------------------
Victor Miriyala, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Novan, Inc., Nathan Stasko, Richard D.
Peterson, Robert A. Ingram, W. Kent Geer, Robert J. Keegan, G.
Kelly Martin, Sean Murphy, John W. Palmour, Piper Jaffray & Co.,
JMP Securities LLC, and Wedbush Securities Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-
00999 (M.D.N.C., November 3, 2017), seeks to recover damages
caused by the Defendants' false and misleading Registration
Statement and Prospectus, issued in connection with the Company's
initial public offering on or about September 26, 2016; and on the
open market between September 26, 2016 and January 26, 2017.

Novan, Inc. is a clinical-stage drug development company that
focuses on the development and commercialization of nitric oxide-
based therapies in dermatology. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      L. Bruce McDaniel, Esq.
      MCDANIEL & ANDERSON, L.L.P.
      Lafayette Square
      4942 Windy Hill Drive
      Raleigh, NC  27609
      Telephone: (919) 872-3000
      Facsimile: (919) 790-9273
      E-mail: mcdas@mcdas.com

         - and -

      Jack Reise, Esq.
      Robert J. Robbins, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 750-3000
      Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
      E-mail: jreise@rgrdlaw.com
              rrobbins@rgrdlaw.com

         - and -

      Michael I. Fistel Jr., Esq.
      JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
      Murray House
      40 Powder Springs Street
      Marietta, GA 30064
      Telephone: (770) 200-3104
      Facsimile: (770) 200-3101
      E-mail: michaelf@johnsonfistel.com


OLSEN HOTEL RESTAURANT: Gonzalez Files Suit in S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Olsen Hotel
Restaurant Group, LLC. The case is styled as Luis Gonzalez, Jose
Ruiz and Brandy Dimattia and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs v. Olsen Hotel Restaurant Group, LLC doing business as:
Roni's by the Ocean a foreign limited liability company, Roni
Mualem individually and Soledad Martinez individually, Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-24156-FAM (S.D. Fla., November 13, 2017).

Olsen Hotel Restaurant Group, LLC is engaged in the restaurant
industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Andres F. Fernandez, Esq.
   Berens Fernandez & Associates, P.A.
   2100 Ponce de Leon Blvd. PH-2
   Coral Gables, FL 33134
   Tel: (305) 329-2990
   Email: Fernandez@berensfernandez.com


ON TIME MOVING: Pavon Suit Seeks to Recover Back Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS ALBERTO PAVON; ALEXANDER PINEYRO-PEREZ; YUDIESKY SALGUEIRO
QUINTANA; YOSMIEL SALQUEIRO ACEBO; and RANDY JAVIER FARINAS WONG
individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. ON
TIME MOVING SYSTEM, INC., a Florida corporation, and DAVID MOR,
individually, Case No. 1:17-cv-24012-JLK (S.D. Fla., November 1,
2017), is brought for damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act for back wages owed by the Defendants.

On Time Moving System, Inc., is a Florida Corporation authorized
and conducting its for-profit business in Florida.  The Individual
Defendant is the owner and operator of OTMS.  The Defendants
perform a full range of moving services, inter and intra
state.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jose A. Socorro, Esq.
          SOCORRO LAW, PA
          355 Alhambra Circle, Suite 801
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 444-6628
          Facsimile: (305) 444-6627
          E-mail: jose@socorrolaw.com


PHOENIX CLOSURES: "Sutherlin" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph R. Sutherlin, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Phoenix Closures, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-00489 (S.D. Ind., October 23, 2017),
seeks overtime compensation, liquidated damages, reasonable
attorney's fees, costs and expenses under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Phoenix Closures specializes in injection-molded closures where
Sutherlin worked at their Greencastle, Indiana manufacturing
facility as an hourly-paid maintenance technician from May 2012 to
October 9, 2017. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert P. Kondras, Jr., Esq.
      HUNT, HASSLER, KONDRAS & MILLER LLP
      100 Cherry Street
      Terre Haute, IN 47807
      Tel: (812) 232-9691
      Facsimile: (812) 234-2881
      Email: kondras@huntlawfirm.net


PNC BANK: Marsh Sues Over Unfair Practices on Home Mortgage Loans
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosemary Marsh, and on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. PNC Bank, National Association, Case No. 2:17-cv-01411
(W.D. Pa., October 31, 2017), seeks redress for the alleged unfair
and deceptive practices committed by PNC in connection with its
home mortgage loan servicing business.

Taking advantage of the economic downturn and the increasing
number of loans in default, PNC services home loans according to
uniform practices designed to maximize fees assessed on borrowers'
accounts when they are behind on their payments, Ms. Marsh
contends.  Consistent with these practices, PNC uses automated
mortgage loan management systems to engage in a deceptive and
unfair scheme to collect fees for unnecessary property
inspections, a default-related service, cheating borrowers who can
least afford them, she explains.

PNC is a national banking association, with a main office and
principal place of business in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.  PNC Bank
provides various banking services to individuals, small
businesses, corporations, and government entities in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin J. Kilpela, Esq.
          Kevin Abramowicz, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          E-mail: ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com
                  kabramowicz@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

          D. Greg Blankinship, Esq.
          Bradley F. Silverman, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
          445 Hamilton Ave, Suite 605
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 298-3281
          Facsimile: (914) 908-6709
          E-mail: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com
                  bsilverman@fbfglaw.com


PROSKAUER ROSE: Fifth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Dorrell" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Sandra Dorrell and Phillip A. Wilkinson filed an appeal
from a court ruling entered in their lawsuit titled Sandra
Dorrell, et al. v. Proskauer Rose, L.L.P., Case No. 3:16-CV-1152,
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas,
Dallas.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks to recover actual and punitive damages, costs and expenses
of suit, including reasonable attorney fees for violation of the
Texas Securities Act, for aiding and abetting, for breach of
fiduciary duty, for fraud and for civil conspiracy.

The appellate case is captioned as Sandra Dorrell, et al. v.
Proskauer Rose, L.L.P., Case No. 17-11313, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants SANDRA DORRELL and PHILLIP A. WILKINSON,
Individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Peter Michael Jung, Esq.
          David Norman Kitner, Esq.
          STRASBURGER & PRICE, L.L.P.
          901 Main Street
          Comerica Bank Tower
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 651-4724
          E-mail: michael.jung@strasburger.com
                  david.kitner@strasburger.com

               - and -

          Edward C. Snyder, Esq.
          CASTILLO SNYDER, P.C.
          700 N. Saint Mary's
          San Antonio, TX 78205
          Telephone: (210) 630-4200
          E-mail: esnyder@casnlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee PROSKAUER ROSE, L.L.P., is represented by:

          Bruce William Collins, Esq.
          CARRINGTON, COLEMAN, SLOMAN & BLUMENTHAL, L.L.P.
          901 Main Street
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 855-3000
          E-mail: bcollins@ccsb.com

               - and -

          James Paul Rouhandeh, Esq.
          DAVIS, POLK & WARDWELL, L.L.P.
          450 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 450-4000
          E-mail: rouhandeh@dpw.com


PURDUE PHARMA: Teachers' Fund Disputes Opioid Drug Benefits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Philadelphia Federation of Teachers Health and Welfare Fund, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Purdue Pharma, LP, Purdue Pharma, Inc., Purdue Frederick Company,
Inc. and Abbott Laboratories, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-
04746, (E.D. Pa., October 23, 2017), seeks direct and
consequential damages related to their purchases and
reimbursements for purchases of Purdue Opioids, with interest,
costs of litigation, attorneys' fees and all other such relief
under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law.

Philadelphia Federation of Teachers Health and Welfare Fund is a
voluntary employee benefits plan providing health benefits to
eligible participants and beneficiaries, including prescription
drug benefits, to approximately 34,000 participants, and their
spouses and dependents.

Purdue Pharma Group is headquartered at 201 Tresser Boulevard,
Stamford, CT 06901. Abbott Laboratories, Inc. is a corporation
incorporated under the laws of the state of Illinois and with its
principal place of business and Corporate headquarters located at
100 Abbott Park Road. Abbott Park, Illinois 60064.

Defendants are into developing, marketing, advertising promoting
and selling prescription pharmaceuticals including OxyContin,
morphine sulfate Contin, Dilaudid, Dilaudid-HP, Butrans and
Hysingla ER. These drugs contain opioids which have narcotic
effects and may cause addiction.

Plaintiff is represented by:

    Sol H. Weiss, Esq.
      David S. Senoff, Esq.
      Hillary B. Weinstein, Esq.
      Clayton P. Flaherty, Esq.
      ANAPOL WEISS
      130 N 18TH Street, Suite 1600
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 790-4550
      Fax: (215) 875-7733
      Email: dsenoff@anapo1weiss.com

             - and -

      Jay Edelson, Esq.
      Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
      Raffy Balabanian, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      350 N. LaSalle, 13th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Tel: (312) 589-6370
      Email: brichman@edelson.com
             jedelson@edelson.com


RICCA GROUP: Faces Modern Hearing Solutions Suit in E.D. Penn.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ricca Group, Inc.
The case is styled as Modern Hearing Solutions of Canton, Inc. and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ricca
Group, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-05118-JD (E.D. Penn.,
November 14, 2017).

