CAR_Public/171205.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


            Tuesday, December 5, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 240



                            Headlines

AARP INC: Faces "Levay" Suit over Insurance Policies
ACE AMERICAN: Flores Sues over $8 Million Settlement Payment
ADORAMA INC: Faces "Lopez" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
ALCON LABORATORIES: 3d Cir. Flips Dismissal of Eye Drops Suit
ALFRED DUNHILL: Faces "Lopez" Suit in S.D. New York

ALL STAR CONCRETE: "Hererra" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
ALLERGAN INC: Faces 1199SEIU Fund Suit Over Restasis-Price Fixing
ALLY FINANCIAL: "Sharpe" Class Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee
AMERIMEX SOLUTIONS: Siu Sues over Automated Dialing System
ANTARES PHARMA: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit

ARAMARK SPORTS: Cintron Sues over Collection of Biometric Info
ARIZONA: Attorney General Scores Big Win vs Excessive Lawsuits
ATTENDING HOME: "Marichal" Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
BRAAVOS INC: "Gordon" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
CALIFORNIA: Inmates Must Show Why Petition Should Not Be Junked

CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Faces "Jackson" Suit in Dist. of New Jersey
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Dixon Sues over Debt Collection Practices
CONCORDIA COLLEGE: Faces "Delacruz" Suit in S.D. New York
COOK COUNTY, IL: Violates Gender Violence Act, "Brown" Suit Says
COOK COUNTY, IL: Sued Over Deteriorating Jail Security Situation

DALLAS, TX: To Pay Nearly $62 Million in Police Settlement
DESH BANGLA: Faces "Alam" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
ENVENT CORPORATION: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Sanchez Says
EQUIFAX INC: Alcoa Credit Union Sues over Consumer Data Breach
ESURANCE INSURANCE: MSP Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of Florida

FRONTIER CALIFORNIA: Fails to Pay All Wages, "Watson" Suit Says
FTS USA: Supreme Court Appeal Filed in "Monroe" Case
GENERAL ELECTRIC: "Imamura" Suit Seeks Damages Over Disaster
GENOCEA BIOSCIENCES: Monteverde Files Class Action Lawsuit
HOME DELIVERY: "Zepeda" Suit Seeks Compensation under Labor Code

HOST INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Pay All Wages, "Wilson" Suit Says
JANUS ET CIE: Faces "Norman" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
KIA MOTORS: Class-Action Lawsuit Says Animals Eat Soy-Based Wiring
KOMAROV ENTERPRISES: Faces "Martinez" Wage-and-Hour Suit
LGE COMMUNITY: Appeal Filed in "Tims" Suit in Eleventh Circuit

LOVING HEART: "Larin" Labor Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay
M&T BANK: "Kim" Suit Alleges Consumer Fraud
MASA NY: "Tanaka" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages under FLSA
MDL 2818: GM Asks Court to Transfer 4 Cases to E.D. Michigan
MEIJER INC: "Warren" Suit Moved to Northern Dist. of Illinois

MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Faces "Chazan" Suit in E.D. New York
MONA VIE: "Pontrelli" Suit Moved to District of New Jersey
MONSANTO COMPANY: Faces "McNew" Suit Over Roundup(R) Products
MONTANA: State Seeks Dismissal of Drivers License Lawsuit
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: "Marichal" Suit Seeks Overtime, Back Pay

NESTLE WATERS: "Ray" Suit Transferred to District of Connecticut
NORDIC NATURALS: Faces "Skylor" Suit over Gummies Product
NOVA RESTAURANT: "Butron" Suit Moved to District of Florida
OAK LODGE LLC: "Jenkins" Labor Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime
OCEAN SPRAY: "Hilsley" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of California

OCULAR THERAPEUTIX: "Kim" Class Suit Transferred to Dist. Mass.
OLD DOMINION: "Sanders" Suit Moved to S.D. California
OMEGA HEALTHCARE: "Klein" Sues Over Share Price Drop
OPTUM INC: In Breach of Fiduciary Duties Claims "Ellis"
OPUS BANK: To Pay $17 Million to Settle Shareholders Suit

ORBITAL ATK: "Donato" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Merger with Northrop
P.J. CLARKE'S: Edinbyrd Suit Calls Hiring Practices "Unlawful"
PARTS AUTHORITY: 2nd Circuit Appeal Filed in "Johnson" Case
PENNSYLVANIA: Gerrymandering Suit Fast Tracked in State High Court
PERRIGO ISRAEL: Drug Company to Pay Out NIS47.5 Million

PF HOLDINGS: "Williams" Suit Seeks Unpaid Compensation under FLSA
PHILIP MORRIS: $32.5MM Damage Award in "Ledoux" Affirmed
RELIABLE TIRE: Travers Sues over Racial Harassment
SELECT PORTFOLIO: California Court Denies Move to Dismiss "Rovai"
SHORE FUNDING: Abante Rooter Sues over Robocalls

SLIP-N-SLIDE RECORDS: "Murphy" Sues Over Illegal SMS Ads
TARGET CORP: Court Narrows Claims in "Walters" Debit Card Suit
TEZOS: Lawyer Argues Suit "Should Be Heard in Switzerland"
UNDER ARMOUR: Stull, Stull Files Shareholder Class Suit
USAA CASUALTY: "Byorth" Suit Moved to District of Montana

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Sued over Technical Standards Conspiracy
WONDERFUL PISTACHIOS: Dawson Sues over Background Checks





                            *********


AARP INC: Faces "Levay" Suit over Insurance Policies
----------------------------------------------------
SIMON LEVAY, JUDITH MILLER and LIONEL BROWN, Individually and on
Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. AARP,
INC., AARP SERVICES, INC., UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC., UNITED
HEATHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY, and DOES 1 through 60, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 17, 2017), seeks an
Order requiring Defendants to restore all money or other property
taken from identifiable persons by means of unlawful acts or
practices; and award judgment for damages and restitution in an
amount within the jurisdictional limits of this Court to
compensate for such losses.

This is a consumer class action on behalf of a class of California
residents 65 years or older, whom, by the unlawful acts alleged,
were deceived into becoming AARP members and paying a membership
fee to AARP to be eligible for UnitedHealth's Medicare
supplemental health insurance products and services through the
improper, deceptive, and misleading marketing, advertising, offers
and sale of insurance by AARP and UnitedHealth.

According to the complaint, despite its "non-profit status", AARP
earns three-quarters of a billion dollars through business
partnerships with large insurance companies like UnitedHealth to
sell AARP branded insurance policies for Medigap, Medicare
Advantage, and Part D prescription drugs. AARP Medigap is the
dominant player in the Medigap market. Nationwide, AARP Medigap
has over three times as many Medigap enrollees as its closest
competitor. The only Medigap plans insured by UnitedHealth are the
AARP Medigap plans. This means any consumer that wants to purchase
Medigap coverage from UnitedHealth, the largest health insurer in
the country, must purchase the AARP Medigap plan, thereby
requiring paying AARP a membership fee and 4.95% of the insurance
policy payment. AARP is paid hundreds of millions of dollars, tax-
free, as "royalties".

The Defendants are in the health insurance industry.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Arash Homampour, Esq.
          Danielle Lincors, Esq.
          THE HOMAMPOUR LAW FIRM, PC
          15303 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1450
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (323) 658 8077
          Facsimile: (323) 6588477

               - and -

          Alan Schimmel, Esq.
          Michael Parks, Esq.
          SCHIMMEL & PARKS, APLC
          15303 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 650
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 464 5061
          Facsimile: (818) 464 5091


ACE AMERICAN: Flores Sues over $8 Million Settlement Payment
------------------------------------------------------------
VICTORIA FLORES, an individual, the Plaintiff, v. ACE AMERICAN
INSURANCE COMPANY, a Pennsylvania corporation, the Defendant, Case
No. 1:17-cv-08674-AKH (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 8, 2017), seeks an order
declaring that ACE breached its duty to defend and, therefore, has
to pay Plaintiff Flores (on behalf of the class) the full amount
of agreed upon judgment in an underlying action.

This dispute arises out of a putative class action that Flores
filed against Grubhub, Inc. for making allegedly unauthorized text
message calls to individual consumers' cellphones in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Flores, on behalf of a
class, ultimately reached a classwide settlement of the underlying
action, whereby Grubhub agreed to, among other things, the
creation of an $8 million non-reversionary settlement fund for the
benefit of the class, the entry of a judgment against it in that
amount, and an assignment of rights to its relevant insurance
policy, the Digital Technology & Professional Liability Policy
through Defendant ACE American Insurance Company. Flores, in turn,
agreed to pursue recovery of the $8 million from Grubhub's Policy
and insurer, ACE, which she's seeking through this action.
Following the filing of the Underlying Action, Grubhub attempted
to engage ACE and its agent Chubb North American Claims to defend
the suit. ACE, however, failed to engage at any point in the
matter. In fact, ACE even failed to respond to Grubhub's tender
(or notice) of claim under the terms of its Policy for more than
three months and ultimately did so -- denying coverage -- only
after the parties had reached a settlement in principle to resolve
the claims at issue for an amount within the limits of the Policy.

ACE American Insurance Company, Inc. provides fire and casualty
insurance products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ADORAMA INC: Faces "Lopez" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Adorama, Inc.  The
case is captioned as Victor Lopez And On Behalf Of All Other
Persons Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ADORAMA, INC. and
ADORAMA USED LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-08990
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 16, 2017).

Adorama offers digital cameras, lenses, pro video, televisions and
computers.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


ALCON LABORATORIES: 3d Cir. Flips Dismissal of Eye Drops Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, issued an
Opinion reversing the District Court's dismissal of the action
captioned LEONARD COTTRELL; SANDRA HENON; WILLIAM REEVES; GEORGE
HERMAN; SIMON NAZZAL; CAROL FREBURGER; JACK LIGGETT; PATRICIA
BOUGH; MACK BROWN; DOLORES GILLESPIE; DEBORAH HARRINGTON; ROBERT
INGINO; EDWARD ROGERS, JR.; DEBORAH RUSIGNULOLO; DOROTHY STOKES;
JOSEPHINE TROCCOLI; HURIE WHITFIELD; THOMAS LAYLOFF; CAROLYN
TANNER; PATSY TATE; JOHN SUTTON; JESUS RENTERIA; GLENDELIA FRANCO;
NADINE LAMPKIN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Appellants, v. ALCON LABORATORIES; ALCON RESEARCH LTD;
FALCON PHARMACEUTICALS LTD; SANDOZ INC.; ALLERGAN INC, RP;
ALLERGAN USA INC; ALLERGAN SALES LLC; PFIZER INC; VALEANT
PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL; BAUSCH & LOMB INC; ATON PHARMA INC;
MERCK & CO INC; MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP; PRASCO LLC; AKORN INC.,
No. 16-2015 (3rd Cir.), and remanded the case for further
proceedings.

In the putative class action, consumers of prescription eye
medication allege that manufacturers and distributors of the
medication packaged it in such a way that forced them to waste it,
violating the consumer protection statutes of their home states.
The District Court dismissed the entire action for lack of
jurisdiction, finding the consumers' allegations of injury in fact
insufficient to confer standing.

The plaintiff, as the party invoking federal jurisdiction, bears
the burden of establishing the minimal requirements of Article III
standing: (1)  an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to
the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to
be redressed by a favorable judicial decision. In assessing
whether a plaintiff has carried this burden, the Third Circuit
separates its standing inquiry from any assessment of the merits
of the plaintiff's claim.

To maintain this fundamental separation between standing and
merits at the dismissal stage, the Third Circuit assumes for the
purposes of its standing inquiry that a plaintiff has stated valid
legal claims.

Plaintiffs claim economic interests: interests in the money they
had to spend on medication that was impossible for them to use.
They seek monetary compensation for Defendants' conduct that they
allege caused harm to these interests. Plaintiffs' claimed
interests arise from state consumer protection statutes that
provide monetary relief to private individuals who are damaged by
business practices that violate those statutes. These claims fit
comfortably in categories of "legally protected interests" readily
recognized by federal courts.

The Third Circuit acknowledges that the Seventh Circuit held
otherwise in a recent case concerning materially identical
allegations against many of the same defendants.  Eike v.
Allergan, Inc., 850 F.3d 315(7th Cir. 2017).  In reviewing the
defendants' appeal from the district court's grant of class
certification, the Seventh Circuit concluded that plaintiffs had
failed to allege a legally protected interest, and therefore,
lacked standing.

The District Court noted that the Plaintiffs' pleading lacked any
suggestion of collusion or any claim of misrepresentation or
deception by defendants. From the absence of fraud-based
allegations, the court went on to reason that the plaintiffs'
claims were necessarily based simply on their dissatisfaction with
the defendants' products or their prices. The Third Circuit
declines to adopt the District Court's rationale.

The District Court here, like the Seventh Circuit, cast the
Plaintiffs' allegations as mere grumblings that Defendants'
products were priced too high or packaged inefficiently, because
the allegations lacked notes of fraud, deception, or
misrepresentation.  But as in Eike, the absence of fraud
allegations in the Amended Complaint was purposeful; Plaintiffs
claim that Defendants' practices were unfair and unconscionable,
not deceptive or fraudulent. And like the statutes at issue in
Eike, the statutes enumerated in Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint
prohibit business practices that are unfair or unconscionable in
addition to practices that are fraudulent, deceptive, or
misleading; these terms are defined separately and differently in
the text of the statutes and in relevant case law interpreting
them.

Therefore, the District Court's characterization of Plaintiffs'
claims as sounding in fraud was inaccurate, and the conclusion
that Plaintiffs were without standing due, in part, to the absence
of theories of injury normally attendant to consumer fraud claims,
misses the mark. Moreover, the District Court's chain of reasoning
that because Plaintiffs made no allegations of fraud, they
suffered no injury, and therefore had no standing to sue  blends
standing with merits in the same manner as Eike.

The Third Circuit concludes that Plaintiffs have sufficiently
alleged legally protected interests.

The Third Circuit turns to the next component of injury in fact:
concreteness. For an injury to be concrete, it must be real and
actually exist; it cannot be abstract. Here, Plaintiffs do not
simply allege that Defendants' practices violated state consumer
protection statutes. They allege that those violations caused each
of them tangible, economic harm.

This satisfies the concreteness requirement.

An injury must be both concrete and particularized; these are
distinct components of injury in fact. For an injury to be
particularized, it 'must affect the plaintiff in a personal and
individual way.

Here, each Plaintiff alleges financial harm that he or she has
personally incurred in purchasing medication that was impossible
for him or her to use. There can be no dispute that this harm is
particularized.

Finally, the Third Circuit must determine whether Plaintiffs'
alleged injuries are actual or imminent rather than merely
conjectural or hypothetical.

Plaintiffs illustrated in the Amended Complaint how smaller tipped
bottles would reduce the number of bottles needed for a one-year
therapy regimen, and the resulting cost savings, by referencing an
example in a 2008 scientific study.  Plaintiffs also supported
this iteration of the pricing theory by citing to numerous other
scientific studies in the Amended Complaint. This alternative
iteration of the pricing theory is far less speculative than the
iteration of the pricing theory that the District Court understood
Plaintiffs to be advancing.

The alternative iteration of Plaintiffs' pricing theory does not
depend on a comparable presumption essential to their allegations
of financial harm.  The reduced size of the bottle dropper tip is
the only change from the status quo.

Accordingly, the Third Circuit finds the pricing theory sufficient
to satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement.

Defendants Falcon, Sandoz, and Akorn, the generic manufacturers,
contend that even if the Third Circuit finds that Plaintiffs have
standing to pursue their claims, the circuit court should affirm
the dismissal of their Amended Complaint on an alternative ground:
because their claims are preempted by federal law.

Plaintiffs argue in response that some manufacturers have changed
their drop volumes over time without FDA approval, which suggests
FDA approval is unnecessary.