Ricca Group is a medical market research survey company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   John K. Weston, Esq.
   SACKS WESTON DIAMOND LLC
   1845 WALNUT STREET, SUITE 1600
   PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103
   Tel: (215) 925-8200
   Fax: (267) 639-5422
   Email: jweston@sackslaw.com


RITECARE MEDICAL: Moyal Wellness Sues Over Sending of Junk Faxes
----------------------------------------------------------------
MOYAL WELLNESS CENTER, LLC, a Florida limited liability company v.
RITECARE MEDICAL CENTER, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-24017-JEM (S.D.
Fla., November 1, 2017), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and
all others similarly-situated seeking monetary and future
injunctive relief from the Defendant's alleged sending of
unsolicited fax advertisements that violates the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Ritecare Medical Center, LLC, is a Florida limited liability
company with its principal place of business in Miami, Florida.
The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant sent advertisements in an
attempt to market its urgent care medical provider services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Louis Mussman, Esq.
          Brian T. Ku, Esq.
          KU & MUSSMAN, PA
          18501 Pines Blvd., Suite 209-A
          Pembroke Pines, FL 33029
          Telephone: (305) 891-1322
          Facsimile: (305) 891-4512
          E-mail: louis@kumussman.com
                  brian@kumussman.com


SANTA CLARA, CA: Thatcher Appeals N.D. Cal. Decision to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Jeanette Thatcher and Michael Thatcher filed an appeal
from a court ruling in their lawsuit styled Michael Thatcher, et
al. v. County of Santa Clara, Case No. 4:16-cv-04781-YGR, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
Oakland.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District
Court issued an Order granting in part the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss the cases captioned ALFRED BANKS, ET AL. v. COUNTY OF SAN
MATEO; MICHAEL THATCHER, ET AL. v. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA; CHARLENE
HARRIS, ET AL. v. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA; and JACQUELYNNE M.
CLARK-RUSSELL, ET AL. v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, Case Nos. 16-CV-04455-
YGR, 16-CV-4781-YGR, 16-CV-4795-YGR, 16-CV-4816-YGR (N.D. Cal.).

The putative class actions have been brought by the Plaintiffs
against defendant counties of San Mateo, Santa Clara, Contra
Costa, and Alameda for alleged Sherman Act antitrust and Section
1983 violations related to exclusive grants of telephone servicing
contracts inside county prison facilities that have allegedly
resulted in grossly excessive commissions for these services.

The appellate case is captioned as Michael Thatcher, et al. v.
County of Santa Clara, Case No. 17-17272, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by December 4, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on January 3, 2018;

   -- Appellants Jeanette Thatcher and Michael Thatcher's opening
      brief is due on February 12, 2018;

   -- Appellee County of Santa Clara answering brief is due on
      March 13, 2018; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants MICHAEL THATCHER and JEANETTE THATCHER, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Ronald Kaye, Esq.
          Barrett Stephen Litt, Esq.
          KAYE, MCLANE, BEDNARSKI & LITT, LLP
          234 East Colorado Boulevard
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 844-7660
          Facsimile: (626) 844-7670
          E-mail: rok@kmbllaw.com
                  blitt@kmbllaw.com

               - and -

          Michael Rapkin, Esq.
          Scott Rapkin, Esq.
          RAPKIN & ASSOCIATES, LLP
          723 Ocean Front Walk
          Venice, CA 90291
          Telephone: (310) 319-5465
          Facsimile: (310) 319-5355
          E-mail: MRapkin@RapkinEsq.com
                  scottrapkin@rapkinesq.com

               - and -

          Carol Strickman, Esq.
          LEGAL SERVICES FOR PRISONERS WITH CHILDREN
          360 62nd Street
          Oakland, CA 94618
          Telephone: (510) 547-4843
          E-mail: carol@prisonerswithchildren.org

Defendant-Appellee COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA is represented by:

          Danny Chou, Esq.
          COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA COUNSEL'S OFFICE
          70 W. Hedding Street
          San Jose, CA 95110
          Telephone: (408) 299-5900
          E-mail: danny.chou@cco.sccgov.org

               - and -

          Mark R. Conrad, Esq.
          Warren Metlitzky, Esq.
          CONRAD & METLITZKY LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 343-7102
          E-mail: mconrad@conradmetlitzky.com
                  wmetlitzky@conradmetlitzky.com


SAP AMERICA: Elwell Files Class Action in Arizona
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SAP America, Inc.
The case is styled as Brian Elwell, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAP America, Inc. and
DOES 1 through 5, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-08314
(C.D. Cal., November 14, 2017).

SAP America, Inc. develops business software solutions that helps
improve business operations, such as supplier relationships,
production, warehouse management, sales, customer relationships,
and administrative functions. [BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


SEARCH ENGINE: Accused by "Sloatman" Class Suit of Violating TCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN SLOATMAN III, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SEARCH ENGINE LISTING INC., and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:17-cv-07946
(C.D. Cal., October 31, 2017), accuses the Defendants of
negligently, knowingly and willfully contacting Plaintiff on his
cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Search Engine Listing Inc. is an online marketing company.  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


SENTRY CASUALTY: MSP Suit Removed to Southern District of Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit titled MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS,
SERIES LLC, a Delaware entity v. SENTRY CASUALTY COMPANY, a
Foreign Profit Corporation, Case No. 2017-019603-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-23979-MGC to
the proceeding.

The primary basis alleged for the Plaintiff's Complaint, appearing
in its very first paragraph, is that "Defendant failed to fulfill
its statutory-mandated duty under the Medicare Secondary Payer
('MSP') laws to reimburse Medicare Advantage Organizations
('MAOs') for medical treatment and expenses paid by Plaintiff and
the putative Class Members . . . on behalf of Medicare
beneficiaries who entered into a settlement with Defendant."

According to the Plaintiff, under "the MSP laws, MAOs are, by law,
secondary payers for any medical expenses that are also covered by
the terms and conditions of a primary policy," and Defendant's no-
fault automobile insurance policies provide for primary coverage
for medical bills incurred as the result of an auto accident.  The
Plaintiff claims to be the assignee of "numerous MAOs" that paid
Medicare benefits on behalf of Defendant's insureds, referred to
in the Complaint as Medicare beneficiaries, who were allegedly
insureds under Defendant's no-fault policies.  The Plaintiff has
alleged that the Defendant was primarily responsible for the
payment of these insureds' Medicare expenses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John H. Ruiz, Esq.
          Frank C. Quesada, Esq.
          MSP RECOVERY
          5000 SW 75th Avenue, Suite 400
          Miami, FL 33155
          Telephone: (305) 614-2222
          E-mail: gmoreno@msprecovery.com
                  jruiz@msprecovery.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Angel A. Cortinas, Esq.
          Jonathan H. Kaskel, Esq.
          GUNSTER
          600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3500
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 376-6000
          Facsimile: (305) 376-6010
          E-mail: acortinas@gunster.com
                  jkaskel@gunster.com


SIRIUS XM: Faces "Meza" Class Suit Over Illegal Calls
-----------------------------------------------------
Michelle Meza and Steve Meza, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., Case No. 3:17-
cv-02252-AJB-JMA (S.D. Cal., November 3, 2017), seeks damages,
injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable
remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of Sirius XM Radio
Inc., in negligently, and willfully contacting the Plaintiffs for
marketing purposes on their cellular telephones, using an
artificial or prerecorded voice message.

Sirius XM Radio Inc. operates a broadcasting company that provides
three satellite radio and online radio services operating in the
United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SMARTFINANCIAL: "Sloatman" Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lala Sloatman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Smartfinancial Group, United States
Insurance and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-05936 (C.D. Cal., August 10, 2017), seeks statutory
damages and injunctive relief resulting from violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act specifically the National Do-
Not-Call provisions.

Smartfinancial Group and United States Insurance are online
insurance comparison companies. Defendants used an automatic
telephone dialing system to place its call to Plaintiff seeking to
solicit its services. Plaintiff's cellular telephone number is in
the National Do-Not-Call Registry. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SONIC CORP: Faces "MacKay" Suit in District of Arizona
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sonic Corporation.
The case is styled as Megan MacKay, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sonic Corporation,
Sonic Franchising LLC, Sonic Industries Services Incorporated,
Sonic Industries LLC, Sonic Development of AZ LLC, Sonic Drive In,
Anthem, AZ, LLC, Sonic Drive-In, Glendale, AZ, 59th Ave., LLC,
Sonic Drive-In, Glendale, AZ, Glendale Ave., LLC, Sonic Drive-In,
Glendale, Northern & 43rd Ave., LLC, Sonic Drive-In, Glendale,
Peoria & 51st Ave., LLC, Sonic Drive-In, Litchfield Park, AZ, LLC,
Sonic Drive-In, Maricopa, AZ, LLC, Sonic Drive-In, Peoria, AZ,
Beardsley, LLC, Sonic Drive-In, Peoria, AZ, Deer Valley & 83rd,
LLC, Sonic Drive-In, Peoria, AZ, 67th Avenue, LLC, Sonic Drive-In,
Peoria, AZ, Union Hills Dr. & 83rd Ave., LL, Sonic Drive-In,
Peoria, 83rd LLC, Sonic Drive-In, Phoenix, AZ, Baseline & 48th
St., LLC, Sonic Drive-In, Phoenix, AZ, Bethany Home Road, LLC,
Sonic Drive-In, Phoenix, AZ, Camelback Road, LLC, Sonic Drive-In,
Phoenix, AZ, Chandler Boulevard, LLC, Sonic Drive-In, Phoenix, AZ,
Deer Valley Road, LLC, Sonic Drive In, Phoenix, AZ, 51st &
Baseline, LLC, Sonic Drive-In, Phoenix, AZ, 40th St. & Greenway,
LLC, Sonic Drive-In, Phoenix, AZ, Greenway Parkway, LLC, Sonic
Drive-In, Phoenix, AZ, Jesse Owens, LLC, Sonic Drive-In, Phoenix,
AZ, McDowell, LLC, Sonic Drive-In, Phoenix, AZ, McDowell & 7th
St., LLC, Sonic Drive-In, Phoenix, AZ, 19th Ave., LLC, Sonic
Drive-In, Phoenix, AZ, 19th Ave., #2, LLC, Sonic Drive-In,
Phoenix, AZ. Thomas Road, LLC, Sonic Drive-In, Phoenix, AZ, Thomas
Road #2, LLC, Sonic Drive-In, Phoenix, AZ, Union Hills Dr. & 35th
Ave., LLC, Sonic Drive-In, Phoenix, 43rd Avenue & Glenrosa, LLC,
Sonic Drive-In, Phoenix, 7th Street, LLC, Sonic Drive-In,
Scottsdale, AZ, Hayden, LLC, Sonic Drive-In, Surprise, AZ,
Bell/Reems, LLC, Sonic Drive In, Surprise, AZ, Litchfield &
Waddell, LLC and Unknown Parties named as: John DOES 1-50,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-04166-DJH (D. Ariz, November 13,
2017).

Sonic Corp. operates a fast food restaurant company in Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Hart Lawrence Robinovitch, Esq.
   Zimmerman Reed PLLP
   14646 N Kierland Blvd., Ste. 145
   Scottsdale, AZ 85254-2762
   Tel: (480) 348-6400
   Fax: (480) 348-6415
   Email: AZDocketing@zimmreed.com

      - and -

   William B Federman, Esq.
   Federman & Sherwood
   2926 Maple Ave., Ste. 200
   Dallas, TX 75201
   Tel: (214) 696-1100
   Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com


SORAYA MOTOR: American Honda Wins Summary Judgment in "Singh"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, issued an Order granting Defendant American
Honda Finance Corporation summary judgment in the case captioned
HARVINDER SINGH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SORAYA MOTOR CO., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. C17-0287-JCC (W.D. Wash.).

American Honda filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and motion to strike contained in its
reply brief.

Singh styles his lawsuit as a putative class action, alleging that
Hinshaw's Honda and other related car dealerships fail to disclose
the price of, and in some instances fail to furnish, Add-ons
during the sale and lease of new cars.  Singh asserts that if he
had known about the Add-ons, he could have declined to pay for
them or negotiated a lower base price.  American Honda allegedly
profits from these non-disclosures by receiving larger interest
payments on financing. Singh alleges American Honda breached its
contract, violated its duty of fair dealing, negligently
supervised employees, and violated the Washington Consumer
Protection Act (CPA).

The Court converts American Honda's motion to dismiss into a
motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(d), because both parties have presented to the Court
matters outside the pleadings.

A defendant may move for dismissal when a plaintiff fails to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted.  However, if, on a
motion under Rule 12(b)(6) or 12(c), matters outside the pleadings
are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion must be
treated as one for summary judgment under Rule 56.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a): The court shall grant
summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. In making such a determination, the
Court must view the facts and justifiable inferences to be drawn
therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.

In its reply, American Honda asks the Court to strike several
sections from Singh's response brief. First, American Honda asks
the Court to strike the footnotes contained in Singh's response as
well as pages that exceed the page limit. Singh was directed that
his response brief be no longer than 24 pages. That page
limitation is set out in Local Civil Rule 7(e)(3). Since Singh's
brief contained 27 pages of argument, the Court strikes pages 25-
27 from Singh's response brief.

The Court is not striking the footnotes in Singh's motion.
Although the Local Civil Rules allow the Court to refuse to
consider text, including footnotes, which is not included in the
page limits, there is no easy or equitable way to strike footnotes
from Singh's brief. While the Court understands American Honda's
frustrations with Singh's use of excessive footnotes, it does not
believe Singh's tactic has strengthened the merits of his case.

Plaintiff alleges four causes of action against American Honda:
(1) Breach of contract; (2) Violation of the duty of good faith
and fair dealing; (3) Negligent Supervision; (4) Violation of the
CPA.

Breach of Contract

Under Washington law, a breach of contract claim requires: (1) a
contract that imposed a duty, (2) breach of that duty, and (3) an
economic loss as a result of that duty.

The Retail Installment Sale Contract (RISC) contains the financing
terms for the loan provided to Singh to purchase the car.  The
RISC does not include terms regarding dealership Add-ons or prices
related to such accessories. The RISC includes an integration
clause, which states This contract contains the entire agreement
between you and us related to this contract. Singh does not allege
that American Honda failed to provide financing under the RISC or
violated any of its express terms.
The Court finds that Singh has not provided sufficient facts to
show that American Honda breached a contractual obligation owed to
Singh. The Court GRANTS summary judgment for American Honda on
Singh's breach of contract claim.

Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

Singh states that American Honda breached its obligation to
finance only legitimate charges for furnished products. Singh
offers no provision in the RISC that requires such an obligation
from American Honda. Singh further states that the failure of
American Honda to include an itemization of 3M, Pro Pak, and
Dealer Prep in the RISC represented a violation of the ADPA and by
extension a violation of duty of good faith and fair dealing. As
previously noted, American Honda, as a creditor, was not bound by
the ADPA's requirements.

Singh has not provided sufficient evidence that American Honda
breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing. Therefore, the
Court grants American Honda's motion for summary judgment on
Singh's duty of good faith and fair dealing claim.

Negligent Supervision

A claim of negligent supervision requires that: (1) An employee
acted outside the scope of employment; (2) the employee posed a
risk of harm; (3) the employer knew or should have known that the
employee posed a risk to others; and (4) the employer's failure to
supervise was a proximate cause of loss.

Singh's assertion that the Dealership employees acted outside the
scope of their employment is not supported by the undisputed
evidence. According to the sales consultant who sold Singh his car
nobody at Hinshaw's Honda went through every item on the MSRP
sticker and Dealer's Addendum with customers. The general manager
of Hinshaw's Honda testified that it was the Dealership's practice
not to list accessories on the sales contract. In other words, the
acts Singh complains of were the Dealership's explicit policies
and practices. Thus, Singh has not created a genuine dispute of
material fact about whether the Dealership employees acted outside
the scope of their employment.

The Court grants American Honda's motion for summary judgment on
Singh's negligent supervision claim.

Consumer Protection Act

To prove a violation of the CPA, a plaintiff must allege: (1) an
unfair or deceptive act or practice; (2) occurring in trade or
commerce; (3) which impacts the public interest; and (4) an injury
to business or property; (5) which was caused by the deceptive act
or practice.

Like his breach of contract theory, Singh argues that American
Honda and Hinshaw's Honda formed a joint venture partnership that
makes the former liable for the deceptive practices of the latter.
As the Court has already explained, Singh's joint venture theory
was never plead in his amended complaint and will not be
considered on summary judgment. Singh has not produced sufficient
evidence to support his CPA claim, and the Court grants summary
judgment on this claim to American Honda.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 26, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/y89fpbkffrom Leagle.com.

Harvinder Singh, Plaintiff, represented by Greg Alan Wolk, REKHI &
WOLK, P.S., 529 Warren Ave. N., Suite 201, Seattle, WA, 98109

Harvinder Singh, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Joseph Gaudet,
Jr., RJ GAUDET & ASSOCIATES LLC, 7101 N. Mesa Street, Suite 205.
El Paso, TX 79912.  & Hardeep S. Rekhi, REKHI & WOLK, P.S., 529
Warren Ave. N., Suite 201, Seattle, WA, 98109

Soraya Motor Co., Defendant, represented by Aaron P. Riensche --
ariensche@omwlaw.com -- OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE PLLC & Jeffrey D.
Dunbar -- jdunbar@omwlaw.com -- OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE PLLC.

Arianna Motor Company Inc., Defendant, represented by Aaron P.
Riensche, OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE PLLC & Jeffrey D. Dunbar, OGDEN
MURPHY WALLACE PLLC.

Hooman H Bodaghi, Defendant, represented by Aaron P. Riensche,
OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE PLLC & Jeffrey D. Dunbar, OGDEN MURPHY
WALLACE PLLC.

Honda of Auburn, Defendant, represented by Aaron P. Riensche,
OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE PLLC & Jeffrey D. Dunbar, OGDEN MURPHY
WALLACE PLLC.

Hooman Honda, Defendant, represented by Aaron P. Riensche, OGDEN
MURPHY WALLACE PLLC & Jeffrey D. Dunbar, OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE
PLLC.

Hooman Motors Group, Defendant, represented by Aaron P. Riensche,
OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE PLLC & Jeffrey D. Dunbar, OGDEN MURPHY
WALLACE PLLC.

Hinshaw Acura, Defendant, represented by Aaron P. Riensche, OGDEN
MURPHY WALLACE PLLC & Jeffrey D. Dunbar, OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE
PLLC.

Hooman Acura, Defendant, represented by Aaron P. Riensche, OGDEN
MURPHY WALLACE PLLC & Jeffrey D. Dunbar, OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE
PLLC.

American Honda Finance Corporation, Defendant, represented by Erin
M. Wilson -- wilsonem@lanepowell.com --  LANE POWELL PC, Michael
C. Andolina, MANDOLINA@SIDLEY.COM -- SIDLEY AUSTIN, pro hac vice,
Sean A. Commons, SCOMMONS@SIDLEY.COM SIDLEY AUSTIN, pro hac vice &
Bruce C. Hamlin, hamlinb@lanepowell.com  LANE POWELL.


ST. LOUIS, MO: Faces "Cody" Suit in E. Dist. Mo.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the City of St.
Louis, for and on behalf of Medium Security Institution. The case
is styled as James Cody, Jasmine Borden, Vincent Grover, John Doe,
John Roe, Michael Mosley and Diedre Wortham, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. City
of St. Louis for and on behalf of Medium Security Institution,
Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-02707-NAB (E.D. Mo., November 13,
2017).