The District Court did not reach pre-emption in this case, having
found that Plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue their claims. The
Third Circuit declines to address it in the first instance on
appeal, as the record before it is not adequately developed to
evaluate the parties' arguments.

A full-text copy of the Third Circuit's October 18, 2017 Opinion
and Order is available a https://tinyurl.com/y949d3mbt from
Leagle.com.

LEAH M. NICHOLLS -- lnicholls@publicjustice.net -- ESQ. [ARGUED],
Public Justice, P.C., 1620 L. St. N.W., Suite 630, Washington, DC
20036.

RICHARD S. CORNFELD, ESQ. , Law Office of Richard S. Cornfeld,
1010 Market St., Suite 1720, St. Louis, MO 63101.

JOHN G. SIMON -- simonjg@slu.edu -- ESQ. , KEVIN M. CARNIE, JR.,
ESQ. , The Simon Law Firm, P.C., 800 Market St., Suite 1700, St.
Louis, MO 63101.

JEFFREY W. HERRMANN, ESQ., Cohn Lifland Pearlman Herrmann & Knopf
LLP, Park 80 West-Plaza One, 250 Pehle Ave., Suite 401, Saddle
Brook, NJ 07663.

BRIAN S. WOLFMAN, ESQ. , 600 New Jersey Ave. N.W., Suite 312,
Washington, DC 20001, Counsel for Appellants.

ROBYN E. BLADOW -- rbladow@kirkland.com -- ESQ. [ARGUED], AUSTIN
C. NORRIS -- austin.norris@kirkland.com -- ESQ. , Kirkland & Ellis
LLP, 333 South Hope Street, 29th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071,
Counsel for Appellee Pfizer, Inc.

LIZA M. WALSH -- lwalsh@walsh.law -- ESQ. , ELEONORE OFOSU-ANTWI-
eofosuantwi@walsh.law -- ESQ. , Walsh Pizzi O'Reilly & Falanga
LLP, One Riverfront Plaza, 1037 Raymond Boulevard, Suite 600,
Newark, NJ 07102, Counsel for Appellees Pfizer, Inc., Valeant,
Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., Bausch & Lomb, Incorporated,
and Aton Pharma, Inc.

ROGER B. KAPLAN -- kaplanr@gtlaw.com -- ESQ., Greenberg Traurig,
LLP, 200 Park Avenue, Florham Park, NJ 07932.

GREGORY E. OSTFELD -- ostfeldg@gtlaw.com -- ESQ., Greenberg
Traurig, LLP, 77 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 3100, Chicago, IL 60601.

LORI G. COHEN -- cohenL@gtlaw.com -- ESQ., Greenberg Traurig, LLP,
3333 Piemont Road NE, Suite 2500, Atlanta, GA 30305, Counsel for
Appellees Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Alcon, Research Ltd., Sandoz
Inc. and Falcon Pharmaceuticals, Ltd.


ALFRED DUNHILL: Faces "Lopez" Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alfred Dunhill
Americas, LLC. The case is styled as Victor Lopez And On Behalf Of
All Other Persons Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ALFRED
DUNHILL AMERICAS, LLC and YNAP CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-08988 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 16, 2017).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF BRADLY G. MARKS
          280 Park Avenue South
          New York, NY 10010
          Telephone: (646) 770 3775
          Facsimile: (212) 254 4202
          E-mail: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


ALL STAR CONCRETE: "Hererra" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
Oliverio Hererra individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated Plaintiff, v. All Star Concrete and Mason, Inc.
and Kenneth O'Connor, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-09014, (S.D.
N.Y., November 17, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, costs and
attorneys' fees and prejudgment and post-judgment interest
associated with the bringing of this action, plus any additional
relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor
Laws.

Defendant operates a construction company where Hererra worked as
a general laborer. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      69-12 Austin Street
      Forest Hills, NY 11375
      Tel: (718) 263-9591
      Fax: (718) 263-9598


ALLERGAN INC: Faces 1199SEIU Fund Suit Over Restasis-Price Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1199SEIU National Benefit Fund, 1199SEIU Greater New York Benefit
Fund, 1199SEIU National Benefit Fund for Home Care Workers,
1199SEIU Licensed Practical Nurses Welfare Fund, individually and
on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Allergan, Inc., Case
No. 1:17-cv-06755 (E.D.N.Y., November 17, 2017), arises from the
Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful combination, agreement
and conspiracy to monopolize the market for prescription Restasis
(cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion product) sales in the United
States.

Allergan, Inc. own and operate a pharmaceutical company in Irvine,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
      Kelly K. McNabb, Esq.
      LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
      250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
      New York, NY 10013
      Telephone: (212) 355-9500
      Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
      E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com
              kmcnabb@lchb.com

         - and -

      Eric B. Fastiff, Esq.
      Bruce W. Leppla, Esq.
      David T. Rudolph, Esq.
      Adam Gitlin, Esq.
      LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
      275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
      Telephone: (415) 956-1000
      Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
      E-mail: efastiff@lchb.com
              bleppla@lchb.com
              drudolph@lchb.com
              agitlin@lchb.com

         - and -

      Dan Drachler, Esq.
      ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP
      1904 Third Avenue, Suite 1030
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 223-2053
      Facsimile: (206) 343-9636
      E-mail: ddrachler@zsz.com

         - and -

      Sona Shah, Esq.
      ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP
      767 Third Avenue
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 223-3900
      Facsimile: (212) 371-5969
      E-mail: sshah@zsz.com


ALLY FINANCIAL: "Sharpe" Class Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on April 8, 2017 styled Mina Sharpe
and Belinda McKinnon, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Ally Financial, Inc., Randstad North
America, Inc., and Vaco Charlotte, LLC, Case No. 3:17-cv-01462 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of North Carolina Charlotte Division to the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Tennessee. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-01462 to the proceeding.

The case asserts labor-related claims.

The Defendants are in the business of providing financial services
including auto financing, corporate financing, insurance,
mortgages, stock brokerage, and online banking services to
customers throughout the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Philip J. Gibbons Jr., Esq.
      STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
      15720 Brixham Hill Ave, Suite 331
      Charlotte, NC 28277
      Telephone: (704) 612-0038
      E-mail: pgibbons@stephanzouras.com

         - and -

      Teresa M. Becvar, Esq.
      Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
      STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
      205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 233-1550
      Facsimile: (312) 233-1560
      E-mail: tbecvar@stephanzouras.com
              rstephan@stephanzouras.com

The Defendant Ally Financial, Inc. is represented by:

      Ann Herlocker Smith, Esq.
      JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
      3737 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 450
      Raleigh, NC 27612
      Telephone: (919) 760-6460
      Facsimile: (919) 760-6461
      E-mail: Ann.Smith@jacksonlewis.com

         - and -

      David R. Golder, Esq.
      JACKSON LEWIS LLP
      90 State House Square, 8th Floor
      Hartford, CT 06103
      Telephone: (860) 331-1536
      Facsimile: (860) 247-1330
      E-mail: golderd@jacksonlewis.com

The Defendant Randstad North America, Inc. is represented by:

      Frederick T. Smith, Esq.
      SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
      One Peachtree Pointe
      1545 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 700
      Atlanta, GA 30309
      Telephone: (404) 885-1500
      Facsimile: (404) 892-7056

The Defendant Vaco Charlotte, LLC is represented by:

      Amy Elizabeth Puckett, Esq.
      BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP
      100 N. Tryon St., Ste. 2690
      Charlotte, NC 28202
      Telephone: (704) 338-6060
      Facsimile: (704) 332-8858
      E-mail: apuckett@bradley.com

         - and -

      James Craig Oliver, Esq.
      BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP
      1600 Division Street, Suite 700
      Nashville, TN 37203-0025
      Telephone: (615) 244-2582
      E-mail: coliver@bradley.com

         - and -

      Michael Casin Griffin, Esq.
      BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP
      214 N. Tryon Street, Suite 3700
      Charlotte, NC 28202
      Telephone: (704) 338-6015
      Facsimile: (704) 332-8858
      E-mail: mgriffin@babc.com


AMERIMEX SOLUTIONS: Siu Sues over Automated Dialing System
----------------------------------------------------------
GORDON SIU, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. AMERIMEX SOLUTIONS, INC. and AMERIMEX
COMMUNICATIONS CORP., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04498-SCJ
(N.D. Ga., Nov. 8, 2017), seeks injunctive relief prohibiting
AmeriMex and/or its affiliates, agents, and/or other persons or
entities acting on AmeriMex's behalf from violating the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, by making calls, except for emergency
purposes, to any cellular telephone numbers using an ATDS and/or
artificial or prerecorded voice in the future.

The Plaintiff brings this action to enforce the consumer privacy
provisions of the TCPA, a federal statute enacted in 1991 in
response to widespread public outrage about the proliferation of
intrusive, nuisance telemarketing practices. In violation of the
TCPA, AmeriMex Solutions, Inc. and AmeriMex Communications Corp.
initiated automated telemarketing calls to Mr. Siu's cellular
telephone number using an automated dialing system, which is
prohibited by the TCPA.  Mr. Siu never consented to receive these
calls. Because automated dialing campaigns generally place calls
to hundreds of thousands or even millions of potential customers
en masse, Mr. Siu brings this action on behalf of a proposed
nationwide class of other persons who received illegal
telemarketing calls from or on behalf of Defendants.

AmeriMex specializes in power equipment for all industries,
including motors and controls.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven H. Koval, Esq.
          THE KOVAL FIRM, LLC
          3575 Piedmont Road
          Building 15, Suite 120
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (404) 513 6651
          Facsimile: (404) 549 4654
          E-mail: shkoval@aol.com


ANTARES PHARMA: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, disclosed the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Antares Pharma, Inc. from December 21, 2016 through
October 12, 2017, inclusive. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages
for Antares investors under the federal securities laws.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

According to the lawsuit, defendants during the Class Period made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Antares had provided insufficient data to the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration in connection with its New Drug
Application for Xyosted; (2) as a result, Antares had overstated
the approval prospects for Xyosted; (3) consequently, Antares's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
December 22, 2017. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-1237.htmlor to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-
3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Since 2014, Rosen Law Firm has
been ranked #2 in the nation by Institutional Shareholder Services
for the number of securities class action settlements annually
obtained for investors.

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Kevin Chan, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Tel: 212-686-1060
         Toll Free: 866-767-3653
         Fax: 212-202-3827
         Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                pkim@rosenlegal.com
                kchan@rosenlegal.com [GN]


ARAMARK SPORTS: Cintron Sues over Collection of Biometric Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH CINTRON, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, known and unknown, the Plaintiff, v. ARAMARK
SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES, LLC and ARAMARK SERVICES, INC.,
the Defendants, Case No. 2017CH14821 (in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Ill., Nov. 7, 2017), seeks to recover damages as a result
of Defendants' violation of the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act.

The Plaintiff worked as a grill cook for Aramark Sports at Soldier
Field in Chicago from approximately 2013 through September 2015.
The Plaintiff worked as a grill cook for Aramark Services, Inc.,
at BMO Harris Bank's headquarters in Chicago from approximately
April 2016 through September 2016. As a condition of employment,
Defendants required Plaintiff and others similarly situated to use
a biometric time-keeping system to record their time worked.

Illinois restricted private entities, like Defendants, from
collecting, storing, using, or transferring a person's biometric
identifiers and information without adhering to strict informed-
consent procedures established by the Biometric Information
Privacy Act. The Defendants collected, stored, used, and
transferred the unique biometric fingerprint identifiers of
Plaintiff and others similarly situated without following the
strictures of the Biometric Information Privacy Act. As a result,
Defendants violated the Biometric Information Privacy Act and
compromised the privacy and security of the biometric identifiers
of Plaintiff and others similarly situated.

Aramark Sports provides food services for Soldier Field in Chicago
and other sporting and entertainment venues in Illinois. Aramark
Services, Inc., provides food services for BMO Harris Bank's
headquarters in Chicago and other businesses in Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
          Maureen A. Salas
          WERMAN SALAS P.C.
          77 West Washington, Suite 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 419 1008
          E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
                  msalas@flsalaw.com


ARIZONA: Attorney General Scores Big Win vs Excessive Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Robb, writing for AZ Central, reports that Arizona Attorney
General Mark Brnovich has shown a surprising, and welcome,
willingness to take on abuses in his own profession.

Last year, an outfit called Advocates for Individuals with
Disabilities filed well over a thousand cases against small
businesses in Arizona alleging violations of parking requirements
under state and federal laws prohibiting discrimination against
the disabled.

This was obviously entrepreneurial litigation, intended more to
collect legal fees than to truly make things better for those whom
the law was intended to protect.

Rather than leaving the targeted small businesses to fend for
themselves, Brnovich stepped in. He first sought to have all the
cases brought by AID consolidated into one proceeding in which he
could intervene.

He asked that AID be forbidden from bringing any additional cases.
He moved that the existing cases be dismissed. And he asked that
AID be sanctioned for misuse of the courts and barred from
bringing disability cases in the future.

Why aren't more following Brnovich's lead?

Brnovich succeeded on every point.  A settlement with AID was
announced in which it agreed to the sanctions and the injunction
against future lawsuits.

This attempted litigation shakedown also prompted the Legislature
to adopt a sensible change in Arizona's disability act. After
notice of a violation, a business will get a chance to cure the
alleged problem before things go to court.

Brnovich is also going after the attorney fee scam in class action
lawsuits, in which lawyers get big bucks and consumers get
pennies.

He asked the U.S. Supreme Court to create a rule that the lawyers
could only get proportionate to actual payouts to the alleged
victims, not as a function of a theoretical big pot that will
never actually get paid. And he's intervened in specific cases to
protest that a proposed settlement gave too much to the lawyers
and not enough to the consumers.

Entrepreneurial litigation is a distortion of the judicial system
and a notable economic drag. Brnovich is one of the few in the
country actually trying to do something about it. [GN]


ATTENDING HOME: "Marichal" Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Josefina Marichal, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Attending Home Care Services,
LLC, David Inzlicht, Gwendolyn Rodriguez, Denise Rodriguez and
John Does #1-10, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-06756 (E.D. N.Y.,
November 17, 2017), seeks minimum wages as required under the Wage
Parity Act and New York Labor Law, overtime pay, spread-of-hours
premium as required by the New York Labor Law and the supporting
New York State Department of Labor regulations and damages under
the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act.

Marichal was a home health aide from November 15, 2011 until about
January 22, 2015 who worked numerous 24-hour shifts for which she
was paid for only 12 of the 24 hours worked with no meal breaks
and did not get 5 hours of uninterrupted sleep. She worked for
Defendants for more than 40 hours per week without overtime pay,
says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      William C. Rand, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND
      501 Fifth Avenue, 15th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Phone: (212) 286-1425
      Fax: (646) 688-3078


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

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

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

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

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class and Collective:

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

               - and -

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


CALIFORNIA: Inmates Must Show Why Petition Should Not Be Junked
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued an Order to Show Cause Why the Petition Should
Not Be Dismissed for Petitioners' Failure to Exhaust State
Judicial Remedies in the case captioned RICHARD ACORD, et al.,
Petitioners, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent, Case No. 1:17-cv-
01089-MJS (HC) (E.D. Cal.).

This petition for writ of habeas corpus was brought pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 2254 by Richard Acord, Leandro Angel Gonzales,
Anthony J. Ruiz, Thomas Camarillo, Jeff Brown, and Joseph E.
Gambler, who seek to bring this petition as a class action.  At
the time of filing, Petitioners all were incarcerated at the Kings
County Jail in Hanford, California pursuant to judgments of the
State Court of California. Acord since has been released from
custody.

A petitioner who is in state custody and wishes to collaterally
challenge his conviction by a petition for writ of habeas corpus
must exhaust state judicial remedies. The exhaustion doctrine is
based on comity to the state court and gives the state court the
initial opportunity to correct the state's alleged constitutional
deprivations.