St. Louis' Medium Security Institution is also known as the
Workhouse.  Because St. Louis is a city in its own county, the
city's Public Safety Department maintains two jails -- the
Workhouse and the City Justice Center.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Blake Alexander Strode, Esq.
   ARCHCITY DEFENDERS
   1210 Locust St.
   St. Louis, MO 63103
   Tel: (855) 724-2489 x1015
   Fax: (314) 925-1307
   Email: bstrode@archcitydefenders.org

      - and -

   Nathaniel Richard Carroll, Esq.
   ARCHCITY DEFENDERS
   1210 Locust St.
   St. Louis, MO 63103
   Tel: (855) 724-2489
   Fax: (314) 925-1307
   Email: ncarroll@archcitydefenders.org


STATE COLLECTION: Court Certifies Class in "Spuhler" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin issued a Decision and Order granting Plaintiff's Motion
for Class Certification in the case captioned KYLE SPUHLER AND
NICHOLE SPUHLER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. STATE COLLECTION SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 16-CV-1149 (E.D.  Wis.).

The Spuhlers allege that prior to the filing of this case, they
incurred a consumer debt as that term is defined in 15 U.S.C.
Section 1692a(5) with certain medical providers.   State
Collection is attempting to collect on those medical debts. The
Spuhlers contest the validity of the dollar amounts being sought
by State Collection. The Spuhlers allege that in the year
preceding the filing of this case, State Collection sent them
various collection letters.

The Spuhlers allege that included in those collection attempts
were amounts for prejudgment interest; however, no state court had
awarded a judgment or prejudgment interest. The Spuhlers allege
that the collection letters violate the FDCPA in various ways,
including, but not limited to, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e,
1692e(2)(a), and 1692f(1).

They seek certification of three sub-classes as follows:

   Sub-Class A: All consumers in the State of Wisconsin who
received letters from defendant on medical debts owed to
Prohealthcare Medical Associates, Waukesha Memorial Center, or
Waukesha Memorial Hospital, Inc. within one (1) year from the date
of the filing of this action:  Attempting to collect an amount
including prejudgment interest when prejudgment interest has not
yet been awarded by a court.

   Sub-Class B: Where such letters attempted to collect an amount
without disclosing that interest is accruing on the balance due
and that the balance may either increase or vary.

   Sub-Class C:  Attempted to collect an amount that does not
disclose the balance due because undisclosed interest is accruing
on the amount due.

There are four threshold requirements applicable to class
certification: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all
members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact
common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the
representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of
the class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the class.

The applicable provision is Rule 23(b)(3), which requires that the
court finds that the questions of law or fact common to class
members predominate over any questions affecting only individual
members, and that a class action is superior to other available
methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.
Standing

State Collection argues the Spuhlers lack standing to represent
any putative class that allegedly paid improper charges or fees to
State Collection.

The Spuhlers allege that State Collection violated their rights
under the FDCPA by failing to properly disclose: (1) the balance
due on collection letters sent, (2) the accrual of prejudgment
interest, and (3) that the amount due would vary based on
prejudgment interest. They further allege that State Collection
failed to properly break out what part of the balance due was
principle versus interest, failed to use any form of the "safe
harbor" language approved by the Seventh Circuit related to
collection letters with balances that are accruing interest, and
improperly charged pre-judgment interest when no court had yet
awarded prejudgment interest under state law.

The Spuhlers' allegations that the debt collection letters sent by
State Collection contained false representations of the character,
amount, or legal status of a debt in violation of their rights
under the FDCPA sufficiently pleads a concrete injury-in-fact for
purposes of standing. Thus, the Court finds that the Spuhlers have
standing to sue in this case.

Class Certification

Numerosity

State Collection does not contest that there are approximately
36,834 individuals that fall within the putative class definitions
set forth in the Spuhlers' brief. Thus, State Collection concedes
that the numerosity predicate is satisfied. Accordingly, the
Spuhlers have satisfied the numerosity requirement.

Commonality

The commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2) is usually satisfied
when there exists "[a] common nucleus of operative fact.

The Spuhlers' complaint alleges that State Collection engaged in
standardized conduct by mailing to the proposed class members
illegal form letters. The Seventh Circuit has found that a common
nuclei of fact are typically manifest where the defendants have
engaged in standardized conduct towards members of the proposed
class by mailing to them allegedly illegal form letters or
documents. Whether the form letters or documents were truly
illegal under the FDCPA is a matter for another day. As to Sub-
Class B and Sub-Class C, again, the common nucleus of operative
facts is the receipt of the allegedly illegal form letters, not
whether the Spuhlers actually paid the fees or charges.

Thus, at this stage, the commonality requirement is satisfied.

Typicality

The Rule 23(a)(3) typicality requirement primarily directs the
district court to focus on whether the named representatives'
claims have the same essential characteristics as the claims of
the class at large.

The Spuhlers' claims arise from the same course of conduct which
gives rise to the other class members' claims; namely, that each
received a form letter from State Collection that violated the
FDCPA by failing to disclose the balance due, by failing to
disclose the accrual of prejudgment interest, and by failing to
disclose that the amount due would vary due to prejudgment
interest. Each class members' claim relies on the same legal
theory under the FDCPA that State Collection falsely represented
the character, amount, or legal status of the debt. Again, even if
the Spuhlers' legal theory ultimately fails, both the Spuhlers and
members of the putative class are raising the same legal theory.

Thus, the Court finds the typicality requirement is satisfied.

Adequacy

Rule 23(a) requires the class representatives to "fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the class."

The Spuhlers were deposed in this matter and although the Court
agrees that Kyle Spuhler showed very little knowledge about the
facts of his own case, including stating that he had not seen the
collection letter at issue prior to his deposition, he did
understand the basic premise of the case that he was seeking to
represent similar people to myself and testified that they were
similar because they incurred a debt through State Collection.
Similarly, Nichole Spuhler testified about the basic facts of the
case, including receiving the collection letters from State
Collection and attempting to verify the debts.

Thus, the Court finds the Spuhlers meet the adequacy requirement.

Rule 23(b)

After satisfying the prerequisites to class certification, the
potential class must also satisfy at least one provision of Rule
23(b).

The proposed class in this case meets the requirements of Rule
23(b)(3). As to predominance, common questions of law and fact
predominate over any individual questions. Each member of the
class received a form letter from State Collection that allegedly
violated the FDCPA by failing to disclose the balance due, by
failing to disclose the accrual of prejudgment interest, and by
failing to disclose that the amount due would vary because of
prejudgment interest. Again, each class members' claim relies on
the same legal theory under the FDCPA, that State Collection
falsely represented the character, amount, or legal status of the
debt. This is a common question, regardless of individual
experiences.

As to superiority, State Collection argues that a class action is
not the superior method of litigating the issues because the
Spuhlers limited the purported classes to people who received the
collection letter on medical debts owed to Prohealthcare Medical
Associates, Waukesha Memorial Center, or Waukesha Memorial
Hospital, Inc.

State Collection argues that because the Spuhlers did not include
all potential consumers who received the allegedly offending
letter, even if State Collection wins on the merits, it will be
open to lawsuits from individuals with debts to creditors other
than the three listed ones. State Collection further argues that
the putative class members stand to receive approximately $0.37 in
damages (as opposed to a maximum recovery of $1,000 apiece if they
litigated their claims individually) and this de minimis recovery
illustrates the inferiority of proceeding as a class action.

The plaintiffs' motion to certify a class is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 26, 2017 Decision
and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/yarg4guw  from
Leagle.com.

Kyle Spuhler, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas John Lyons, Jr.,
Consumer Justice Center PA, 367 Commerce Ct, Vadnais Heights, MN,
55127-8506

Kyle Spuhler, Plaintiff, represented by Nathan E. DeLadurantey,
DeLadurantey Law Office LLC, & Heidi N. Miller, DeLadurantey Law
Office LLC, 330 S. Executive Dr., Suite 109, Brookfield, WI 53005
Nichole Spuhler, Plaintiff, represented by Nathan E. DeLadurantey,
DeLadurantey Law Office LLC & Heidi N. Miller, DeLadurantey Law
Office LLC.

State Collection Service Inc, Defendant, represented by David M.
McDorman, McDorman & Gillen, 2923 Marketplace Dr, Ste 100,
Fitchburg, WI 53719-5320  & Patrick D. Newman --
pnewman@bassford.com -- Bassford Remele PA.


STATEWIDE COLLECTIONS: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Albert A. Coleman, Allen Henderson, Breauna Lee Roberson, Karmella
M. Johnson, Lateka R. Alexander, Magan Turner, Michael M. Fields,
Natalie Diane Hunter, Sha Tara L. Fisher, Tiffany Lydale Euwins,
and Vito L. McIntee, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated v. Statewide Collections, Inc., Quick Loans, Inc. d/b/a
Statewide Collections, Inc., The Breit Company d/b/a Statewide
Collections, Inc., The Breit Investment Corp. d/b/a Statewide
Collections, Inc., and Bill G. Breit d/b/a Statewide Collections,
Inc., Case No. 5:17-cv-01191-M (W.D. Ok., November 6, 2017), seeks
to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect
a debt.

The Defendants operated as a common business enterprise while
engaging in the unlawful debt collection practices, says the
complaint. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian L. Ponder, Esq.
      BRIAN PONDER LLP
      200 Park Avenue, Suite 1700
      New York, NY 10166
      Telephone: (646) 450-9461
      Facsimile: (646) 607-9238
      E-mail: brian@brianponder.com


SYSTEM1 LLC: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Magee" Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Scott Magee, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly
situated v. System1 LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-11773 (E.D. La.,
November 3, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of
making unwanted and unsolicited text message calls to the cellular
telephones of consumers nationwide and to obtain redress for all
persons injured by their conduct.