A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by providing
the highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to
consider each claim before presenting it to the federal court. A
federal court will find that the highest state court was given a
full and fair opportunity to hear a claim if the petitioner has
presented the highest state court with the claim's factual and
legal basis.

Here, there is no allegation that any of the Petitioners have
presented any of the claims to the highest state court, the
California Supreme Court. Petitioners must inform the Court if, in
fact, their claims have been presented to the California Supreme
Court, and if possible, provide the Court with a copy of the
petition or petitions filed in the California Supreme Court along
with a copy of any ruling made by the California Supreme Court.
Without knowing what claims, if any, have been presented to the
California Supreme Court, the Court is unable to proceed to the
merits of the petition.

Accordingly, Petitioners are ordered to show cause why the
petition should not be dismissed for Petitioners' failure to
exhaust state judicial remedies.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 18, 2017 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yc2bmwg8 from Leagle.com.

Richard Acord, Petitioner, Pro Se.

Leandro Angel Gonzales, Petitioner, Pro Se.

Anthony J. Ruiz, Petitioner, Pro Se.

Thomas Camarillo, Petitioner, Pro Se.

Jeff Brown, Petitioner, Pro Se.

Joseph E. Gamber, Petitioner, Pro Se.


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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Dixon Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Takiya N. Dixon, on behalf of herself and similarly situated
consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Capital Management Services, LP, and
Jefferson Capital System LLC, the Defendant, Case No. L7950-17
(N.J. Super. Ct., Nov. 8, 2017), seeks to recover damages as a
result of Defendant's violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are directly engaged in
purchasing debts in amounts less than $50,000 and attempting to
collect upon those debts against consumers. On January 20, 2017,
Capital mailed Plaintiff a collection letter for a debt incurred
with First Premier Bank. The debts arose from use of a credit card
used for personal, family, and household purposes. Capital was
collecting on behalf of the current creditor.

The Defendants are debt collector firms.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Zemel, Esq.
          Zemel Law LLC
          78 John Miller Way Suite 430
          Kearny, NJ 07032
          Telephone: (862) 227 3106
          E-mail: dz@zemellawllc.com


CONCORDIA COLLEGE: Faces "Delacruz" Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Concordia College.
The case is captioned as Emanuel Delacruz and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Concordia
College, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-08651-GBD (S.D.N.Y., Nov.
17, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge George B.
Daniels.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COOK COUNTY, IL: Violates Gender Violence Act, "Brown" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
CRYSTAL BROWN, SARAN CRAYTON, SAMANTHA SLONIM, CELESTE ADDYMAN,
ERIKA KNIERIM and JULIE HULL, on Behalf of Themselves and a Class
of Similarly Situated Persons, the Plaintiffs, COOK COUNTY; LAW
OFFICE OF THE COOK COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER; AMY CAMPANELLI, in her
official and individual capacity as Public Defender of Cook
County; and THOMAS DART, in his official and individual capacity
as Sheriff of Cook County, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-08085
(N.D. Ill., Nov. 8, 2017), seeks to recover damages as a result of
Defendants causing and conspiring to cause female Assistant Public
Defenders ("APDs") and female law clerks in the Law Office of the
Cook County Public Defender to suffer a continuing severe and/or
pervasive hostile work environment on the basis of sex in
violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States
Constitution and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. sections 1983, 1985(3) and
1986 and the Illinois Gender Violence Act.

The Public Defenders like the Plaintiffs and the class they
represent are tasked with defending the legal rights of those who
do not have access to private attorneys. Law clerks are students,
many of whom are allowed to practice law in a limited capacity and
under the supervision of a licensed attorney, and assist APDs with
cases. The Plaintiffs and the APDs represent some of society's
most vulnerable members. They work every day to protect their
clients' rights and litigate their cases, often with very few
resources. The work is grueling and their caseloads are heavy, but
they are almost uniformly driven by their love of the important
work they do. However, as a result of a toxic work environment
caused and perpetuated by Defendants in concert, they are forced
to regularly endure heinous sexual misconduct, robbing many of
their love of the job, maybe permanently. For at least two years,
and continuing through the present, female APDs and law clerks
have been increasingly subjected to offensive incidents whereby
male detainees in the courtroom lockups and Divisions 9 and 10 of
the Cook County Jail have repeatedly exposed their penises,
masturbated, and engaged in other acts of sex-based aggression,
verbal threats and harassment, and on an almost daily basis.

According to the lawsuit, the Defendants have been aware of this
offensive and dangerous conduct by detainees for more than two
years but have knowingly permitted it to continue. As a result of
Defendants' actions and inactions, incidents of obscene exposure,
masturbation, and harassment against female APDs have increased in
frequency and severity. Male APDs are not similarly targeted by
detainees for indecent exposure, masturbation, assault, and
battery. To the contrary, detainee masturbation and exposure in
lockup and at the jail is specifically and systematically directed
toward female APDs and law clerks. As a result of Defendants'
deliberate actions and inactions in concert, female APDs and law
clerks have suffered and continue to suffer significant damages,
including but not limited to severe emotional distress and trauma,
both emotional and physical.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robin Potter, Esq.
          M. Nieves Bolanos, Esq.
          POTTER & BOLANOS, P.C.
          111 East Wacker Drive, Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: 312-861-1800
          E-mail: robin@potterlaw.org
                  nieves@potterlaw.org


COOK COUNTY, IL: Sued Over Deteriorating Jail Security Situation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy B. White, writing for Independent, reports that inmates in
a Chicago jail have been offered pizza as a reward for abstaining
from masturbation for 30 days, a lawsuit alleges.

Female lawyers in the city's main prison say they have faced
chronic masturbation and constant sexual harassment from
detainees, and a system to reward abstainers with pizza has
worsened the situation.

A class action lawsuit filed on behalf of female law clerks and
assistant attorneys in the Cook County Public Defender's Office
describes a deteriorating security situation.

It says employees are routinely subjected to harassment and abuse
from male detainees at Cook County Jail and courthouses -- and
that both the Cook County Sheriff's office and the Cook County
Public Defender's Office have failed to protect them.

"They are forced to regularly endure heinous sexual misconduct,"
the lawsuit alleges, adding that male detainees threaten to
assault attorneys, deliberately expose themselves to female
employees and masturbate at them.

When the issue was brought to Sheriff Thomas Dart and Public
Defender Amy Campanelli, the lawsuit alleges, they acknowledged
the problem was "severe and pervasive" but didn't take effective
steps to stop it.

In fact, the lawsuit claims, they made matters worse. It says Mr
Dart created a system to reward offenders with pizza if they went
30 days without publicly masturbating or exposing themselves.

But that only encouraged people who hadn't committed such offences
to do so so they could abstain and, 30 days later, obtain their
reward, according to the lawsuit.

"The sheriff's rewards for intermittent indecent exposure and/or
masturbation led to an increase in exposure incidents as detainees
without prior incidents were now incentivised to commit indecent
exposure and masturbation in order to qualify for a pizza reward,"
it says.

A representative for the Cook County Public Defender's office did
not respond to a request for comment. Cara Smith, chief policy
officer for the Sheriff's department, called the allegations of a
pizza reward system "absurd" and "an absolute untruth with no
basis in fact".

"The safety and security of our staff -- including our female
corrections officers -- is of paramount concern to the sheriff and
our office, and we're going to continue to do everything we can to
address this despicable criminal behaviour by the detainees," Ms
Smith said.

"Indecent exposure in correctional settings is unfortunately a
reality," she added, "and we use a lot of different techniques to
try and address the behaviour".

Documents filed with the case show the public defender has tried
to curb the abuse for some time. Months before the lawsuit was
filed, Ms Campanelli pleaded with the sheriff to address the
simmering "crisis".

In a March letter filed along with the complaint, the public
defender warned detainees were regularly exposing themselves to
female law clerks and attorneys, creating an "intolerable"
situation and compromising her office's work as staff began to
fear speaking with abusive clients.

She faulted Mr Dart's response, saying he responded to a request
for better security by shackling inmates.

"Our attorneys are being forced to work in an environment that is
traumatizing and debilitating," she wrote, adding that "the safety
of my staff and the constitutional rights of my clients are being
violated". [GN]


DALLAS, TX: To Pay Nearly $62 Million in Police Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Tanya Eiserer, writing for WFAA.com, reports that the Dallas City
Council is set to settle four of the six long-running lawsuits
alleging the city underpaid police and firefighters, a move that
could potentially save the city billions were it to lose in court.

The council is scheduled to vote to pay nearly $62 million to
settle with 1,700 current and former police and firefighters in
lawsuits filed in Collin County. The City will issue bonds to pay
the judgment.

It will be up to a court-appointed official to decide how much
each of the plaintiffs will receive. That will vary based on
tenure and rank.

"It's a huge win-win for the citizens of Dallas," Mayor Mike
Rawlings told WFAA. "We have that room on our credit card to be
able to do it and it's a great use of the money given the
potential liabilities."

An attorney for the police officers and firefighters in Collin
County could be reached for comment.

The settlement doesn't impact two class action lawsuits filed in
Rockwall County. Neither of those lawsuits has been set for trial.

"I think it's good both sides compromised," said Ted Lyon, the
lead attorney representing the public safety workers in the
Rockwall cases.

He said in the spring his side offered to settle all of the cases
for $300 million, an offer the city declined. He said they are not
currently negotiating with the city on a settlement.

"I hope they'll come back to the table with the other 8,600 police
and firemen," Lyon said.

It wasn't long ago that city leaders were facing potential
financial catastrophe. The police fire and pension fund was set on
a course to go bankrupt in under 10 years. But with fixes to the
pension now in place, City Attorney Larry Casto and Rawlings said
the time was ripe to settle looming Collin county lawsuits.

If a settlement wasn't reached, those case were set to go to trial
this month. A loss in those cases could have bankrupted the City.

The lawsuits revolve around a 1979 referendum that voters approved
giving police and firefighters a 15 percent pay raise. The voters
also approved keeping the different levels of pay among the
different ranks in both departments the same.

The main point of contention is this: Did voters intend to
maintain that pay raise structure for one year or in perpetuity?

"It all revolves around three words: 'shall be maintained,'" Casto
said.

The city has always contended that "shall be maintained" meant for
just one year. Police and firefighters say voters meant that it
was to be in perpetuity.

"Our position and we believe it today that the voters intended
that this was a one-time 15 percent pay raise back in 1979," Casto
said. "You take those to a jury, I believe, we could convince a
jury that was meant to be a one-time pay raise, but if you miss
it's a big miss and it's risky for taxpayers and citizens if you
get a jury that doesn't agree with you."

In 1994, lawsuits were filed in Collin County. The two class
actions were filed later in Rockwall County.

Public safety workers were able to file the lawsuits in Collin and
Rockwall because portions of Dallas are in those counties.

The lawsuits have moved up and down the court system for decades.
The City has filed appeal after appeal seeking to keep the cases
from going before a jury. It long maintained the case had no merit
and that the City couldn't sue over it anyway because of sovereign
immunity.

In 2002, the Dallas-based Fifth Court of Appeals ruled the
ordinance is ambiguous because it could be interpreted either way.
Eleven years later, the same court of appeals ruled a change in
state law had waived the city's immunity from the emergency
workers claims.

Last September, in the Rockwall cases, a judge denied the city's
motion for summary judgement and claims that the court didn't have
jurisdiction. The city is currently preparing to file appeal with
the Texas Supreme Court.

Lyon says if need be, he is willing to go trial.

"I know we've got a really strong case and I think we'll prevail
at trial, but you never know," he said. "Not only yes do we want
to go to trial, but hell yes we'll go to trial."

Last year, Elizabeth Reich, the chief financial officer for
Dallas, acknowledged that the lawsuits had the potential to be a
ticking financial time bomb for the City. She told the council
that it could be a $4 billion cost in back pay. It would have an
enormous chunk of the Dallas budget potentially for years.

City officials had sought to convince legislators in the last
session to let them off the hook for the lawsuits but legislators
declined to bail the City out.

Bonding agencies have also taken an unfavorable stance toward the
pay lawsuits. Late last year and earlier this year, two rating
agencies lowered the Dallas bond rating, citing the pay lawsuits
and the then-failing police and fire pension fund.

Those downgrades meant that it could cost the taxpayers millions
more to borrow money to make much-needed improvements to
infrastructure.

Casto says the City didn't settle any of pay lawsuits sooner, in
part, because it could have affected the pension. But a provision
in the newly passed pension legislation dictated that any money
paid related to the pay lawsuits would have no effect on the
pension.

The mayor said he expects the settlement on the Collin County
cases to be paid by early next year. It will take time for Dallas
to sell the bonds needed to pay the judgment.

"The settlement means that the city can look toward the future
with a little more certainty and security about what's ahead,"
Casto said. [GN]


DESH BANGLA: Faces "Alam" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Desh Bangla Inc. The
case is titled as MD Nurul Alam, on behalf of himself and all
Persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Desh Bangla Inc.,
The Bangla Times Inc., and Choudhury S. Hasan, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-06715 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 16, 2017).[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


ENVENT CORPORATION: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Sanchez Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ENVENT CORPORATION, a
California corporation, and Does 1 through 30, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 17, 2017), seeks to
recover unpaid wage premiums for meal and rest break violations,
statutory penalties, restitution, as well as other damages owed
pursuant to the California Labor Code, California Business and
Professions Code, and California Industrial Welfare Commission
Wage Order.

According to the complaint, as a result of Defendants' company-
wide policies and practices, the Plaintiff and other members of
the class were not provided with off-duty, uninterrupted meal and
rest breaks because they were routinely compelled to work during
and through their meal and rest breaks. The Defendants also failed
to pay split shift premiums when its hourly employees worked
shifts that were interrupted by non-paid non-working periods
established by Defendants, other than bona fide rest or meal
periods. Additionally, Plaintiff and other members of the class
were not timely paid their wages owed at their separation of
employment. The Plaintiff and other members of the class also did
not receive accurate itemized wage statements that complied with
California Labor Code section 226, subdivision (a), because the
wage statements did not accurately state gross and net wages
earned due to Defendants' failure to maintain lawful meal or rest
break practices.

In an effort to boost profits, the Defendants systematically
ignored their obligations under California wage and hour laws. The
Plaintiff alleges, that these violations are continuing
to this day. The Plaintiff and other members of the class were not
provided with off-duty, uninterrupted meal and rest breaks because
they were routinely compelled to work during and through their
meal and rest breaks.

Envent provides industrial and environmental services to
refineries, chemical plants, pipeline operations, fuel terminals,
oil fields, and pipeline.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shadie L. Berenji, Esq.
          Oscar A. Bustos, Esq.
          Brittanee A. Marksbury, Esq.
          BERENJI LAW FIRM, APC
          8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 708
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 855 3270
          Facsimile: (310) 855 3751
          E-mail: berenii@employeejustice.law
                  bustos@employeejustice.law
                  marksbury@employeeiustice.law


EQUIFAX INC: Alcoa Credit Union Sues over Consumer Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALCOA COMMUNITY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, individually and on behalf
of a class of all similarly situated financial institutions, the
Plaintiff, v. EQUIFAX, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
04480-CC (N.D. Ga., Nov. 7, 2017), seeks to recover costs that
Plaintiff and others similarly situated have been forced to bear
as a direct result of the Equifax data breach and to obtain
appropriate equitable relief to mitigate future harm that is
certain to occur in light of the unprecedented scope of this
breach.

On September 7, 2017, Equifax announced that hackers had exploited
a vulnerability in Equifax's U.S. website to illegally gain access
to consumers' highly sensitive personally identifiable information
files. The Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and similarly situated
banks, credit unions, and other financial institutions, that have
suffered, and continue to suffer, financial losses and increased
data security risks that are a direct result of Equifax's failure
to safeguard the financial institutions' customers' highly
sensitive, personally identifiable information, alleges as follows
based on (a) publicly available information; (b) personal
knowledge of those matters relating to itself, and (c) upon
information and belief as to all other matters, bring this
putative class action against Equifax Inc.