System1 LLC is a market research firm which provides texting
services to advertisers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
      William H. Beaumont, Esq.
      BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC
      3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
      New Orleans, LA 70119
      Telephone: (504) 534-5005
      Facsimile: (504) 272-2956


TGINESIS LLC: Faces "Jacobs" Suit in New York Supreme Court
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tginesis, LLC. The
case is styled as Marcella Jacobs, et al indv. on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tginesis,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 50032/2017, filed November 14, 2017, in
the New York Supreme Court.

Tginesis, LLC offers body care products.[BN]

The Plaintiff represented by:

   SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C.
   85 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA, STE.104
   POUGHKEEPSIE, NY 12601
   Tel: (845) 705-9460

The Defendant appears PRO SE.


THOMSON REUTERS: Wins Summary Judgment in "Kidd" FCRA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued an Opinion and Order granting Defendant summary
judgment in the case captioned LINDSAY A. KIDD, Plaintiff, v.
THOMSON REUTERS CORPORATION, Defendant, No. 16-CV-1668 (JMF)
(S.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiff Lindsey A. Kidd applied for a job with the Georgia
Department of Public Health (GaDPH). Using a subscription-based
online research platform operated by Defendant Thomson Reuters
Corporation, the GaDPH obtained information indicating that Kidd
had been convicted of a crime. That information turned out to be
wrong, but in the meantime it appears to have cost Kidd the job.
As a result, she now brings claims against Thomson Reuters under
the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

Summary judgment is appropriate where the admissible evidence and
pleadings demonstrate no genuine dispute as to any material fact
and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

The Court notes that conspicuously, Kidd fails to cite even one
case holding that an entity's subjective intent is irrelevant to
the question of whether it is a (Credit Reporting Agency) CRA
under the FCRA.  Instead, Kidd's principal statutory argument is
that the Court should begin with the definition of consumer report
and work backwards to determine if Thomson Reuters is a CRA. That
is, Kidd argues that searches of CLEAR generate consumer reports
because they are used, in at least some instances, for FCRA-
regulated ends and that, whatever its subjective intent, Thomson
Reuters is therefore a CRA because it assembles the information in
CLEAR.

But that argument ignores the fact that information qualifies as a
consumer report in the first instance only if it was communicated
by a consumer reporting agency, the Court says.  In addition,
Kidd's construction would subject entities to coverage under the
statute based solely on the intentions of isolated users, thereby
reading the phrase for the purpose of out of the statute and
violating the cardinal rule of statutory construction that courts
should read statutes so as to give effect, if possible, to every
clause and word of a statute.

Kidd cites a statement by Thomson Reuters in a single CLEAR
marketing brochure namely, that subscribers can use the platform
to investigate potential clients, employees and other parties, as
evidence that the company subjectively intended for CLEAR to be
used for FCRA-regulated purposes. In doing so, however, Kidd takes
the statement out of context. The very next sentence of the
brochure states that CLEAR shows graphical connections between
people, addresses, and phone numbers to help you verify a person's
identity. Additionally, at its bottom, the brochure states that
the data provided to you by CLEAR may not be used as a factor in
establishing a consumer's eligibility for .employment purposes or
for any other purpose authorized under the FCRA.
In the face of the many controls Thomson Reuters has put in place
to ensure that CLEAR is not used for any FCRA-regulated purposes,
no reasonable jury could rely on that one document (of the
hundreds of marketing materials in the record, no less) to find
that the company regularly assembles information for the purpose
of providing consumer reports to third parties. It follows that
Thomson Reuters is not a CRA and is entitled to summary judgment
on all of Kidd's claims.

A full-text copy of the Court Appeals' October 26, 2017 Opinion
and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y7kypvjxfrom
Leagle.com.

Lindsey A Kidd, Plaintiff, represented by James A. Francis --
info@consumerlawfirm.com -- Francis & Mailman, P.C..

Lindsey A Kidd, Plaintiff, represented by John Soumilas --
info@consumerlawfirm.com -- FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C., pro hac vice,
Lauren K Brennan -- info@consumerlawfirm.com -- Francis & Mailman,
P.C. & Adam Guttmann Singer -- asinger2@alumni.law.upenn.edu --
Law Office of Adam G. Singer, PLLC.

Thomson Reuters Corporation, Defendant, represented by Caleb
Skeath -- cskeath@cov.com -- Covington & Burling, L.L.P., Eric
Christian Bosset -- ebosset@cov.com -- Covington & Burling, LLP,
pro hac vice & Neil Kenneth Roman -- nroman@cov.com -- Covington &
Burling LLP.


TRANS UNION: $8MM Class Settlement in "Patel" Has Prelim Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division, issued an Order granting
Approval of Preliminary Settlement in the case captioned AMIT
PATEL, Plaintiff, v. TRANS UNION, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 14-cv-00522-LB (N.D. Calif.).

This is a consumer suit under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)
and counterpart California law.  Named plaintiff Amit Patel
alleges that the defendants (operating as a single consumer
reporting agency) disseminated a consumer-information report that
wrongly described him as a terrorist, and that ascribed to him a
criminal record that he did not have.

For this alleged conduct, Mr. Patel brings a claim under Section
1681e(b) of FCRA. Mr. Patel also alleges that, when he asked the
defendants to provide him with the file that they maintained on
him, they failed to send him his complete file, in particular, a
background check that flagged him as a potential terrorist. This,
Mr. Patel claims, violated FCRA.

The court certified the following class and subclass:

   All natural persons residing in the United States who, from
February 2012 until December 2013, were the subjects of Trans
Union Rental Screening Solutions SmartMove reports containing at
least one item of Alert List information.

   All natural persons residing in the United States who, from
February 2012 until December 2013, were the subjects of Trans
Union Rental Screening Solutions SmartMove reports containing at
least one item of Alert List information who requested a file
disclosure from, and were sent a disclosure by, Trans Union, LLC.

Settlement Terms

The settlement agreement resolves the claims of the certified
class and subclass. In summary form, the settlement is as follows:

   * The defendants will establish a fund of $8 million, with
$37,000 to be paid to the Settlement Administrator within ten
business days of the preliminary approval order and the balance of
$7,973,000 30 days after the settlement agreement's Effective
Date.25 There are two settlement pools that the plaintiff
represents are consistent with class discovery: (1) the Automatic
Payment Pool and (2) the Claims Made Pool.

   * $4,202,000 is allocated to the Automatic Payment Pool. Class
members automatically receive a $400 check without submitting a
claim.  The check must be cashed within 60 days or it is null and
void, and the funds then fall into the Claims Made Pool.

   * Class members can submit a claim to be paid a pro rata share
of the Claims Made Pool.  After cost of notice and settlement
administration, the parties estimate that the pool will be more
than $1 million.

   * The settlement provides for a service award to Mr. Patel of
$10,000.The plaintiff's counsel may apply for and the defendants
will not object to  attorney's fees and reimbursable expenses in
an amount not to exceed one-third of the settlement fund.

First, the settlement is the product of serious, non-collusive,
arm's-length negotiations and was reached after mediation with
experienced mediators and after extensive settlement discussions
involving sophisticated counsel for all parties.

Second, the parties engaged in substantial fact discovery
regarding liability and damages.

Third, litigation poses risk. As the plaintiff's counsel points
out, establishing liability entails risk.

Fourth, settlement provides real cash benefits to the class.
Statutory damages are between $100 and $1,000. Class members
receive an automatic check of $400, and they can submit a claim
for a pro rata share of the Claims Made Pool.

The court previously certified the class and subclass, appointed
Mr. Patel as class representative, and appointed his lawyers as
class counsel.

The court approves the class notice and plan. The court finds that
the class notice provides the best notice practicable, satisfies
the notice requirements of Rule 23, adequately advises class
members of their rights under the settlement agreement, and meets
the requirements of due process.

The defendants prepared and mailed the notice that must be served
under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) to the appropriate
federal and state officials.

The court (1) preliminarily approves the settlement and authorizes
notice, (2) approves the notice plan, (3) appoints the claims
administrator, (4) orders the procedures in this order (including
all dates in the chart), and (5) orders the parties and the claims
administrator to carry out their obligations in the settlement
agreement.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 26, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/yccnejadfrom Leagle.com.

Amit Patel, Plaintiff, represented by David A. Searles  --
info@consumerlawfirm.com --  Francis & Mailman.

Amit Patel, Plaintiff, represented by Ingrid M. Evans --
ingrid@evanslaw.com  --  The Evans Law Firm, James A. Francis --
info@consumerlawfirm.com -- Francis and Mailman, P.C., John
Soumilas -- info@consumerlawfirm.com -- Francis and Mailman, P.C.
& Lauren K.W. Brennan -- info@consumerlawfirm.com -- Francis and
Mailman PC, pro hac vice.

Trans Union, LLC, Defendant, represented by Karen A. Braje,
kbraje@reedsmith.com Reed Smith LLP, Michael Charles O'Neil --
michael.oneil@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP, pro hac vice,
Albert E. Hartmann -- ahartmann@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP,
pro hac vice & Bruce Steven Luckman --
bluckman@shermansilverstein.com  -- Sherman Silverstein Kohl Rose
and Podolsky, pro hac vice.

Trans Union Rental Screening Solutions, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Karen A. Braje, Reed Smith LLP, Michael Charles
O'Neil, Reed Smith LLP, pro hac vice, Albert E. Hartmann, Reed
Smith LLP, pro hac vice & Bruce Steven Luckman, Sherman
Silverstein Kohl Rose and Podolsky, pro hac vice.


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Sued Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
David B. Dees, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Transworld Systems, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-04091-MHB (D. Ariz.,
November 6, 2017), seeks to put an end to the Defendant's practice
of using false representation and deceptive means to collect or
attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a
consumer.

Transworld Systems, Inc. provides accounts receivable, debt
recovery, and past due accounts services for businesses and
medical companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jesse S. Johnson, Esq.
      GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
      5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
      Boca Raton, FL 33431
      Telephone: (561) 826-5477
      Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
      E-mail: jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com


TRISTAR PRODUCTS: Suit Over Pressure Cooker Moved to Ohio Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued an Order granting the Joint Motion to Transfer
Venue in the case captioned EDWINA PINON, individually and on
behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TRISTAR
PRODUCTS, INC., DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, No. 1:16-cv-
00331-DAD-SAB (E.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Edwina Pinon and defendant Tristar Products, Inc. have
moved for the case to be transferred to the Northern District of
Ohio so it can be consolidated with another action pending before
U.S. District Judge James S. Gwin of that court.

Plaintiff Edwina Pinon initiated this action on behalf of all
persons who purchased a 2015 Power Pressure Cooker XL (Pressure
Cooker), which she alleged was defectively designed and caused
injuries to the class members.

Plaintiff asserted four causes of action in the FAC: (1) breach of
express warranty, (2) breach of implied warranty, (3) violation of
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 2301 and (4)
violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, California
Business & Professions Code Section 17200

A district court may transfer the venue of any civil action to
another district or division where it could have been brought or
to any district or division to which all parties have consented.
Since this is a joint motion, the court concludes that the new
forum will be convenient for both parties. Plaintiff has
represented that this action has been settled, so the court does
not need to consider convenience for any witnesses.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 26, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/ybhofbxpfrom Leagle.com.

Edwina Pinon, Plaintiff, represented by Todd M. Friedman --
tfriedman@toddflaw.com  --  Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C..

Edwina Pinon, Plaintiff, represented by Meghan George --
mgeorge@toddflaw.com --  Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, PC.

Tristar Products, Inc., Defendant, represented by Pamela M.
Ferguson -- Pamela.Ferguson@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois
Bisgaard and Smith LLP, Shawn Adrian Toliver --
Shawn.Toliver@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois, et al. & Mark
Francis Ram -- Marc.Carlton@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois
Bisgaard & Smith LLP.


UNITED STATES: Ct. Denies Bid for Class Certification in "Limpin"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California issued an Order denying granting Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel in the case
captioned MELCHOR KARL T. LIMPIN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 17-CV-1729-JLS (WVG) (S.D.
Cal.).

Plaintiff Melchor Karl T. Limpin filed a Motion to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis (IFP); Plaintiff Froilan Q. Mendoza filed a Motion
to Proceed IFP; Plaintiff Jayson San Agustin filed Motion to
Proceed IFP; Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction;
and Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification and
Appointment of Class Counsel.

The Court held that all parties instituting any civil action,
suit, or proceeding in a district court of the United States,
except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing
fee of $400.

Plaintiff Limpin submitted an affidavit indicating his total
monthly income is $1,362, he is not employed, is disabled, and his
total monthly expenses are $1,331.60. Plaintiff indicates he has
no assets and has $8.92 in his bank account. Given the foregoing,
the Court concludes that Plaintiff's application demonstrates he
is unable to pay the requisite fees and costs.

Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff Limpin's Motion to Proceed
IFP.

A plaintiff acting pro se cannot represent others, the Court held.
A litigant appearing in propria persona has no authority to
represent anyone other than himself. Thus, Mr. Limpin cannot
represent his co-Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs Mendoza and Agustin are
dismissed as Plaintiffs from this action. This dismissal is
without prejudice so they may file their own individual pro se
actions.  The Court also dismisses as moot Plaintiffs Mendoza and
Agustin's IFP Motions.

Similarly, Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is denied.
A pro se plaintiff cannot represent a class in a class action.

The Court must screen every civil action brought pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1915(a) and dismiss any case it finds frivolous or
malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,
or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from
relief.

Plaintiff states he was seized and detained by the United States
Department of Homeland Security Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) pursuant to this statute. Plaintiffs alleges
section 1226 does not rise as probable cause to re-seize a person
under the Fourth amendment for it is a civil matter, and if it
rises as probable cause, it is unlawful for probable cause to
seize person, for it discriminates suspect classification based on
alienage. Plaintiff also alleges the statute discriminates under
the Equal Protection Clause and violates the Supremacy Clause.
Plaintiff also brings a cause of action under the Federal Tort
Claims Act.

The Court finds Plaintiff's pleading sufficient to survive the low
threshold for proceeding past the sua sponte screening required by
28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2) and Section 1915A(b).

Plaintiff requests a preliminary injunction enjoining the
Defendant through its agents acting within its scope of employment
from seizing proposed class members in the state of California
under 8 U.S.C. Sections 1226(c)(1)(B) and (C).

Plaintiff has not adequately effectuated service. Although
Plaintiff has declared he served his Complaint and Motions on the
U.S. Attorney's Office, Rule 4(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure requires that, in order to properly serve the United
States or its agencies, corporations, or officers, a plaintiff
must deliver a copy of the summons and the complaint to the U.S.
Attorney's Office for the district in which the action is brought,
as well as to the Attorney General of the United States.
Therefore, the Court cannot grant Plaintiffs injunctive relief
because it has no personal jurisdiction over Defendant at this
time.

Even if the Complaint and Motions had been adequately served,
Plaintiff has not alleged, and cannot yet demonstrate that he is
or will be subject to immediate and irreparable harm if an
injunction is not issued. To meet Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
65's irreparable injury requirement, Plaintiff must do more than
simply allege imminent harm; he must demonstrate it.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 26, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/y7stennbfrom Leagle.com.

Melchor Karl T. Limpin, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


US AIRWAYS: Court Narrows Claims in Baggage Fee Suit
----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order granting in part and denying in part
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Three of the Four Claims in the case
captioned HAYLEY HICKCOX-HUFFMAN, Plaintiff, v. US AIRWAYS, INC.,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 10-cv-05193-HRL (N.D. Cal.).

US Airways moves to dismiss three of the four active claims in
Hickcox-Huffman's amended complaint for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted.

Hickcox-Huffman filed a putative class action.  Her amended
complaint contained eight claims, one of which was for breach of
express contract.  There, she alleged that the baggage fee,
together with provisions in US Airways' Terms of Transportation
(TOT), amounted to an express contract.  In that contract,
Hickcox-Huffman agreed to pay $15, and US Airways promised to
deliver her bag when she arrived at her destination.  Airways
breached that contract, Hickcox-Huffman alleged, when it failed to
timely deliver her bag.

After the Ninth Circuit remanded the case, the parties stipulated
to dismiss four of Hickcox-Huffman's eight claims.  Following this
stipulation, Hickcox-Huffman's remaining claims were for: (1)
Breach of Self-Imposed Undertaking; (2) Breach of Express
Contract; (3) Breach of Implied Contract; and (4) Breach of
Contract,  Federal Common Law.  Now, US Airways moves to dismiss
the first, third, and fourth claims, all but the claim for breach
of express contract.

To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must allege sufficient
facts to state a claim for relief that is facially plausible. A
claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference
that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.

US Airways argues that Hickcox-Huffman's claim for breach of self-
imposed undertaking should be dismissed because it does not exist
as a cause of action.
The Court agrees.

Hickcox-Huffman's argument on the first point is without merit.
According to the amended complaint, US Airways created a self-
imposed duty to, in exchange for the baggage fee, timely deliver
(and not lose), customers' baggage, and to refund baggage fees if
it failed to do so. Under the express contract, US Airways
promised, through the TOT, to timely deliver [customers' bags to
them upon arrival at their destination. The airline's obligation
under either formulation is identical: to timely deliver baggage.

The alleged breach, under either formulation, is also identical:
failure to timely deliver baggage. Indeed, in her opposition,
Hickcox-Huffman described the TOT's commitment to timely deliver
baggage as the antecedent obligation, the violation of which,
gives rise to the claim for breach of self-imposed undertaking. In
other words, Hickcox-Huffman's claim for breach of self-imposed
undertaking requires her to first prove her claim for breach of
express contract. In the end, the former is nothing more than a
restatement of the latter.

The Court concludes that Hickcox-Huffman claim for breach of self-
imposed undertaking does not state a cognizable legal theory.
Separately, the Court would have grounds to strike the claim as
redundant under Rule 12(f). Accordingly, the claim is dismissed
without leave to amend.

US Airways moves to dismiss Hickcox-Huffman's fourth claim,
arguing that federal common law does not support a breach of
contract claim of the type asserted here.

The Court agrees.

Here, Hickcox-Huffman argues that federal common law provides
airline passengers with a cause of action for lost luggage. This
argument, like the one asserted as to the breach of self-imposed
undertaking claim, confuses preemption analysis with whether the
amended complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted.
In Read-Rite Corp. v. Burlington Air Express, Ltd, 186 F.3d 1190,
for example, the Ninth Circuit did not create a new cause of
action for breach of contract under federal common law. The court
merely applied federal common law to resolve one question within
an otherwise "routine breach of contract" claim.

At some point, federal common law may become relevant in this
case. If, for example, the Court must evaluate aspects of any
alleged contract between the parties, and doing so requires the
application of substantive law external to the agreement, federal
common law may govern. For the purpose of a motion to dismiss,
however, Hickcox-Huffman's claim for breach of contract under
federal common law is not cognizable, and is entirely duplicative
of her other routine breach of contract" claims. The claim is
therefore dismissed without leave to amend.

Finally, US Airways moves to dismiss Hickcox-Huffman's claim for
breach of implied contract. The airline contends that Hickcox-
Huffman's claim for breach of express contract precludes any claim
under an implied contract theory.

This argument is unpersuasive.