Equifax collects and maintains highly sensitive, personally
identifiable information, including, but not limited to, names,
Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses, and driver's
license numbers ("PII") and payment card data, including, but not
limited to, credit and debit card numbers, primary account numbers
("PANs"), card verification value numbers ("CVVs"), expiration
dates and zip codes ("Payment Card Data") on over 820 million
individual consumers and 91 million businesses. Between at least
May 2017 and July 2017, intruders gained access to the PII and
payment card data of over 145.5 million U.S. consumers -- roughly
44% of the United States population -- as well as the Payment Card
Data for an untold number of credit and debit cards in what was
one of the largest data breaches in this country's history. To
date, Equifax has reported up to 209,000 compromised consumer
credit cards. Despite the well-publicized identification in March
2017, of the vulnerability in Apache Struts, and open-source
application framework that supports Equifax online dispute portal
web application, Equifax systematically failed to take reasonable
steps to adequately protect the only product in which it
exclusively trades and is responsible for protecting -- the
ultrasensitive highly-sought-after personal and financial
information of millions of individuals.

Equifax's CEO admitted: "The company failed to prevent sensitive
information from falling into the hands of wrongdoers. [T]he
breach occurred because of both human error and technology
failures." The suit contends the data breach was the inevitable
result of Equifax's inadequate data security measures and approach
to data security. Consequently, the financial harms caused by
Equifax's negligent handling of PII and Payment Card Data have
been, and will be, borne in large part by the financial
institutions that issue payment cards, process and hold various
loans and credit products, and service accounts that are held by
individuals whose PII and Payment Card Data has been compromised
by the breach. These costs include, but are not limited to,
canceling and reissuing an untold number of compromised credit and
debit cards, reimbursing customers for fraudulent charges,
increasing fraudulent activity monitoring, taking appropriate
action to mitigate the risk of identity theft and fraudulent loans
and other banking activity, sustaining reputational harm, and
notifying customers of potential fraudulent activity.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

          Robert C. Khayat, Jr.
          THE KHAYAT LAW FIRM
          75 Fourteenth Street, N.E., Suite 2750
          Atlanta, Georgia 30309
          Telephone: (404) 978 2750
          Facsimile: (404) 978 2901
          E-mail: rkhayat@khayatlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Michael L. Roberts, Esq.
          Karen Sharp Halbert, Esq.
          Susan M. Fowler, Esq.
          ROBERTS LAW FIRM, P.A.
          20 Rahling Circle
          PO Box 241790
          Little Rock, AR 72223-1790
          Telephone: (501) 821 5575
          Facsimile: (501) 821 4474
          E-mail: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us

               - and -

          Charles Barrett, Esq.
          NEAL & HARWELL, PLC
          1201 Demonbreun Suite 1000
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 238 3647
          Facsimile: (615) 293 7375
          E-mail: cbarrett@nealharwell.com


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

The Plaintiff asserts three causes of action:

     -- Count I "Breach of Contract for Failure to Pay PIP
        Benefits";

     -- Count II "Breach of Contract for Failure to Pay PIP
        Benefits [Conventional Subrogation]"; and

     -- Count III "Breach of Contract for Failure to Pay PIP
        Benefits [or in the Alternative, Equitable Subrogation".

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

Counsel for MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC:

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


FRONTIER CALIFORNIA: Fails to Pay All Wages, "Watson" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARKLAND WATSON, an individual, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FRONTIER CALIFORNIA,
INC., a California corporation; FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS
CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; CITIZENS TELECOM SERVICES
COMPANY LLC, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC684111 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Nov. 17, 2017), seeks to recover wages and penalties from unpaid
wages earned and due, including but not limited to unpaid minimum
wages, unpaid and illegally calculated overtime compensation,
illegal meal and rest period policies, failure to pay all wages
due to discharged and quitting employees, failure to indemnify
employees for necessary expenditures and/or losses incurred in
discharging their duties, failure to provide accurate itemized
wage statements, failure to maintain required records, and
interest, attorneys' fees, costs; and expenses.

Frontier California, Inc. is a Frontier Communications-owned
operating company providing telephone service in former Verizon
regions. This included Southern California cities such as Long
Beach, Seal Beach, Lakewood, Norwalk and Santa Monica.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          Andrew J. Sokolowski, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531 1900
          Facsimile: (310) 5311901


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

A Petition for a writ of certiorari filed.

The Petitioners are represented by:

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


GENERAL ELECTRIC: "Imamura" Suit Seeks Damages Over Disaster
------------------------------------------------------------Shinya
Imamura, Iryo Hojin Nishikai, Iryo Hoj in Shadan Imamura Clinic,
Kabushiki Kaisha Bellevue Trading, Kabushiki Kaisha Maruhi, Koekj
Zaidan Hojin Jinsenkai, Konno Geka Clinic, Akita Konno, and
Masahiro Yamaguchi, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. General Electric Company (GE)
and Does 1 - 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-12278, (D.
Mass., November 17, 2017), seeks to recover property and other
economic damages caused by the Fukushima Nuclear disaster in
Japan.

Plaintiffs are property owners, businesses and other commercial
enterprises that have been economically devastated and literally
ruined by the matters alleged in this complaint.

GE designed and largely constructed the entire Fukushima Daiichi
Nuclear Power Plant. After the 2011 earthquake, GE has paid
literally nothing toward the massive economic and business
destruction its actions and failings have caused. Plaintiffs
allege that GE did not make the necessary safety systems that
could have mitigated further damage. GE was fully aware that the
site has a long-recorded history of very large earthquakes and
tsunamis dating long back. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Timothy P. Frawley, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF TIMOTHY P. FRAWLEY
      One International Place, 14th Floor
      Boston, MA 02210
      Tel: (617) 535-7712
      Email: Timothy.Frawley@tfrawleylaw.com

             - and -

      John Donboli, Esq.
      DONBOLI LAW GROUP, APC
      11682 El Camino Real, Suite 100
      San Diego, CA 92130
      Telephone: (858) 252-2015
      Facsimile: (858) 724-1490
      Email: jd@donboli1awgroup.com

             - and -

      Bonnie L. Dixon, Esq.
      ATSUMI & SAKAI
      Fukoku Seimei Bldg.
      2-2-2 Uchisaiwaicho
      Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-0011
      Japan
      Tel: +81(0)3-5501-2111
      Fax: +81(0)3-5501-2211
      E-mail: bd@aplaw.jp


GENOCEA BIOSCIENCES: Monteverde Files Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, ESQ., founder and managing partner at Monteverde
& Associates PC, a boutique securities firm headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City said a class action lawsuit
has been filed against Genocea Biosciences, Inc. (NASDAQ:
GNCA)("Genocea" or the "Company") on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's securities between May 5, 2017 and September 25, 2017,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The lawsuit is based on whether Genocea and its executive violated
federal securities law by misleading investors making materially
false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose (1)
Genocea's finances were insufficient to support Phase 3 trials of
GEN-003; (2) as a result, Genocea had overstated the prospects for
GEN-003; and (3) consequently, Genocea's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

Mr. Monteverde would like to personally discuss with you how to
potentially recover your monetary losses, if incurred during the
Class Period.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than January 2, 2018. Any member of the putative class may
move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member.

Monteverde & Associates PC is a boutique class action securities
and consumer litigation law firm committed that has recovered
millions of dollars and is committed to protecting shareholders
and consumers from corporate wrongdoing.  Monteverde & Associates
PC lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers &
Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect
investors by recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct.
Mr. Monteverde, who leads the legal team at the firm, has been
recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities
Litigation in 2013 and 2017, an award given to less than 2.5% of
attorneys in a particular field. [GN]


HOME DELIVERY: "Zepeda" Suit Seeks Compensation under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
MINOR ZEPEDA individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. HOME DELIVERY LOGISTICS, INC., a
California corporation and DOES 1-10, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. RG617882945 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 17, 2017), seeks to
recover compensation, damages, penalties, and interest in the full
extent permitted by the California Labor Code and the applicable
IWC Wage Orders.

This is a putative class action arising out of Defendants'
misclassification of its delivery drivers as "independent
contractors" instead of "employees." The Defendants operate a
"local delivery" service, which makes deliveries of furniture and
other items.

According to the complaint, under well-established law, Defendants
are the legal employer of the Drivers they hire to provide this
service to its customers. Indeed, Defendants retain the right to
exercise extensive control over the way the Drivers perform their
deliveries; Defendants treat the Drivers as employees "in every
material respect. Among other things, Defendants retain the right
to control the Drivers' schedules, routes, customers, equipment,
appearance, pay rate, insurance, helpers, and other details of the
job. Yet, by misclassifying the Drivers as independent
contractors, rather than as employees, Defendants unlawfully evade
their obligation to pay these Drivers the full wages and
employment benefits they are due under applicable law.

Throughout the proposed class period, Defendant has employed over
a hundred Drivers in California. These Driven; take deliveries to
the residential customers of Defendants' clients, an integral part
of Defendants' home delivery business. No specialized skills are
required 16 for the job: Defendants require that the Drivers
arrive at Defendant's terminal early in the morning, dressed in a
"Home-Delivery Logistics" uniforms or the uniforms of Defendants'
clients. They must attend mandatory morning meetings with
Defendants before they begin loading their vehicles and making the
deliveries in accordance with Defendants' routes and instructions.
The Drivers routinely work 12 to 14-hour days.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua Konecky, Esq.
          Leslie H. Joyner , Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL
          KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
          112000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421 7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421 7105
          E-mail: jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com
                  Ijoyner@schneiderwallace.com


HOST INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Pay All Wages, "Wilson" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER WILSON, an individual, on behalf herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. HOST INTERNATIONAL, INC., a
Delaware corporation; HMS HOST USA, INC., a Delaware corporation;
HMS HOST FAMILY RESTAURANTS, INC., a Maryland corporation; and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC684110
(Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 17, 2017), seeks to recover wages and
penalties from unpaid wages earned and due, including but not
limited to unpaid minimum wages, unpaid and illegally calculated
overtime compensation, illegal meal and rest period policies,
failure to pay all wages due to discharged and quitting employees,
failure to indemnify employees for necessary expenditures and/or
losses incurred in discharging their duties, failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements, failure to maintain required
records, and interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses. As a
direct and proximate result of the unlawful actions of Defendants,
Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered, and continue to suffer,
from loss of earnings.

Host International, through its subsidiaries, operates food,
beverage, and merchandise concessions at airports and on toll
roads.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          Matthew W. Gordon, Esq.
          Braunson C. Virjee, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531-1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531-1901


JANUS ET CIE: Faces "Norman" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Janus Et Cie. The
case is entitled as Virginia Norman, and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Janus Et Cie, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-08975 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 16, 2017).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 229 2249
          Facsimile: (212) 229 2246
          E-mail: Jazeller@zellerlegal.com


KIA MOTORS: Class-Action Lawsuit Says Animals Eat Soy-Based Wiring
------------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Kia
Soul owner claims rodents and other animals keep returning to the
Soul for breakfast, lunch and dinner on the soy-based wiring under
the hood.

Plaintiff Tsvetelin Tsonev filed the proposed Kia soy wiring
class-action lawsuit on behalf of all current and former owners
and lessees of 2012-2015 Kia Soul, Sorrento, Sedona, Sportage,
Forte, Cadenza, Optima and Rio vehicles purchased or leased in the
U.S.

The plaintiff says he leased a 2015 Kia Soul in April 2015 that
has allegedly been damaged three times because the automaker keeps
replacing soy-based wiring with more soy wiring, inviting more
critters to snacktime.

Each time, Kia allegedly refused to cover the repairs under
warranty, leaving a combined cost of nearly $9,300. While the
plaintiff's insurer has covered most of the cost of these repairs,
the plaintiff has paid the $500 deductible three times ($1,500).

In addition, the plaintiff says he has incurred over $650 in
rental car charges while his Kia Soul was being repaired.

The lawsuit alleges the dealership admitted parts were damaged and
that rodents had eaten the hood insulation, wiring assembly,
wiring harness and positive and ground cables.

While his 2015 Kia Soul was being repaired, the plaintiff received
a 2016 Kia Soul loaner vehicle that allegedly experienced the same
fate.

In January 2016, the plaintiff paid $1,762 for the repair ($1,262
was covered by the auto insurer and the plaintiff paid the $500
deductible). The dealer invoice allegedly said, "Repaired mouse
damaged wiring and replaced positive cable and ground cable."

The plaintiff says less than two weeks after getting the
"repaired" Soul back, the vehicle refused to start. A check under
the hood allegedly showed damage to the soy-based wiring, so the
car was towed back to the dealer.

Kia allegedly confirmed damage to the main wiring harness for the
engine that damaged the fuel line and blocked the workings of the
airbags, all to the tune of an estimated $3,200 to repair the
problems. The plaintiff says he was again told the chewed wiring
would not be covered under warranty, causing the plaintiff to
contact Kia directly.

However, Kia denied the existence of a defect, denied the warranty
claim and denied the request to terminate the lease. The auto
insurer came to the rescue again, but it still left the plaintiff
to pay another $500 deductible.

According to the lawsuit, about four weeks passed and the airbag
warning light activated because of gnawed wires under the hood.
This caused another tow to the dealer and another estimate of
$4,000 to repair the damage, causing the plaintiff to request a
loaner vehicle from an automaker other than Kia.

That request was allegedly refused and added another $650 the
plaintiff paid for a non-Kia loaner.

Once again, the insurer picked up the tab but the plaintiff still
had to pay another $500 deductible.

The lawsuit says in just four months, the soy-based wiring in the
Kia Soul caused the plaintiff to incur more than $9,200 in
"repair" charges and about $650 in rental car charges.

The problem can allegedly continue forever because Kia replaces
defective wiring with defective wiring that animals love to munch
on.

Other Kia owners have described similar problems with the wiring,
including a Florida driver of a 2013 Kia Soul who told
CarComplaints.com about their experience while driving to work and
noticing a warning light that convinced the owner to have the
vehicle towed to a dealership.

According to the Kia owner, the dealership called and said the
soy-based wiring had been chewed by animals, a problem allegedly
not uncommon, but one not covered by the warranty. The owner
placed mothballs in socks and stuck them under the hood, now being
careful about allowing the air to invade the cabin of the Soul.

"That happy hamster in the commercial is so happy because it knows
it has its next snack. KIA makes and sells these cars knowing if
they told the consumer prior to an incident happening such as
prior to purchase of the car -- the cars would not be selling!"

In the case of plaintiff Tsvetelin Tsonev, Kia told the judge the
lawsuit should be dismissed because the plaintiff can't provide
evidence that the wiring causes rodents and other creatures to
damage the cars. Additionally, lawyers for Kia argue the plaintiff
hasn't presented even one expert witness to support the claims
made in the lawsuit.

Kia further told the judge the plaintiff can't show the vehicles
are even equipped with soy-based wiring.

The Kia soy-based wiring class-action lawsuit was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California --
Tsvetelin Tsonev, et. al., v. Kia Motors America, Inc.

The plaintiff is represented by Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller &
Shah, LLP, and Goldenberg Schneider LPA.