US Airways is attempting to have it both ways. On the one hand,
according to the airline, the Ninth Circuit concluded, as a matter
of law, that an express contract existed. Hickcox-Huffman's
implied contract claim, therefore, must fail. On the other hand,
the TOT is not an express contract to timely deliver Hickcox-
Huffman's bag, and even if it were, there might be other evidence
out there to inform what the terms of that contract are.

There are multiple problems with these arguments.

First, the Ninth Circuit did not find that an express contract
existed between Hickcox-Huffman and US Airways. The court merely
concluded that Hickcox-Huffman adequately pleaded the existence
and breach of an express contract sufficient to survive a motion
to dismiss. Accordingly, US Airways' reliance on Be In and similar
cases is inappropriate. In Be In, the court could dismiss the
implied contract claim because both parties acknowledged the
existence and substance of the express contract.  Here, by
contrast, no finding has ever been made as to the existence or
non-existence of an express contract, and US Airways continues to
dispute that such a contract ever existed.

Second, Hickcox-Huffman may plead her claims in the alternative,
regardless of consistency. That Hickcox-Huffman may not be able to
recover on both an express and implied contract claim is
irrelevant. At the pleading stage, as long as her amended
complaint alleges sufficient facts to state a claim for relief
that is facially plausible, her suit may move forward.

Finally, if documents other than the TOT might illuminate the
terms of any contract between Hickcox-Huffman and US Airways, then
those same documents might speak to whether the parties ever
formed a binding agreement in the first place.  The question on a
motion to dismiss is whether Hickcox-Huffman adequately pleaded a
claim upon which relief can be granted. US Airways has not
presented any convincing argument that Hickcox-Huffman failed to
do so as to her breach of implied contract claim.

US Airways' motion to dismiss the claim is denied.

The Court grants US Airways' motion as to Hickcox-Huffman's Breach
of Self-Imposed Undertaking and Breach of Contract Federal Law
claims, without leave to amend.  As to the claim for Breach of
Implied Contract, however, the Court denies the motion.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 26, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/yd2bj4mxfrom Leagle.com.

Hayley Hickcox-Huffman, Plaintiff, represented by Roger N. Behle,
Jr. -- rbehle@foleybezek.com -- Foley Bezek Behle & Curtis, LLP.

Hayley Hickcox-Huffman, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas G. Foley,
Jr. -- tfoley@foleybezek.com -- Foley Bezek Behle & Curtis, LLP,
Justin Potter Karczag -- jkarczag@foleybezek.com -- Karczag and
Associates PC, Kevin David Gamarnik -- kgamarnik@foleybezek.com --
Foley Bezek Behle Curtis LLP, Robert A. Curtis --
RCurtis@foleybezek.com -- Foley Bezek Behle & Curtis, LLP &
William Michael Aron --
bill@aronlawfirm.com  --  Law Office of William M. Aron.

US Airways, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kelly S. Wood --
kwood@omm.com -- O'Melveny and Myers LLP, Michael Gerard
McGuinness -- mmcguinness@omm.com -- O'Melveny Myers LLP & Robert
Alan Siegel -- rsiegel@omm.com -- OMelveny and Myers LLP.

U.S. Airways Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kelly S. Wood,
O'Melveny and Myers LLP & Michael Gerard McGuinness, O'Melveny
Myers LLP.


VANTIV INC: Faces "Macchia" Suit Over Proposed Worldpay Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Filippo Macchia, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Vantiv, Inc., Jeffrey Stiefler, Charles
Drucker, Lee Adrean, Kevin Costello, Mark Heimbouch, Lisa Hook,
David Karnstedt, Gary Lauer, Boon Sim, and Mark Sunday, Case No.
1:17-cv-00739-TSB (S.D. Ohio., November 03, 2017), is brought on
behalf of all ordinary shareholders of Vantiv, Inc., over the
Amended and Restated Co-operation Agreement, pursuant to which
Vantiv, in a mixed stock and cash deal, will acquire Worldpay,
with Vantiv continuing as the surviving entity. Worldpay
shareholders will be entitled to receive 55 pence in cash and
0.0672 new shares of Vantiv Class A common stock plus an interim
dividend of 0.8 pence, paid on October 23, 2017, and a special
dividend of 4.2 pence expected to be payable on the business day
immediately preceding the effective date of the Acquisition for
each share Worldpay common stock they own.

According to the complaint, Vantiv filed a Preliminary Proxy
Statement on Schedule 14A with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, which recommends that Vantiv stockholders vote in
favor of the Proposed Transaction. However, he Proxy omits or
misrepresents material information concerning, among other things:
(i) the inputs and assumptions underlying the calculation of the
discount rate ranges; (ii) the inputs and assumptions
underlying the calculation of the EBITDA terminal value multiples;
(iii) the actual terminal values calculated and used; (iv) the
value of the "Synergies" used in the Pro Forma Discounted Cash
Flow Analysis; and (v) net debt expected to result from the
Merger, says the complaint. 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
Vantiv's public stockholders of the Company's valuable assets
without fully disclosing all material information concerning the
Proposed Transaction to Company stockholders. To remedy the
Defendants' Exchange Act violations, Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the
stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction unless and until such
problems are remedied.

Vantiv, Inc. offers a range of payment processing services that
enable its clients to meet their payment processing needs through
a single provider.

Worldpay Group plc is a United Kingdom-based company, which
provides a range of technology-led payment products and services.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John C. Camillus, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JOHN C. CAMILLUS, LLC
      P.O. Box 141410
      Columbus, OH 43214
      Telephone: (614) 558-7254
      Facsimile: (614) 559-5731
      E-mail: jcamillus@camilluslaw.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
      GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON
      440 Park Avenue South, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 983-1300
      E-mail: tjmckenna@gme-law.com
              gegleston@gme-law.com


WAYNE, MI: Faces "Woodall" Suit in E.D. of Michigan
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against County of Wayne. The
case is styled as Katrina Woodall, Katana Johnson, Kelly Davis,
Joanie Williams, Latoya Hearst and Cynthia Whack-Finley,
Individually and on behalf of all similarly situated female
inmates of the Wayne County Jail, Plaintiffs v. County of Wayne,
Benny N. Napoleon, in his Official Capacity as WAYNE COUNTY
SHERIFF and Officer Graham, In her Individual Capacity; jointly
and severally, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-13707-AJT-EAS (E.D.
Mich., November 14, 2017).

Wayne County is the most populous county in the U.S. state of
Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Michael R. Dezsi, Esq.
   Law Office of Michael R. Dezsi, PLLC
   615 Griswold Street, Suite 1600
   Detroit, MI 48226
   Tel: (313) 879-1206
   Fax: (313) 887-0420
   Email: mdezsi@dezsilaw.com


WESTFIELD INSURANCE CO: MSP Recovery Suit Removed to S.D. Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Class action docketed MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC, Plaintiff,
v. Westfield Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 17-019416,
(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 Westfield
policyholders who were also Medicare beneficiaries.

Plaintiff is a Medicare Advantage Organizations that provides
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. They 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 [BN]

MSP Recovery 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

Westfield is represented by:

      W. Mason, Esq.
      FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
      222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 700
      West Palm Beach, FL 33401
      Tel: (561) 835-9600
      Fax: (561) 835-9602
      Email: wmason@foxrothschild.com

             - and -

      John J. Haggerty, Esq.
      James C. Clark, Esq.
      Jeremy R. Lacks, Esq.
      FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
      Warrington, PA 18976
      Tel: (215) 345-7500
      Fax: (215) 345-7507
      Email: jhaggerty@foxrothschild.com
             jclark@foxrothschild.com
             jlacks@foxrothschild.com


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Faces "Parsons" Suit Over Defective Water Filters
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES AND DEBRA PARSONS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION AND ECOWATER SYSTEMS
LLC A/K/A ECODYNE, Case No. 2:17-cv-13561-PDB-APP (E.D. Mich.,
October 31, 2017), seeks damages and appropriate equitable relief,
including an order enjoining the Defendants from selling or
leasing Class Water Filters without disclosing the Defect to
consumers.

The Plaintiffs represent a proposed class of thousands of
consumers, who owned and used water filters designed,
manufactured, and distributed by the Defendants including, but not
limited to, Undersink Filtration Systems models ("Class Water
Filters"), that are manufactured in a way that allows them to
crack and/or creep, causing water to leak from the filter.  The
cracking and/or creeping is "the Defect".

Whirlpool Corporation is a Delaware corporation that maintains its
principal place of business in Benton Harbor, in Berrien County,
Michigan.  Whirlpool is a major appliance manufacturer in the
world.  Whirlpool markets a number of brands world-wide, including
Whirlpool, KitchenAid, Maytag, Consul, Brastemp, Amana, Bauknecht,
Jenn-Air, and Indesit.  Whirlpool manufactures, distributes,
sells, and leases a variety of appliances, including washing
machines and water filters, refrigerators and freezers, microwave
ovens, oven ranges, dishwashers, water filters, water heaters,
water softeners, water filtration systems, furnaces,
dehumidifiers, and air purifiers/filters.