The Tsonev lawsuit is similar to previous legal complaints,
including suits filed against Kia and Hyundai in July 2017. [GN]


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

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

The Defendant is in the apparel and textile industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LGE COMMUNITY: Appeal Filed in "Tims" Suit in Eleventh Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
CAROL TIMS, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff -- Appellant, v. LGE COMMUNITY CREDIT
UNION, the Defendant -- Appellee, Case No. 17-14968 (11th Cir,
Nov. 7, 2017), is an appeal filed before the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit from a lower court decision in
a fraud class action, Case No. 1:15-cv-04279-TWT 2:15-cv-04361-
DDP-FFM (N.D. Ga., Nov. 7, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiff -- Appellant:

          Taras Kihiczak, Esq.
          THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC
          201 WILSHIRE BLVD STE 350
          SANTA MONICA, CA 90401
          Telephone: (310) 395 2988

               - and -

          G. Franklin Lemond, Jr., Esq.
          Edward Adam Webb, Esq., Esq.
          WEBB KLASE & LEMOND, LLC
          1900 The Exchange Se Ste 480
          Atlanta, GA 30339-2049
          Telephone: (770) 444 9325

               - and -

          Richard D. McCune, Esq.
          MCCUNE WRIGHT, LLP
          2068 Orange Tree Ln Ste 216
          Redlands, CA 92374
          Telephone: (909) 557 1250

Attorneys for Defendant -- Appellee:

          Stephen Paul Dunn, Esq.
          HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS, PLLC
          450 W 4th St
          Royal Oak, MI 48067
          Telephone: (248) 645 1483

               - and -

          Kevin Allen Maxim, Esq.
          THE MAXIM LAW FIRM, PC
          1718 PEACHTREE ST NW STE 599
          ATLANTA, GA 30309-2454
          Business: (404) 924 4272
          Personal: (404) 924 4272

               - and -

          Brandon J. Wilson, Esq.
          HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS, PLLC
          450 W 4th St
          Royal Oak, MI 48067
          Telephone: (248) 645 1483


LOVING HEART: "Larin" Labor Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Maria Larin and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Loving Heart Home Health Care, Inc., Joaquin Marquez, Sonia
Marquez, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-24203 (S.D. Fla., November 17,
2017), requests double damages and reasonable attorney fees from
Defendants, jointly and severally, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act for all overtime wages still owing from Plaintiff's
entire employment period along with court costs, interest, and any
other relief.

Loving Heart Home Health Care, Inc., is an assisted living
facility where Plaintiff worked as a patient attendant, caring for
the aged and infirmed, from on or about May 25, 2008 through the
present. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


M&T BANK: "Kim" Suit Alleges Consumer Fraud
--------------------------------------------
Young Man Kim, Kenneth Rhee a/k/a Kun Y Rhee, KKR Partners, Inc.,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. M&T Bank, Defendant, Case 17-cv-11810 (D. N.J.,
November 18, 2017), seeks compensatory and rescissory damages,
statutory/equitable remedies, rescission of the loan and guarantee
and all similar M&T Bank documents and guarantees, other
applicable consequential, incidental, nominal and expectation
damages, interest, attorney's fees, filing fees, court costs and
such other and further relief resulting from unjust enrichment,
negligent misrepresentation, fraud and violation of the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act.

M&T Bank is a New York chartered banking institution licensed to
do business in many branches within the State of New Jersey and
maintaining several branches in New Jersey.

Kim, Rhee, and Sei-Jun Park formed KKR and each acquired 33.33%
ownership interests. KKR owns and operate dry-cleaning
establishments. Plaintiffs applied for a business loan at a New
Jersey branch of M&T Bank. Kim executed an M&T Bank form
"Unlimited Guarantee" in which Kim and Rhee promised to guarantee
the payment of KKR's loan to M&T Bank.

Rhee filed for relief under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code in
the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey.
M&T Bank sued Kim in a separate guarantee action for the entire
amount of the KKR/Rhee judgment in Buffalo, New York in the
Supreme Court of New York, Erie County.

Plaintiff alleges that M&T filed separate suits for the collection
cases so that the defendants could not share lawyers and expenses,
and thereby mount a more economic, joint defense. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert J. Basil, Esq.
     THE BASIL LAW GROUP, P.C.
     1270 Broadway, Suite 305
     New York, NY 10001
     Tel: (917) 512-3066
     Fax: (831) 536-1075

            - and -

     Neil Grossman, Esq.
     BRONSTEIN GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
     144 N. Beverwyck Road, # 187
     Lake Hiawatha, NJ 07034
     Telephone: (973) 335-6409
     Telecopier: (973) 335-3717


MASA NY: "Tanaka" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
JIMMY H. TANAKA, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. MASA NY, LLC d/b/a MASA RESTAURANT and
BAR MASA, MASAYOSHI TAKAYAMA, JANE DOE and JOHN DOE, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-08612-GHW (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 7, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages,
statutory and compensatory damages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants employed Plaintiff to
work as a non-exempt waiter for Defendants' high-end Japanese
restaurant and bar, known as Masa and Bar Masa, from January 4,
2017, until October 3, 2017, all which time Defendants unlawfully
terminated Plaintiff in retaliation for complaining about being
forced to participate in an unlawful tip sharing/pooling
arrangement and not receiving all of his tips as a result of
Defendants' illegal pay practices. The work performed by Plaintiff
was directly essential to the business operated by Defendants. The
Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to pay Plaintiff his
lawfully earned minimum wages in direct contravention of the FLSA
and New York Labor Law. The Defendants knowingly and willfully
misappropriated from Plaintiff his lawfully earned tips in direct
contravention of the FLSA and New York Labor Law.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Cilenti, Esq.
          Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER PLLC
          708 Third Avenue -6ll 1 floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 209 3933
          Facsimile: (212) 209 7102
          E-mail: info@jcpdaw.com


MDL 2818: GM Asks Court to Transfer 4 Cases to E.D. Michigan
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE GENERAL MOTORS AIR CONDITIONING LITIGATION, MDL
No. 2818, General Motors asks the respective courts to transfer
these actions for coordinated pretrial proceedings in the Eastern
District of Michigan:

     -- James Won v. General Motors Co., et al. ("Won"), No.
        1:17-cv-04819 (E.D.N.Y.);

     -- Mohamed Tangara, et al. v. General Motors LLC
        ("Tangara"), No. 4:17-cv-12786 (E.D. Mich.);

     -- Marcus Bell, et al. v. General Motors Co. ("Bell"),
        No. 2:17-cv-00183 (N.D. Tex.); and

     -- Ryan Jenkins, et al. v. General Motors Co. ("Jenkins"),
        No. 3:17-cv-05864 (N.D. Cal.).

These actions are based on similar factual allegations concerning
the same GM trucks and SUVs; seek certification of overlapping and
parallel classes; and assert similar claims for relief for breach
of warranty, violations of state consumer protection laws,4 and
fraudulent concealment. More specifically, the Won, Tangara, and
Bell actions all seek certification of nearly identical nationwide
classes of owners and lessees of GM trucks and SUVs. These actions
also seek certification of nearly identical classes under New York
law.[BN]

Counsel for General Motors Company, General Motors Holdings LLC,
and General Motors LLC:

          Mark S. Cheffo, Esq.
          Hayden A. Coleman, Esq.
          Guyon H. Knight, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10010
          Telephone: (212) 849 7000
          Facsimile: (212) 849 7100
          E-mail: markcheffo@quinnemanuel.com
                  haydencoleman@quinnemanuel.com
                  guyonknight@quinnemanuel.com


MEIJER INC: "Warren" Suit Moved to Northern Dist. of Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled De Antoine Warren, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Meijer, Inc., a Michigan corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2017
CH 13723, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Chancery Division, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois (Chicago) on Nov. 20, 2017. The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-08415 to the proceeding. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Gary Feinerman.

Meijer is a regional American supercenter chain with its corporate
headquarters in Walker, Michigan, in the Grand Rapids metropolitan
area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          David S. Almeida, Esq.
          Mark Stephen Eisen, Esq.
          BENESCH FRIEDLANDER
          COPLAN & ARONOFF LLP
          333 W. Wacker Dr., Suite 1900
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 212 4949
          E-mail: dalmeida@beneschlaw.com
                  meisen@beneschlaw.com


MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Faces "Chazan" Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mercantile
Adjustment Bureau, LLC.  The case is captioned as Michael Chazan,
on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers,
the Plaintiff, v. Mercantile Adjustment Bureau, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-06707 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 16, 2017).

Mercantile Adjustment provides collection and accounts receivable
management services to lenders, debt purchasers, and
universities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395 3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408 9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


MONA VIE: "Pontrelli" Suit Moved to District of New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Lisa Pontrelli, in her individual
capacity and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Mona Vie Inc., a Utah Corporation and Mona Vie LLC,
a Delaware Limited Liability Company, the Defendants, Case No.
2:13-cv-04649, was removed from the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Utah (Central) on Nov. 20, 2017. The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-01215-DN to the proceeding. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge David Nuffer.[BN]


MONSANTO COMPANY: Faces "McNew" Suit Over Roundup(R) Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin McNew, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:17-cv-02728 (E.D. Miss.,
November 17, 2017), is an action for damages as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jacob A Flint, Esq.
      FLINT LAW FIRM, LLC
      222 E. Park St.
      Edwardsville, IL 62025
      Telephone: (618) 205-2017
      Facsimile: (618) 288-2864
      E-mail: jflint@flintfirm.com

          - and -

      David J. Wool, Esq.
      Aimee H. Wagstaff, Esq.
      ANDRUS WAGSTAFF, P.C.
      7171 W. Alaska Drive
      Lakewood, CO 80226
      Telephone: (303) 376-6360
      Facsimile: (303) 376-6361
      E-mail: aimee.wagstaff@andruswagstaff.com
              david.wool@andruswagstaff.com


MONTANA: State Seeks Dismissal of Drivers License Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Whitney Bermes, writing for Bozeman Daily Chronicle, reports that
the state is asking a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit
challenging how Montana suspends driver's licenses for people who
fail to pay court fines.

In a motion filed in U.S. District Court in Butte in October, the
Montana Attorney General's Office asked Judge Sam Haddon to
dismiss the class-action suit that calls the system an
"unconstitutional wealth-based suspension scheme."

The suit was filed in August by attorneys for Michael DiFrancesco,
a 22-year-old Bozeman man who they say is unemployed and homeless
as a result of having his driver's license suspended because he
was unable to pay court fines.

Defendants in the suit are Gov. Steve Bullock and Attorney General
Tim Fox, Esq. as well as Montana Department of Justice Motor
Vehicle Division Administrator Sarah Garcia and Driver Services
Bureau Chief Michele Snowberger.

The suit was filed by Equal Justice Under Law, a national civil
rights nonprofit based in Washington, D.C., in partnership with
Helena attorneys Robert Farris-Olsen and Scott Peterson.

According to the suit, DiFrancesco was convicted in 2009 of
misdemeanor minor in possession. He was fined $185 and ordered to
pay for and complete a substance abuse course, neither of which he
could afford.

DiFrancesco's license was later suspended and he was ordered to
pay, in addition what he already owed, a $100 reinstatement fee.

While he has since paid for the initial fine, DiFrancesco has
racked up $4,000 in unpaid fines for convictions for driving
without a license, and he spent about five months in jail for the
offenses, his attorneys said.

Without a license, DiFrancesco is unable to work consistently,
causing him to lose employment and become homeless.

"Montana has trapped (DiFrancesco) in an inescapable cycle of
poverty," the suit read.

"Without driver's licenses, people already facing the harsh
realities of owing court debt while living in poverty face
additional hurdles of being unable to drive to and from work, get
their children to daycare, keep medical appointments, and care for
their family members."

Attorneys are asking the judge to prohibit the state from this
practice and asking the judge to order the reinstatement of
DiFrancesco's and others' licenses.

The state has not responded to the merits of the suit, but in its
motion to dismiss, asked that the case be tossed because of the
statute of limitations.

Deputy Attorney General Rob Cameron, Esq. --
robert@rwcameronlaw.ca -- who filed the motion on behalf of the
state, argued that the statute of limitations for civil rights
claims is three years. The clock for DiFrancesco started when he
turned 18 in 2012, Cameron argued, and expired in 2015.

"DiFrancesco's complaint was not filed until Aug. 31, 2017 -- a
full one year and eight months too late," Cameron wrote.

DiFrancesco's attorneys countered, saying DiFrancesco's issues
with his suspended license and inability to pay continued into
2015 and 2016, which "falls well within the statute of
limitations," attorney Phil Telfeyan wrote in their Nov. 7
response.

Judge Haddon has not ruled on the motion. [GN]


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: "Marichal" Suit Seeks Overtime, Back Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Catherine Cooper, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 17-cv-03161 (N.D. Tex., November 17, 2017), seeks unpaid
minimum and/or overtime wages at the applicable rates, liquidated
damages, costs and attorney' fees incurred, prejudgment and post-
judgment interest and such further relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Nationstar is a national residential mortgage company that
originates and services home loans where Cooper was employed as a
Loan Officer from approximately January 2011 through June 2016 at
Defendant's offices located in Irving, Texas. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rowdy B. Meeks, Esq.
      Rowdy Meeks Legal Group LLC
      8201 Mission Road, Suite 250
      Prairie Village, KS 66208
      Tel: (913) 766-5585
      Fax: (816) 875-5069
      Email: Rowdy.Meeks@rmlegalgroup.com
      Website: www.rmlegalgroup.com

             - and -

      J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
      Travis Gasper, Esq.
      LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P.
      1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Tel: (214) 749-1400
      Fax: (214) 749-1010
      Website: www.overtimelawyer.com


NESTLE WATERS: "Ray" Suit Transferred to District of Connecticut
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Bernadette A. Ray, Fun Cheung
Joanna Reslink, Jessica Marie Bartling, Anne Clegg, Noah Wells,
Joel B. Nice, Rajesh Karnani, and Ben Knox Miller, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
Nestle Waters North America Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-
cv-00351, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maine, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut (New Haven) on Nov. 20, 2017. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-01944-JCH to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Janet C. Hall.

Nestle Waters North America, Inc. is a business-unit of Nestle
Waters that produces and/or distributes numerous brands of bottled
water across North America.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel W. Krasner, Esq.
          WOLF, HALDENSTEIN, ADLER, FREEMAN & HERZ
          270 Madison Ave., Suite 1100
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545 4600

               - and -

          Gregory P. Hansel, Esq.
          PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU & PACHIOS
          PO Box 11410
          Portland, ME 04104-7410
          Telephone: (207) 791 3000
          Facsimile: (207) 791 3111
          E-mail: ghansel@preti.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jeffrey M. Garrod, Esq.
          ORLOFF LOWENBACH STIFELMAN & SIEGEL
          101 Eisenhower Pkwy
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (201) 622 6200
          E-mail: jmg@olss.com

               - and -

          John J. Aromando, Esq.
          PIERCE ATWOOD LLP
          Merrill's Wharf
          254 Commercial Street
          Portland, ME 04101
          Telephone: (207) 791 1100


NORDIC NATURALS: Faces "Skylor" Suit over Gummies Product
---------------------------------------------------------
JAY SKYLOR, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. NORDIC NATURALS, INC., a California
Company, the Defendants, Case No. CGC-17-562382 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Nov. 8, 2017), seeks restitution of the monies Plaintiff and Class
members paid for Gummies Product, and declaratory and injunctive
relief preventing further dissemination of the misleading
advertising message and material omissions.

The Defendant manufactures, markets, sells, and distributes over-
the-counter supplements under its Nordic Naturals brand. These
products include: Nordic Omega-3 Gummies. The Product is sold in
60 and 120-count packages in major food and mass retail outlets
including, but not limited to GNC, Whole Foods, Sprouts, and Hi-
Health. A single container of the Product retails for
approximately $20.00-$40.00. The Product prominently states on the
front of its label the total number of gummies in the package and
the amount (mg) of the featured omega-3 key ingredient. The
Plaintiff Skylor purchased the 60-count Product. As shown below,
on the front of the Product package, Defendant represents that the
Product is "Nordic Omega-3 Gummies 82 mg Omega-3" and contains "60
Gummies" (the "dosage representations")

By prominently making the dosage representations on that portion
of the package most likely to be seen by consumers, Defendant
gives consumers an opportunity to compare prices and cost per unit
of its Product with competing products from other manufacturers.
However, rather than foster an accurate price comparison,
Defendant's Product package is designed to (and does) falsely and
misleadingly lead an average reasonable consumer to conclude that
the Product contains the represented number of gummies each
containing the represented amount of the featured key omega-3
ingredient. For example, the average reasonable consumer would
logically conclude that the 60-count Product package contains 60
gummies each providing 82 mg of omega-3, for a total of 4,920 mg
omega-3 in the Product. Instead, the Product contains 60 gummies
that each contain only 41 mg of omega-3, for a total of 2,460 mg
omega-3. Therefore, Defendant's dosage representations are false,
misleading and reasonably likely to deceive the public at large
because consumers are misled into believing they are purchasing
twice as much omega-3 per gummy and in the Product as a whole.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrician Syverson, Esq.
          Manfred P. Muecke, Esq.
          BONNETT, F AIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          600 W. Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 798 4593
          E-mail: psvverson@bffb.com
                  mmuecke@bffb.com


NOVA RESTAURANT: "Butron" Suit Moved to District of Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Patricia J. Daza Butron, and other
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Nova Restaurant,
Inc., a Florida profit corporation and McDonald's Corporation, a
foreign profit corporation, Case No. 17-024289 CA 01, was removed
from the 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Florida (Miami) on Nov. 20, 2017. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-24216-PCH to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Senior Judge Paul C.
Huck.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Court House Tower
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416 5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416 5005
          E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com

Attorneys for Nova Restaurant, Inc.:

          Elizabeth Mercedes Rodriguez, Esq.
          FORD & HARRISON LLP
          100 S.E. 2nd Street, Suite 2150
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 808 2100
          Facsimile: (305) 808 2101
          E-mail: erodriguez@fordharrison.com

Attorneys for McDonald's Corporation:

          Jurate Schwartz, Esq.
          Proskauer Rose, Esq.
          2255 Glades Road
          Suite 421 Atrium
          Boca Raton, FL 33431-7360
          Telephone: (561) 241 7400
          Facsimile: (561) 241 7145
          E-mail: jschwartz@proskauer.com


OAK LODGE LLC: "Jenkins" Labor Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------
Madeline Jenkins, individually and on behalf of persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Oak Lodge, LLC, Parc 73, LLC and Michael
Stevens, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-01673, (M.D. La., November 17,
2017), seeks unpaid wages, overtime compensation, a declaratory
judgment, liquidated damages, compensatory damages, punitive
damages, costs and attorneys' fees and prejudgment and post-
judgment interest associated with the bringing of this action,
plus any additional relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Defendants operate two catering and reception facilities, Oak
Lodge, which is located in Baton Rouge, and Parc 73, which is
located in Prairieville. Both are commonly owned and managed by
Stevens. Jenkins worked for Defendants from June 6, 2015 through
October 7, 2017, performing ministerial payroll tasks, routinely
rendering more than forty hours per week but was not paid overtime
for all hours worked over forty hours in a workweek. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

       Robert B. Landry III, Esq.
       ROBERT B. LANDRY III, PLC
       5420 Corporate Boulevard, Suite 204
       Baton Rouge, LA 70808
       Telephone: (225) 349-7460
       Facsimile: (225) 349-7466
       Email: rlandry@landryfirm.com

              - and -

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


OCEAN SPRAY: "Hilsley" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Crystal Hilsley, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Ocean
Spray Cranberries, Inc.; Arnold Worldwide LLC; and DOE Defendants
1-5, Case No. 37-02017-00034868-CU-BT-CTL, was removed from the
Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego)
on Nov. 16, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-
cv-02335-GPC-MDD to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel.

Ocean Spray is an agricultural cooperative of growers of
cranberries and grapefruit headquartered in Lakeville/
Middleborough, Massachusetts.  It currently has more than 700
member growers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Elliot, Esq.
          THE ELLIOTT LAW FIRM
          3200 Fourth Avenue, Suite 207
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 468 4865
          E-mail: david@westonfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Ricky Lynn Shackelford, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 586 7700
          Facsimile: (310) 586 7800
          E-mail: shackelfordr@gtlaw.com


OCULAR THERAPEUTIX: "Kim" Class Suit Transferred to Dist. Mass.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on August 3, 2017 captioned Shawna
Kim, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Ocular Therapeutix, Inc., Amarpreet Sawhney, George Migausky,
Andrew Hurley, and Eric Ankerud, Case No. 2:17-cv-05704, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court District of New Jersey to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-12283 to the
proceeding.

The case alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act.

Ocular Therapeutix, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company dedicated
to the discovery, development, manufacturing and commercialization
of innovative drug products focused on the treatment of ocular
diseases and conditions. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 363-7500
      Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
      E-mail: ek@zlk.com


OLD DOMINION: "Sanders" Suit Moved to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Eugene Sanders, Doug Butler,
George Renner, Roger Shrader, and Darrel Foley, individual, on
behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc.
a Corporation and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendant,
Case No. 37-02016-00030725-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the
Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego)
on Nov. 17, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-
cv-02340-DMS-KSC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Dana M. Sabraw.[BN]

Old Dominion is a less-than-truckload, company. It offers
regional, inter-regional and national LTL service.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Norman B Blumenthal, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 551 1223
          Facsimile: (858) 551 1232
          E-mail: norm@bamlawlj.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Matthew Charles Kane, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-1501
          Telephone: (310) 315 8295
          Facsimile: (310) 315 8210
          E-mail: mkane@mcguirewoods.com


OMEGA HEALTHCARE: "Klein" Sues Over Share Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------
Steve Klein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc., C.
Taylor Pickett, Robert O. Stephenson and Daniel J. Booth,
Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-09024, (S.D. N.Y., November 17, 2017),
seeks compensatory damages, reasonable costs and expenses incurred
in this action, including counsel fees and expert fees and such
other and further relief under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Omega is a self-administered real estate investment trust that
invests in income producing healthcare facilities, including long-
term care facilities located in the United States and the United
Kingdom.

According to the complaint, Defendants failed to disclose that
financial and operating results of certain of the company's
operators were deteriorating and experiencing worsening liquidity
issues that were significantly impacting the operators' ability to
make timely rent payments and that its direct financing leases
were impaired and certain receivables were uncollectible. On this
news, the Company's stock price fell $2.11 per share, or 6.8%, to
close at $28.86 per share on October 31, 2017, on unusually heavy
trading volume. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      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


OPTUM INC: In Breach of Fiduciary Duties Claims "Ellis"
-------------------------------------------------------
Susan Ellis, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Optum, Inc., OptumRx Holdings, L.L.C.,
OptumRx, Inc., United HealthCare, Services, Inc. and UnitedHealth
Group Incorporated, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-05154 (D. Minn.,
November 17, 2017), seeks appropriate equitable relief, along with
such other and additional relief, costs of suit and reasonable
attorneys' fees resulting from overcharging of epinephrine-
injecting devices under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974.

Defendants are pharmacy benefit managers that market and sell the
EpiPen, a self-injecting device that delivers epinephrine, a
synthetic form of adrenaline used to relax muscles around airways
and tightening blood vessels to maintain respiratory and
cardiovascular function during allergies.

Defendants violated their fiduciary duties by causing the highly
inflated prices paid by the Plaintiffs for the EpiPen. Instead of
negotiating for lower or stable prices for all plan members,
Defendants allegedly negotiated for increasingly large rebates
from EpiPen's manufacturer, driving up the price of EpiPen. Rather
than passing these rebates on in the form of lower or stable
prices, Defendants kept significant amounts, resulting in massive
revenue increases for themselves and massive price increases.

Plaintiffs all have children who suffer from severe allergies and
are under health insurance plan for which Defendants provides
pharmacy benefit management services.

Optum is a California corporation with its principal place of
business in Irvine, California. Optum is a pharmacy benefits
manager and currently manages the coverage and policies provided
by Unitedhealth.

UnitedHealth Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries are health care
companies that offer health insurance plans to individuals and
employers. Plaintiff purchased health insurance through
UnitedHealth and receives pharmacy benefits. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
      David W. Asp, Esq.
      Kristen G. Marttila, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.
      100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Tel.: (612) 339-6900
      Fax: (612) 339-0981
      Email: dwasp@locklaw.com
             kgmarttila@locklaw.com
             khriebel@locklaw.com

             - and -

      Kathleen M. Donovan-Maher, Esq.
      Patrick T. Egan, Esq.
      Justin N. Saif, Esq.
      Steven L. Groopman, Esq.
      BERMAN DEVALERIO
      One Liberty Square, 8th Floor
      Boston, MA 02109
      Telephone: (617) 542-8300
      Fax: (617) 542-1194
      Email: kdonovanmaher@bermandevalerio.com
             pegan@bermandevalerio.com
             jsaif@bermandevalerio.com
             sgroopman@bermandevalerio.com

             - and -

      Christopher Heffelfinger, Esq.
      BERMAN DEVALERIO
      44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 433-3200
      Fax: (415) 433-6382
      Email: cheffelfinger@bermantabacco.com


OPUS BANK: To Pay $17 Million to Settle Shareholders Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Peter J. Brennan, writing for Orange County Business Journal,
reports that Opus Bank (Nasdaq: OPB) is settling for $17 million a
class-action shareholder lawsuit alleging the Irvine company
misled investors about the quality of its loans.

Opus said insurance will cover the cost of the settlement with no
effect on its income.

"We do not view the announcement as having any impact on the
company's fundamentals," Keefe, Bruyette & Woods analyst
Jacquelynne Chimera Bohlen wrote in a report to investors.

Opus expects a finalized agreement by early December; it must
eventually be approved by a court.

Lead plaintiff Nancy Schwartz a year ago sued Opus, alleging
misleading press releases about the quality of its lending from
2014 to 2016. The bank's shares fell 21% after a 2016 third-
quarter earnings report that included $38.8 million in charge-
offs.

Los Angeles-based Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, which has sued
other publicly-traded companies, represented Schwartz.

Opus shares rose 2% in midday trading to an $898 million market
cap. Shares have climbed 32% since April. [GN]


ORBITAL ATK: "Donato" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Merger with Northrop
---------------------------------------------------------------
DIANE DONATO, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ORBITAL ATK, INC., DAVID W. THOMPSON,
RONALD R. FOGLEMAN, KEVIN P. CHILTON, ROXANNE J. DECYK, LENNARD A.
FISK, RONALD T. KADISH, TIG H. KREKEL, DOUGLAS L. MAINE, ROMAN
MARTINEZ IV, JANICE I. OBUCHOWSKI, JAMES G. ROCHE, HARRISON H.
SCHMITT, and SCOTT L. WEBSTER, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
01271-CMH-TCB (E.D. Va., Nov. 7, 2017), seeks to enjoin a
stockholder vote on a proposed merger transaction unless and until
Exchange Act violations are cured.

This case is a class action brought on behalf of the public
stockholders of Orbital ATK, Inc. against Orbital ATK and its
Board of Directors for their violations of Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission and to enjoin vote on a
proposed transaction, pursuant to which Orbital ATK will be
acquired by Northrop Grumman Corporation, through its wholly-owned
subsidiary Neptune Merger, Inc.

On September 18, 2017, Orbital ATK and Northrop Grumman issued a
joint press release announcing that they had entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger dated September 17, 2017, pursuant to
which Northrop Grumman will acquire Orbital ATK. Under the terms
of the Merger Agreement, Orbital ATK stockholders will have the
right to receive $134.50 in cash for each share of Company common
stock they own. The Proposed Transaction is valued at
approximately $9.2 billion.

On October 2, 2017, Orbital ATK filed a Preliminary Proxy
Statement on Schedule 14A with the SEC. The Proxy, which
recommends that Orbital ATK stockholders vote in favor of the
Proposed Transaction, omits or misrepresents material information
concerning, among other things: (i) Orbital ATK management's
projections, utilized by Orbital ATK's financial advisor,
Citigroup Global Markets Inc., in its financial analyses; (ii) the
valuation analyses prepared by Citigroup in connection with the
rendering of its fairness opinion; and (iii) Orbital ATK insiders'
potential conflicts of interest. The failure to adequately
disclose such material information constitutes a violation of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act as Orbital ATK
stockholders need such material information in order to cast a
fully-informed vote or seek appraisal in connection with the
Proposed Transaction. In short, unless remedied, Orbital ATK's
public stockholders will be forced to make a voting or appraisal
decision on the Proposed Transaction without full disclosure of
all material information concerning the Proposed Transaction being
provided to them. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235 1560
          Facsimile: (405) 239 2112


P.J. CLARKE'S: Edinbyrd Suit Calls Hiring Practices "Unlawful"
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN EDINBYRD, individually and on behalf of a class of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. P.J. CLARKE'S ON THE HUDSON,
LLC, P.J. CLARKE'S AT LINCOLN CENTER, LLC, P.J. CLARKE'S
RESTAURANT CORP., and DAVID MYERS, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-
cv-08639-RJS (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 7, 2017), seeks to recover damages
under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York Executive Law,
and New York City Administrative (New York City Human Rights Law).

This class action seeks to vindicate the rights of the many
qualified African-American servers at Defendants' restaurants who
were denied the opportunity to work as bartenders solely based on
their race and color. Defendants have implemented unlawful hiring
and promotion policies, administered by the all-White supervisors
who refuse to hire or promote deserving African-American
applicants and employees to work as bartenders. As a result of
these policies, Plaintiff and other African-American servers have
been repeatedly denied well-deserved employment opportunities and
promotions-without explanation, while less qualified non African-
American applicants and employees have been hired and promoted as
bartenders. The Plaintiff is a highly experienced African-American
male, with more than 26 years of bartending experience. Despite
Plaintiff's considerable qualifications, Defendants' refused to
hire Plaintiff as a bartender and repeatedly passed over Plaintiff
for promotions solely because of his race and color.

Other African-American employees have faced a similar fate. In
fact, upon information and belief, there has been a stark
disparity in African-American bartenders in Defendants'
restaurants, as opposed to African-American servers. The
Defendants refuse to hire qualified African-American individuals
as bartenders, and opt to hire them as servers instead. The lack
of qualified African-American employees working as bartenders is a
direct result of the secret and standard-less hiring and promotion
policies that give high-level personnel unchecked direction to
hand-pick non-African American candidates for hire and promotion
while repeatedly overlooking more qualified African-American
individuals.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          ROBERT WISNIEWSKI P.C.
          225 Broadway, Suite 1020
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 267 2101


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

Attorneys for Plaintiff -- Appellant:

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

Attorneys for Defendant -- Appellees:

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


PENNSYLVANIA: Gerrymandering Suit Fast Tracked in State High Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cherri Gregg, writing for CBS Philly, reports that the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that a class action that could
affect the voting districts for the 2018 election will now be fast
tracked.

Pennsylvania's high court ruled that the Commonwealth Court must
decide whether lawmakers should re-draw the congressional
districts by the end of this year.

"People know that Pennsylvania is a very divided state, a swing
state," said Ben Geffen, staff attorney at the Public Interest Law
Center.

The Public Interest Law Center represents the plaintiffs, the
Pennsylvania League of Women Voters, in the lawsuit. They argue
the map is unconstitutional because Republicans gerrymandered the
map by lumping democrats into a handful of districts and spreading
Republicans out into districts with a slight, but comfortable,
majority that entrenched GOP power.

"The map was drawn in a way to penalize democrats for their
political expression and their political association," Geffen
said.

Hear more about the case, from advocates calling for redistricting
reforms, and from the Philly GOP leadership on why the courts
should stay out of the process. [GN]


PERRIGO ISRAEL: Drug Company to Pay Out NIS47.5 Million
-------------------------------------------------------
Stuart Winer, writing for the Times of Israel, reports that an
Israeli drug company has agreed to pay out NIS 42.7 million
($12.14 million) in compensation to users of one of its drugs that
left hundreds suffering from significant side effects after a
change was made in the formula for the medicine.

Perrigo Israel Agencies, the local branch of US drug manufacturer
Perrigo, reached an agreement with plaintiffs in a class action
lawsuit filed over Eltroxin, a drug used to treat underactive
thyroids, the Yedioth Ahronoth daily reported November 12.