EcoWater Systems LLC is a foreign limited liability corporation
with at least one of its members as a citizen of the state of
Delaware.  EcoWater manufactures and warrants Whirlpool dual stage
filtration systems, Whirlpool reverse osmosis systems and
Whirlpool central filtration systems under license.  EcoWater is
one of the largest manufacturers of residential water treatment
systems.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
          Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq.
          THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          950 W. University Dr., Suite 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 841-2200
          Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
          E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
                  ssa@millerlawpc.com
                  dal@millerlawpc.com

               - and -

          Mitchell M. Breit, Esq.
          Paul J. Hanly, Jr., Esq.
          SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC
          112 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016-7416
          Telephone: (212) 784-6400
          Facsimile: (212) 213-5949
          E-mail: mbreit@simmonsfirm.com
                  phanly@simmonsfirm.com

               - and -

          Jo Anna Pollock, Esq.
          SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC
          One Court Street
          Alton, Il 62002
          Telephone: (618) 259-2222
          Facsimile: (618) 259-2251
          E-mail: jpollock@simmonsfirm.com

               - and -

          Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
          Mark E. Silvey, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          First Tennessee Plaza
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 247-0080
          Facsimile: (865) 533-0049
          E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  mark@gregcolemanlaw.com



WILSON SPORTING: Faces "Alea" Suit in District of Arizona
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wilson Sporting
Goods Company. The case is styled as George Alea, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Wilson
Sporting Goods Company and Bat Doctor LLC, Defendants, Case No.
12:17-mc-00062-SPL (D. Ariz., November 14, 2017).

Wilson Sporting Goods Co. is a sports equipment manufacturer based
in Chicago, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.

The Defendants are represented by:

   Allen Michael Young, Esq.
   Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
   1 E Washington St., Ste. 500
   Phoenix, AZ 85004
   Tel: (480) 562-3660
   Fax: (480) 562-3660
   Email: allen.young@wilsonelser.com

      - and -

   Brian Thomas DelGatto, Esq.
   Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
   1 E Washington St., Ste. 500
   Phoenix, AZ 85004
   Tel: (480) 562-3660
   Email: Brian.Delgatto@wilsonelser.com

      - and -

   Jeffery A Key, Esq.
   Key& Associates
   321 N Clark St., Ste. 500
   Chicago, IL 60654
   Tel: (312) 560-2148

      - and -

   Taylor H Allin, Esq.
   Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
   1 E Washington St., Ste. 500
   Phoenix, AZ 85004
   Tel: (480) 562-3660
   Fax: (480) 562-3659
   Email: Taylor.Allin@wilsonelser.com


WOODS COVE: Ohio App. Flips Dismissal of SAC in "Stewart"
---------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County,,
issued an Opinion reversing the Judgment of the District Court
granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Class
Action Complaint in the case captioned EDDIE L. STEWART, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WOODS COVE II, L.L.C., ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees, No. 105160 (Ohio App.).

Plaintiffs-appellants, Eddie Stewart, Leslie Brazil, and Charles
Patton, appeal from the trial court's judgment granting
defendants-appellees, Woods Cove II, L.L.C., Woods Cove III,
L.L.C., and Cuyahoga County Treasurer Christopher Murray's motions
to dismiss Stewart's second amended class action complaint for
declaratory and injunctive relief and for damages.

Stewart claimed that during the stated time period the Treasurer
sold tax lien certificates to Woods Cove for the properties owned
by Stewart, Patton, and Brazil. Stewart attached the applicable
tax certificates to his second amended complaint. Stewart further
alleged that the delinquent property tax certificates sold to
Woods Cove pursuant to the tax certificate purchase/sale
agreements were disproportionately comprised of properties located
in communities having significantly higher concentrations of
racial minority populations than Cuyahoga County as a whole. He
also asserted that Woods Cove entered into agreements with
taxpayers for repayment under the tax lien certificates that
resulted in interest rates in excess of the 18 percent limit
imposed by the tax certificate statute.

The trial court granted Woods Cove and the Treasurer's motions to
dismiss stating:  "While plaintiffs are parties who have
properties encumbered by tax certificate liens, they have not lost
their properties to tax certificate forfeiture orders recently.
All of these constitutional arguments raised by plaintiffs can be
raised if a foreclosure case is filed against these plaintiffs.
The court agrees with the defendants` argument that the
plaintiffs' claims are premature. Until a tax foreclosure
complaint is filed by a tax certificate holder, like Woods Cove
II, III, or IV, the injury or harm to the property owner's
interests seems speculative and premature."

Ohio courts apply an abuse of discretion standard when reviewing a
trial court's dismissal of a declaratory judgment claim as not
justiciable.

To prevail on a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion, it must appear beyond
doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of
his or her claims that would entitle the plaintiff to relief.   If
there is a set of facts, consistent with the plaintiff's
complaint, which would allow the plaintiff to recover, the court
may not grant a defendant's motion to dismiss. A court cannot
dismiss a complaint under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) merely because it doubts
the plaintiff will prevail.

All of Stewart's claims in his second amended complaint, whether
couched as requests for declaratory judgment, injunction,
mandamus, or damages, challenge the validity of Ohio's tax
certificate statute, the tax certificate sale/purchase agreements,
and Woods Cove and the Treasurer's conduct related to the sale of
the tax certificates. Not only does Stewart make specific
constitutional and statutory challenges to the tax certificate
statute and the tax certificate sale/purchase agreements, but he
also claims that he has been damaged by them.
For example, Stewart alleged that property owners, like Brazil,
Patton, and others similarly situated, suffered harm when Woods
Cove purchased the tax certificates from the Treasurer because the
property owners were subjected to an increased interest rate of
more than 18 percent if they wanted to redeem their properties.
And, according to Stewart's second amended complaint, the manner
in which the Treasurer sold the tax certificates to Woods Cove was
racially disproportionate.

Taking the allegations in the seconded amended complaint as true
and construing all reasonable inferences drawn from those
allegations in favor of Stewart as the Ohio App. is required to
do, the Ohio App. finds that it does not appear beyond doubt that
Stewart can prove no set of facts entitling him to the relief
requested. The Ohio App. cannot say, at this stage of the
litigation, that Stewart's claims are premature, speculative, or
barred by the ripeness doctrine. The Ohio App., however, is not
commenting on the merits of Stewart's claims.

Rather, given the liberal pleading standard and disfavoring of
motions to dismiss, the Ohio App. holds that the trial court erred
in granting Woods Cove and the Treasurer's motions to dismiss the
second amended complaint.

The Ohio App. further finds that the trial court improperly
considered factual evidence not before it when ruling on the
motions to dismiss. Specifically, in its judgment, the trial court
stated that while plaintiffs are parties who have properties
encumbered by tax certificate liens, they have not lost their
properties to tax certificate forfeiture orders recently. It then
based its determination of the ripeness of Stewart's claims on the
factual issue of whether foreclosure actions had been brought
against the property owners. Thus, without notice to the parties,
the trial court effectively considered factual issues outside the
pleadings and improperly determined that no foreclosure actions
had been brought against the properties, thereby justifying the
dismissal of Stewart's second amended complaint.

Judgment reversed and remanded to the trial court for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The Ohio App. finds it reversible error for the trial court to
have considered extraneous factual matters outside the pleadings
without notification to the parties of its intention to do so.

A full-text copy of the Ohio App.'s October 26, 2017 Opinion is
available at http://tinyurl.com/yd7yq6vjfrom Leagle.com.

Michael Aten, 1719 Coventry Road, #1, Cleveland Heights, Ohio
44118; Gary Cook, 17325 Euclid Avenue, Suite 4004, Cleveland, Ohio
44112, Attorneys for Appellants.

Tim L. Collins, Joseph Gutkoski, Collins & Scanlon, L.L.P., 3300
Terminal Tower, 50 Public Square, Cleveland, Ohio 44113, Attorneys
for Appellees, for Woods Cove Ii, L.L.C., et al.

Awatef Assad, Assistant Director of Law, Robin M. Wilson, Chief
Trial Counsel, Cuyahoga County Law Department, 2079 East 9th
Street, 7th Floor, Cleveland, Ohio 44115, Attorneys for Appellees,
for Christopher W. Murray.


ZOEK INC: Faces "Marks" Suit in Southern District of New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zoek, Inc.  The case
is styled as Bradly Marks, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Zoek, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-08829 (S.D. N.Y., November 13, 2017).

Zoek, Inc. is a digital marketing agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
   Sanders Law, PLLC
   100 Garden City PLaza, Ste 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 281-7601
   Email: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


ZURICH AMERICAN: Removes MSP Suit From 11th Cir. to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action lawsuit entitled MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS,
SERIES LLC v. ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2017-
019418-CA-01, was removed on November 1, 2017, from the Circuit
Court of the Eleventh Circuit for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
Miami Division.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-
cv-24013-RNS to the proceeding.

On August 9, 2017, Plaintiff MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC
("MSP") filed this putative class action in the Circuit Court.
MSP alleges that it was assigned the rights of "numerous" or
"several" Medicare Advantage Organizations ("MAOs"), which are
insurers that the United States Government pays to provide
Medicare benefits to Medicare participants.  MSP alleges that the
MAOs paid for "medical items and/or services" of an unspecified
type, for an unspecified number of Medicare beneficiaries, who
"suffered injuries related to an accident."

MSP alleges that Zurich was obligated to reimburse the MAOs for
those payments because the MAOs were secondary payers under the
Medicare Second Payer Act and, therefore, entitled to
reimbursement from Zurich, which MSP alleges was a primary payer
under that statute.  As the MAOs' alleged assignee, MSP "filed
this action on behalf of themselves [sic] and all other similarly
situated MAOs, and their assignees, for double damages, pursuant
to the Medicare Secondary Payer private cause of action.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John H. Ruiz, Esq.
          Frank C. Quesada, Esq.
          MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM
          5000 S.W. 75th Avenue, Suite 400
          Miami, FL 33155
          Telephone: (305) 614-2222
          E-mail: jruiz@msprecovery.com
                  fquesada@msprecovery.com

The Defendant 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
          E-mail: kcoffey@coffeyburlington.com
                  shiaasen@coffeyburlington.com

               - and -

          Michael Menapace, Esq.
          WIGGIN AND DANA, LLP
          20 Church Street
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Telephone: (860) 297-3733
          Facsimile: (860) 525-9380
          E-mail: mmenapace@wiggin.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  * * *