A deal was reached after months of mediation between the two sides
led by former Supreme Court president Asher Grunis. The agreement
is to be submitted to the Supreme Court for approval.

Those entitled to compensation are patients who were regularly
taking Eltroxin before February 2011, and then used the new
formula without being told by the doctor to have a blood test to
verify there were no unwanted side effects from the drug, the
report said.

Under the terms of the agreements patients will be entitled to
payouts of between NIS 4,200 ($1,100) and NIS 9,000 ($2,560). An
additional NIS 5.2 million ($1,480,000) is to be earmarked as a
public donation toward improving treatment and followup for
endocrinology patients.

Eltroxin was distributed in Israel in 2010 and used by some
250,000 patients. In February 2011 the formula was changed by the
manufacturer supplying the medicine to Perrigo. Although Perrigo
informed local clients such as health care organizations and
doctors, prosecutors argued the company did not stress to doctors
and pharmacists the need for patients to have a blood test after
taking the new formula. It also did not change the instructions on
packaging until August 2011, despite worrying side effects having
been found in New Zealand and Denmark.

Within weeks hundreds of users began to complain of side effects
that in some cases included depression and hair loss.

In the panic that followed, the Health Ministry set up an
investigative committee that found a connection between the
introduction of the new formula and the reported side effects.

A class action lawsuit was approved in 2015 against Perrigo
Israel. Following an appeal, mediation was ordered. [GN]


PF HOLDINGS: "Williams" Suit Seeks Unpaid Compensation under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARK WILLIAMS, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. PF HOLDINGS LLC, PF HOLDINGS
MANAGEMENT LLC, PF ALABAMA MANAGEMENT LLC, PF RALSTON LLC, and
RALSTON GA LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-06521 (E.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 8, 2017), seeks to recover all unpaid compensation and
overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek inclusive of hours worked while on-call duty during
periods outside their scheduled shifts under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants from January 30, 2017 until
June 23, 2017 as an hourly-paid Maintenance Worker primarily at
Defendants' housing complex.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
          155 2nd St., Suite 4
          Jersey City, NJ 07302
          Telephone: (877) 561 0000
          Facsimile: (855) 582 5297
          E-mail: nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com


PHILIP MORRIS: $32.5MM Damage Award in "Ledoux" Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, issued an
Opinion affirming the Final Judgment of Trial Court in Favor of
Roland Ledoux.

Defendants Philip Morris USA, Inc. and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco
Company appeal from a final judgment following a jury trial and a
verdict in favor of the plaintiff.

Plaintiff, Roland Ledoux, as the personal representative of the
estate of Patricia Mary Ledoux, brought an Engle-progeny claim
against Defendants, alleging that Patricia died from lung cancer
caused by an addiction to smoking cigarettes manufactured and
marketed by Defendants.  Plaintiff alleged causes of action for
strict liability, fraud by concealment, conspiracy to commit
fraud, and negligence.

The case proceeded in two phases.  In Phase I, the jury
determined: (1) whether Patricia was addicted to cigarettes
containing nicotine; if so, (2) whether her addiction was the
legal cause of her lung cancer and death; if so, (3) the amount of
compensatory damages; and (4) whether punitive damages were
warranted against Defendants.  In Phase II, the jury determined
the amount of punitive damages.

At the conclusion of Phase I, the jury found that Patricia was
addicted to smoking cigarettes containing nicotine manufactured by
Defendants and as a result she died from lung cancer.  The jury
found for Plaintiff, allocating 47% of the comparative fault to
each Defendant and 6% to Patricia.  The jury awarded Plaintiff $10
million in compensatory damages for his pain and suffering.  The
jury also found for Plaintiff on the intentional torts of
concealment and conspiracy to conceal.  In addition, the jury
found by clear and convincing evidence that Defendants' conduct
warranted punitive damages.

In Phase II, the jury awarded $12.5 million in punitive damages
against each Defendant.  The trial court entered final judgment in
favor of Plaintiff holding Defendants jointly and severally liable
for the $10 million in compensatory damages and each Defendant
liable for $12.5 million in punitive damages.

Defendants argue that the trial court erred in allowing Plaintiff
to introduce evidence and present argument regarding the number of
deaths caused by smoking.  Defendants contend this evidence was
irrelevant and unduly prejudicial, requiring a new trial.

The Fla. App. concludes that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in permitting Plaintiff to introduce evidence and
present argument regarding the number of deaths caused by smoking
as it was relevant to the issue of entitlement to punitive damages
(an issue determined by the jury during Phase I of the trial), and
bears upon the question of reprehensibility.

In determining whether punitive damages are warranted, the Court
held, "you may not punish a Defendant for any harm suffered by any
individuals others than Mr. Ledoux or Mrs. Ledoux.  You may
consider harms suffered by other persons not parties to this
lawsuit in deciding whether to punish a Defendant for the
reprehensibility or wrongness of its conduct."

Defendants assert that three arguments made by Plaintiff's counsel
during closing argument, were improper and therefore require a new
trial. On appeal, Defendants assert that these arguments were a
violation of the Golden Rule.  A Golden Rule argument asks the
jurors to place themselves in the plaintiffs' position and urges
them to award an amount of money they would desire if they had
been the victims.

Although it is evident that Plaintiff's counsel was attempting to
illustrate the practical limitations of the civil justice system
by arguing to the jury that no monetary award regardless of the
amount would suffice to give Roland what he truly wanted, the
argument was presented in an overly-dramatic manner such that it
could evoke the jury's sympathy.  The Fla. App. said it has
expressed in prior opinions the impropriety of similar arguments.

But while the Fla. App. concludes that these arguments were
improper, it also concludes that the trial court properly denied
Defendants' motion for mistrial and motion for new trial.

As to Comment Number One, Defendants are urging, as a basis for
reversal, a different objection than the one they raised at trial.
Defendants contend in this appeal that the argument was a Golden
Rule violation; however, the objection actually interposed at
trial was Objection, there's no evidence of this.

This objection failed to place the trial court on notice of the
error that Defendants now assert in this appeal.  By failing to
properly preserve this objection, Defendants waived the issue for
appeal, absent a showing of fundamental error.  In like fashion,
Defendants' failure to make any contemporaneous objection to
Comment Number Three also waived this claim for appellate review
absent a showing of fundamental error.

As to these unpreserved comments, the Fla. App. concludes that the
trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for
new trial.

Comment Number Two was properly preserved by an objection. The
trial court correctly sustained that objection but no curative
instruction was requested or given and a motion for mistrial was
thereafter denied.

The Fla. App. reviews the trial court's denial of a motion for
mistrial and motion for new trial for an abuse of discretion.
If the issue of an opponent's improper argument has been properly
preserved by objection and motion for mistrial, the trial court
should grant a new trial if the argument was 'so highly
prejudicial and inflammatory' that it denied the opposing party
its right to a fair trial.

The Fla. App. finds no abuse of discretion in the trial court's
denial of the motion for mistrial and subsequent denial of the
motion for new trial, and conclude that the argument was not so
highly prejudicial as to deny Defendants a fair trial.

Defendants argue that the $10 million compensatory damage award is
excessive and that the trial court erred in denying Defendants'
motion for remittitur.

Upon the Fla. App.'s consideration of the record in this case as
well as other compensatory damages awards in similar Engle-progeny
cases, and giving proper deference to the jury's award and the
trial court's subsequent review of that award, it says it cannot
conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in denying
Defendants' motion for remittitur, as it cannot say that the
damages award obviously exceeds the 'reasonable range within which
the jury may properly operate.'

Defendants next contend that they are entitled to a reduction in
compensatory damages based on the jury's finding of comparative
fault.

In R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Sury, 118 So.3d 849 (Fla. 1st DCA
2013), the trial court denied the defendant's motion to reduce the
plaintiff's compensatory damages award by the smoker's comparative
fault based on its conclusion that the core of the plaintiff's
suit was founded upon an intentional tort. The First District
found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's determination
that although the plaintiff pleaded negligence and strict
liability, the additional allegations of the intentional torts and
the proof of affirmative, calculated misrepresentations in the
tobacco companies' advertising and other publications supported
its conclusion that at its core, the action involved an
intentional tort.

Upon de novo review, the Fla. App. holds that, in the instant
case, the trial court properly denied Defendants' request because
at its core this was an "action based upon an intentional tort."
Merrill Crossings Assocs. v. McDonald, 705 So.2d 560, 563 (Fla.
1997), acknowledging that the words chosen 'based upon an
intentional tort,' imply the necessity to inquire whether the
entire action against or involving multiple parties is founded or
constructed on an intentional tort. In other words, the issue is
whether an action comprehending one or more negligent torts
actually has at its core an intentional tort by someone.

Therefore, the trial court did not err in denying Defendants'
motion to reduce the compensatory damages award by the percentage
of comparative fault assigned by the jury to Patricia.

The Fla. App. finds that the other arguments advanced by
Defendants are without merit and affirms on those points without
further discussion.

The appeals case is captioned Philip Morris USA, Inc. and R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Company, Appellants, v. Roland Ledoux, as
Personal Representative of the Estate of Patricia Mary Ledoux,
Appellee, Case No. 3D16-675 (Fla. Dist. App.).

A full-text copy of the Fla. App.'s October 18, 2017 Opinion is
available a https://tinyurl.com/y8rma2v3 from Leagle.com.

Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, Daphne O'Connor --
daphne.o'connor@apks.com- and Geoffrey J. Michael --
geoffrey.michael@apks.com -- (Washington, DC); Shook, Hardy &
Bacon and Frank Cruz-Alvarez -- falvarez@shb.com  -- King &
Spalding, William L. Durham, II -- bdurham@kslaw.com -- and Val
Leppert -- vleppert@kslaw.com -- (Atlanta, GA), for appellants.

Gordon & Doner, Robert E. Gordon -- rgordon@fortheinjured.com --
and Gary M. Paige -- gpaige@fortheinjured.com -- (Davie); Trop Law
Group and Adam Trop -- info@troplawgroup.com -- (Tamarac); David
J. Sales, 1001 North U.S. Highway One, Suite 200, Jupiter, FL
33477 and Daniel R. Hoffman -- danrhoffman@yahoo.com -- (Jupiter),
for appellee.


RELIABLE TIRE: Travers Sues over Racial Harassment
--------------------------------------------------
DAVID TRAVERS, the Plaintiff, v. RELIABLE TIRE DISTRIBUTORS, INC.
and JOHN DOES 1-5 AND 6-10, the Defendants, Case No. CAM-L-004299-
17 (N.J. Super. Ct., Nov. 7, 2017), seeks to recover compensatory
damages, non-economic compensatory damages, punitive damages,
interest, cost of suit, attorneys' fees, enhanced attorneys' fees,
and any other relief the Court deems equitable and just.

On April 5, 2017, the plaintiff complained about the racial
harassment to Andy Clavins, Mr. Welker's supervisor. Mr. Clavins
was a member of upper management as that term is defined under the
Law Against Discrimination. The Plaintiff specifically advised Mr.
Clavins that he believed he was being singled
out because he was the only black employee in the store. The
Plaintiff requested a transfer to a different manager or different
branch, but that request was denied. Even after that complaint,
Mr. Welker continued to refer to plaintiff as a "coon"
and a "monkey." In August 2017, plaintiff heard Mr. Welker refer
to him as a "nigger" while Mr. Welker was on the telephone with
his wife. In or about September 2017, plaintiff complained about
the harassment to Scott Williams, the Director of Sales and the
person who recruited plaintiff to the company.

The Plaintiff requests that the Court order the defendants to
cease and desist all conduct inconsistent with the claims made
herein going forward, both as to the specific plaintiff and as to
all other individuals similarly situated.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Daniel T. Silverman, Esquire
          COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC
          18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800
          Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
          Telephone: (856) 727 9700


SELECT PORTFOLIO: California Court Denies Move to Dismiss "Rovai"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California issued an Order denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of Jurisdiction the case captioned ADRIANA ROVAI,
Plaintiff, v. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 14-cv-01738-BAS-WVG (S.D. Cal.).

At the time SPS began servicing Rovai's mortgage loan in December
2011, Plaintiff alleges that her outstanding loan balance included
$9,013.02 of interest she incurred in earlier years of her loan
but did not pay. Accordingly, she alleges that SPS's reporting was
incorrect.  Plaintiff noticed the discrepancy in SPS's Form 1098
reporting in late 2013. She reached out to SPS in April 2014
regarding its method of calculating reported interest, but SPS
rejected Rovai's complaint and declined to change its reporting
policy. Rovai alleges that the IRS exclusively relies on the
amounts contained in a Form 1098 and rejects any attempts by
taxpayers to claim a different amount of interest from that which
appears on the taxpayer's Form 1098. Rovai alleges that due to
SPS's conduct she has been unable to correctly state her taxes or
obtain the full mortgage interest deduction to which she is
entitled under applicable tax law.

SPS argues that Rovai fails to show an injury-in-fact because
there is no legally protected or cognizable interest in this case
and her allegations of injury are conclusory.

Rovai alleges two injuries due to SPS's incorrect Forms 1098 and
their method of calculating interest payments: (1) Rovai filed
erroneous tax returns in 2011 and 2012 in reliance on those forms
and (2) Rovai received smaller tax deductions in 2011 and 2012
than she would have because she relied on those forms. The FAC,
like the original complaint, also alleges that Rovai has suffered
damages of the accountancy fees that will be necessary to amend
her tax returns.

SPS concedes that the FAC pertains to Rovai's own Forms 1098.
Indeed, Rovai's allegations concern the Forms 1098 SPS provided
her, the federal tax returns she filed by relying on those forms,
and the smaller federal tax deductions she received. Rovai also
alleges that SPS was obligated or had a duty to accurately report
her deferred interest payments on the 2011 and 2012 Forms 1098 it
provided her by virtue of Section 6050H. These allegations
satisfy the particularity requirement because they show Rovai
suffered the alleged injury in a personal and individual way.

Citing no supporting authority, SPS argues that Rovai nevertheless
fails to allege a particularized injury because she has not
alleged facts showing that SPS breached a legal duty or norm as to
her in particular. SPS's argument appears to engage a Rule
12(b)(6)'s merits inquiry  in the guise of a constitutional
standing inquiry  about whether the plaintiff has plausibly
pleaded a claim upon which relief may be granted. As the Ninth
Circuit has indicated, such an inquiry is ill-suited to
application in the constitutional standing context.

For the purposes of Article III standing, Rovai's allegations of
tax deduction injury are sufficient at the pleading stage.

The third injury Rovai alleges are the accountancy fees that will
be necessary to prepare and file amended returns. Accountancy fees
incurred to file an amended tax return could be a sufficient
injury-in-fact for Article III standing.  However, Rovai does not
allege that she has ever incurred such fees in order to file an
amended tax return, nor does she allege an intent to file an
amended return. Therefore, she has not alleged an injury-in-fact
based on accountancy fees related to filing an amended return.

SPS argues that Rovai has failed to allege that her injury is
fairly traceable to SPS because any lost tax deduction was due to
Rovai's conduct, not that of SPS. SPS argues that Rovai could have
claimed a higher tax deduction before filing her tax returns or
could have amended her returns, but failed to do so.

Rovai explicitly alleges that she relied on the 2011 and 2012
Forms 1098 SPS provided her and she did not notice the discrepancy
in SPS's interest reporting until late 2013. Assuming the truth of
these allegations, Rovai would not have known before she filed her
2011 and 2012 tax returns that the information on her Forms 1098
was incorrect. Even assuming Rovai were aware of the discrepancy
before she filed her returns, Rovai also alleges that the IRS like
everyone else   exclusively relies on the information contained in
a Form 1098, and will reject any attempt by a taxpayer to claim an
amount of mortgage interest different than the amount reported on
that form. Even if SPS's conduct is not the very last step in the
chain of causation Rovai alleges, these allegations still show
that her alleged injury is fairly traceable to SPS's conduct.

The Court is also not persuaded by SPS's argument that Rovai's
failure to amend breaks the causal chain between SPS's provision
of incorrect 2011 and 2012 Forms 1098 to Rovai and her tax
deduction injury in those years, which was completed when she
received smaller tax deductions.

Lastly, the Court finds the authorities on which SPS relies for
its causation argument are inapplicable.

SPS makes two arguments against redressability in this case.
First, SPS argues that this case is not the proper arena to
address Rovai's alleged injury, but rather Rovai's proper recourse
is to the IRS.  Second, SPS argues that there is no remedy this
Court can award Rovai because only the IRS could have approved a
higher deduction and determined the impact on Rovai's tax
liability. Accordingly, SPS argues a damages award is not an
option.

Rovai seeks three forms of relief: damages for receiving smaller
2011 and 2012 tax deductions, an order requiring SPS to provide
corrected Forms 1098, and a declaratory judgment that SPS's
conduct is unlawful. These forms of relief would likely remedy
Rovai's injury, which was produced by SPS's allegedly incorrect
method of calculating mortgage interest, SPS's allegedly incorrect
Forms 1098, and the resulting economic harm to Rovai. It is in
this Court's power to provide a damages award.

The Court also rejects as misguided SPS's second argument that
only the IRS could have approved a higher tax deduction and
determined the impact on Rovai's tax liability.  This dispute is
not about the IRS's determinations of Rovai's mortgage interest
tax deductions in 2011 and 2012, nor is it about the IRS's
determinations concerning her tax liability in those years. Rovai
is suing SPS for its "completely separate actions and omissions,
which resulted in negative tax consequences.

The Court denies SPS's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction
Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1).

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 18, 2017 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7qeeyy8 from
Leagle.com.

Adriana Rovai, Plaintiff, represented by David J. Vendler --
dvendler@mpplaw.com  -- Law Offices of David J. Vendler.

Adriana Rovai, Plaintiff, represented by Michael R. Brown --
mbrown@mrbapclaw.com -- Michael R. Brown APC.

Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Jennifer L. Gray -- grayjen@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP.


SHORE FUNDING: Abante Rooter Sues over Robocalls
------------------------------------------------
ABANTE ROOTER AND PLUMBING, INC., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SHORE FUNDING
SOLUTIONS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. 2:17-cv-06499-ADS-AKT (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 8, 2017), seeks to
recover damages and any other available legal or equitable
remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant in
negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on
Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, Defendants used an "automatic
telephone dialing system" to place its calls to Plaintiff seeking
to solicit its services. The Defendants contacted or attempted to
conduct Plaintiff from telephone numbers belonging to Defendants
including without limitation (0925) 350-6277 and (209) 266
5059.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ross H. Schmierrer, Esq.
          DENITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C.
          315 Madison Avenue, 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 979 3642
          Facsimile: (856) 797 9951
          E-mail: rschierer@denitislaw.com

               - and -

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, PC
          21550 Oxnard St., Ste 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (877) 206 4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633 0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumer.com


SLIP-N-SLIDE RECORDS: "Murphy" Sues Over Illegal SMS Ads
--------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Patrick Murphy, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Slip-N-Slide Records, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-24199, (S.D. Fla., November 17, 2017),
seeks injunctive relief, requiring Defendant to cease all
solicitation text-messaging activities to cellular telephones
without first obtaining prior express written consent, as well as
an award of statutory damages, costs and reasonable attorney's
fees for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant is a record label that produces and distributes music to
consumers throughout the United States. To promote its artists,
Defendant sends text messages to consumers using an autodialer on
their cellular telephones without their prior express written
consent. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Stefan Coleman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
      201 s. Biscayne Blvd., 28th floor
      Miami, FL 33131
      Tel: (877) 333-9427
      Fax: (888) 498.8946
      Email: law@stefancoleman.com


TARGET CORP: Court Narrows Claims in "Walters" Debit Card Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California issued an Order granting in part and denying in part
Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration in the case captioned JAMES
WALTERS, Plaintiff, v. TARGET CORP., Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-
01678-L-MDD (S.D. Cal.).

Defendant Target Corp filed a motion for reconsideration of the
Court's partial denial of Target's motion to dismiss.

This case is a putative class action stemming from Target's
issuance of a product called a Target Debit Card (TDC). By swiping
a TDC, a cardholder can purchase merchandise from target at a five
percent discount.

Plaintiff filed a first amended putative class action complaint
alleging (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) unjust enrichment;
(4) unconscionability; (5) conversion; (6) violation of California
Business and Professions Code (UCL); and (7) violation of
California Civil Code (CLRA).

Plaintiff's UCL and CLRA claims both allege Target misrepresented
the true nature of the TDC by labeling and marketing it as a debit
card. To succeed, these claims require a showing that Target made
an actionable misrepresentation by marketing and labeling the TDC
as a debit card.

First, Target argues that the TDC is a debit card' as a matter of
federal law.  The Court pointed out that Target does not cite to
any federal law that specifically discusses the TDC. Rather,
Target cites to Regulation E, which, among other things, regulates
the provision of electronic funds transfer (EFT) services.
Regulation E contemplates that companies like Target who do not
hold a customer's deposit account can provide EFT services that
access the customer's deposit account.

This argument lacks merit. Regulation E plainly does not attempt
to define the term debit card. It simply lists provision of a
debit card as one mechanism among others that a non-deposit
account holding company like Target can use to provide EFT
services linked to a customer's deposit account. Regulation E
therefore provides no basis by which to conclude the TDC is a
debit card as opposed to another variety of deposit account access
device.

Target rehashes the argument that a reasonable consumer would not
be misled by the term debit card because the Agreement explains
the TDC does not function in the manner Plaintiff alleges a normal
debit card functions.

Whether a representation would mislead a reasonable consumer is
rarely a question suitable for determination on a motion to
dismiss. It may be true that, prior to incurring RPF or NSF
charges, a reasonable consumer would read the several pages of
fine print contained on the Agreement and thus learn that the TDC
is not actually what Plaintiff alleges Target affirmatively
misrepresents the TDC as being: a debit card that process
transactions immediately. That said, a reasonable jury could
conclude otherwise.

The Court denies Target's motion for reconsideration as to the UCL
and CLRA claims.

IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING

In ruling on Target's motion to dismiss, the Court declined to
dismiss Plaintiff's breach of the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing claim ("bad faith claim") because "a reasonable
jury could conclude that Target exercised its discretion in bad
faith by always delaying EFT's and charging maximum RPF's when
[the Agreement] said only that [Target] may engage in such
practices. Target contends that this ruling was clear error
because the Agreement expressly permits such practices. Target's
argument is partially correct.

The Court agrees with Target and, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
54(b), modifies its previous order such that the bad faith claim
is dismissed as to the dollar amount charged as RPF fees. Section
6 of the Agreement expressly sets the upper limit as to how much
Target can charge as RPFs.  The Agreement simply states "you agree
that any EFT may occur several business days after your
transaction(s) have occurred and after the date shown on your
transaction receipt".

Accordingly, the Court will not dismiss the bad faith claim as to
the allegations of unreasonable delay in EFT processing. However,
the Court dismisses all other allegations under Plaintiff's bad
faith claim because they run directly against the express and
unambiguous language of the Agreement.

The Court grants in part and denies in part Target's motion as
follows:

   -- Plaintiff's UCL and CLRA claims may proceed.

   -- Plaintiff's breach of the implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing claims may proceed, but only as to the alleged delay
in EFT processing.

   -- All other claims are dismissed.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 18, 2017 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybeypb45 from Leagle.com.

James Walters, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey Douglas Kaliel --
jkaliel@tzlegal.com -- Tycko and Zavareei LLP.

Target Corp., Defendant, represented by James R. McGuire --
jmcguire@mofo.com -- Morrison and Foerster.


TEZOS: Lawyer Argues Suit "Should Be Heard in Switzerland"
----------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Haig, writing for news.Bitcoin.com, reports that Drew
Hinkes, a Miami-based partner at legal firm Berger and Singermann
has discussed the legal dispute over the approximately $232
million USD raised by the Tezos ICO. In October, news.Bitcoin.com
reported that the founders of Tezos had entered into a legal
battle with the chairman of a Swiss foundation comprising an
independent third party tasked with managing funds raised during
the Tezos ICO.

Mr. Hinkes has not dismissed the possibility that the suit filed
against Tezos may be successful, stating that a key factor in
determining the outcome of the litigation will be "how the court
treats the terms and conditions of Tezos' initial coin offering
(ICO)."

"One of the first issues argued might be whether the case can be
heard in California, and whether the case can be filed as a class
action, or whether the terms and conditions, which bar class or
collective proceedings and require claims to be brought in an
ordinary court in Zug, Switzerland, will be enforced against the
plaintiff, which may result in the California case being
dismissed."

Mr. Hinkes anticipates that "Tezos will probably defend itself in
the class action suit. The court may decide that, based on the
terms that govern the 'contributions' by investors to Tezos." In
his opinion, "the suit should be heard in Switzerland, and cannot
be brought as a class action." Mr. Hinkes adds that such " would
effectively mean that investors waive their right to sue Tezos for
restitution through a mass proceeding, and cannot sue Tezos
anywhere but in Zug."

Mr. Hinkes emphasizes the contingent factor that the early and
evolving juridical apparatus pertaining to the regulation of
cryptocurrencies and ICOs may play in influencing the outcome of
the case. Mr. Hinkes states:

"This also depends on the treatment of tokens. In prior cases like
the DAO, the SEC has concluded that some cryptocurrencies will be
considered securities under U.S. law. That means selling them
without proper registration and without making proper disclosures
to consumers could open up an issuer to civil and criminal
sanctions. Many issuers try to avoid liability in the U.S. by not
registering or marketing their crypto assets in the U.S."

Although company money was raised in a Swiss foundation, Mr.
Hinkes believes that United States Securities and Exchanges
Commission (SEC) and other U.S. institutions will be able to act
against the company. "The U.S. government and specifically the SEC
can act beyond the U.S.'s boundaries. Simply saying, 'I'm in
Switzerland and I'll use a foundation model to get favorable tax
benefits' does not necessarily fully inoculate an issuer from
liability." [GN]


UNDER ARMOUR: Stull, Stull Files Shareholder Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody reminds investors that a class action lawsuit
is pending in the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland on behalf of purchasers of stock of Under Armour, Inc.,
between September 16, 2015 and January 30, 2017 (the "Class
Period").

During the same period of time, Company employees were purchasing
stock in the Under Armour, Inc. Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the
"ESPP").  SS&B is investigating whether Under Armour's
registration statement filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission that allowed the ESPP to purchase Under Armour stock
violated Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 by omitting
material facts and otherwise containing inaccurate, misleading and
untrue statements of fact pertaining to, among other things, Under
Armour's prospects.

The complaint filed alleges, among other things, that the
Company's carefully cultivated image as a fast-growing, cutting-
edge sports brand and a legitimate challenger to industry leaders
was misleading. The case further alleges that faced with declining
demand and excess inventory due to unsold products, Under Armour
abandoned its fundamental sales philosophy of competing on brand
strength over price, instead resorting to lowering prices and
offering promotions, and the Company had to liquidate excess
inventory at steep discounts.

If you participated in Under Armour's ESPP during the Class
Period, your rights may be affected.  If you purchased or acquired
Under Armour stock in the ESPP during the Class Period, and you
wish to discuss this your rights or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Michael
Klein, Esq. -- mklein@ssbny.com -- of SS&B at UAA@ssbny.com,
telephone 212-687-7230 x147, or by fax to 212-490-2022.

SS&B has litigated class actions for violations of securities laws
and breaches of fiduciary duty on behalf of defrauded investors
over the past 40 years and has obtained court approval of
substantial settlements on numerous occasions.  SS&B has offices
in New York and Beverly Hills.  SS&B's website (www.ssbny.com) has
additional information about the firm. [GN]


USAA CASUALTY: "Byorth" Suit Moved to District of Montana
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Peter Byorth and Ann McKean,
on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company and John Does I-X,
the Defendant, Case No. DV 15-00511, was removed from 13th
Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County, Montana, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Montana (Billings) on Nov. 17,
2017.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-00153-
SPW-TJC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Susan P. Watters.

USAA Casualty Insurance Company provides property and causality
insurance.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Colette B. Davies, Esq.
          BISHOP, HEENAN & DAVIES
          1631 Zimmerman Trail, Ste 1
          Billings, MT 59102
          Telephone: (406) 839 9091
          Facsimile: (406) 839 9092
          E-mail: colette@bhdlawyers.com

               - and -

          John C. Heenan, Esq.
          BISHOP, HEENAN & DAVIES
          1631 Zimmerman Trail, Ste 1
          Billings, MT 59102
          Telephone: (406) 839 9091
          Facsimile: (406) 839 9092
          E-mail: john@bishopandheenan.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ian McIntosh, Esq.
          Kelsey E. Bunkers, Esq.
          CROWLEY FLECK, PLLP
          1915 South 19th Avenue
          PO Box 10969
          Bozeman, MT 59719-0969
          Telephone: (406) 556 1430
          Facsimile: (406) 556 1433
          E-mail: imcintosh@crowleyfleck.com
                  kbunkers@crowleyfleck.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Sued over Technical Standards Conspiracy
----------------------------------------------------------
John R. Antonini and John A. DeVITO, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Bayerische Motoren Werke
Aktiengesellschaft; BMW of North America, LLC; Daimler
Aktiengesellschaft; Mercedesbenz USA, LLC; Volkswagen
Aktiengesellschaft; Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.; Audi
Aktiengesellschaft; Audi of America, LLC; DR. ING. H.C.F. Porsche
Aktiengesellschaft; and Porsche Cars North America, Inc., Case No.
3:17-cv-06635 (N.D. Cal., November 17, 2017), arises from the
Defendants' and others' alleged illegal "technical standards"
conspiracy, in which the five car manufacturers agreed to use
"only certain technical solutions" in new vehicles.  No one of the
five should be so far ahead of the others with a new model that
the others would encounter problems selling their cars. A
manufacturer could only introduce breakthrough technology if the
others were able to offer the same technology relatively quickly.
Rather than compete by selling innovative technology, they agreed
to cooperate and to forgo competing, says the complaint.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josef D. Cooper, Esq.
      Tracy R. Kirkham, Esq.
      John D. Bogdanov, Esq.
      COOPER & KIRKHAM, P.C.
      357 Tehama Street, Second Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94103
      Telephone: (415) 788-3030
      Facsimile: (415) 882-7040
      E-mail: jdc@coopkirk.com
              trk@coopkirk.com
              jdb@coopkirk.com


WONDERFUL PISTACHIOS: Dawson Sues over Background Checks
--------------------------------------------------------
Torres Dawson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Wonderful Pistachios & Almonds, LLC,
and Does 1 through 10, the Defendants, Case No. BC683872 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Nov. 17, 2017), seeks to recover statutory damages;
punitive damages, attorney's fees and costs, and interest as
provided by law as a result of Defendant's alleged policies and
practices in procuring or causing to be procured consumer reports
for employment purposes which violates provisions of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.

Wonderful Pistachios & Almonds LLC grows, processes, and markets
almonds and pistachios for a range of consumer and industry
markets in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter R. Dion-Kindem, Esq.
          THE DION-KINDEM LAW FIRM
          21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 900
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (818) 883 4900
          Facsimile: (818) 883 4902
          E-mail: peter@dion-kindemlaw.com

               - and -

          Lonnie C. Blanchard, III, Esq.
          THE BLANCHARD LAW GROUP, APC
          3311 East Pico Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90023
          Telephone: (213) 599 8255
          Facsimile: (213) 402 3949
          E-mail: lonnieblanchard@gmail.com

               - and -

          Jeff Holmes, Esq.
          HOLMES LAW GROUP, APC
          3311 East Pico Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90023
          Telephone: (310) 396 9045
          Facsimile: (970) 497 4922
          E-mail: ieffholmesih@gmail.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  * * *