---

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


            Monday, December 11, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 244



                            Headlines

ASHLEY FURNITURE: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Razo" Class Suit
AUTOZONE INC: Did Not Provide Meda with Counter Chairs, Say Suit
COMCAST CABLE: Accused by "Chacon" Class Suit of Violating TCPA
DAVITA HEALTHCARE: "Turner" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, Damages
DAVITA HEALTHCARE: "Wilson" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, Damages

DOE RUN: Missouri High Ct. Flips $2.1MM Award in Insurance Suit
DOLLAR TREE: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Guillen" Class Suit
EMMIS COMMUNICATIONS: Andrews Says Website Not Blind-Friendly
FARMERS INSURANCE: Insurance Agents Hits Misclassification
FEDERATED NATIONAL: 911 Dry Files Suit for Breach of Contract

FERNANDEZ & FERNANDEZ: Yanes Seeks to Certify Sales Agents Class
FLOWERS FOODS: Wiatrek Seeks to Certify Class of Distributors
GRANITE ROCK: Did Not Violate Meal Period Policy, Cal. App. Says
ICARD GIFT: Snyder's Bid to Certify Denied Following Settlement
IHI-NY LLC: "Barden" Claims Misallocated Tips, Off-the Clock Pay

INVENTURE FOODS: D&S Securities Class Suit Challenges Sale to Utz
JORDAN SCHOOL: S.G. Moves to Certify Class of Female Students
JTL CONSTRUCTION: Kaback Demands Payment of $440,915 Plus Costs
LAML LLC: "Reyes" Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum & Overtime Wages
LEASING ENTERPRISES: Shaffer Moves to Certify Class Under FLSA

LOUISIANA: Court Narrows Claims in Drug Accused Suit
MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: Tucker Appeals Decision in "Bacchi" Suit
MDL 2406: Court Stays Insurance Coverage Suit for 6 Months
MEDICAL BUSINESS: Seeks 7th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Rhone" Suit
METHODIST HEALTHCARE: Can't Compel Witness to Reply to Discovery

METROPOLITAN CHILDREN: Sued by Allen for Not Paying OT Under FLSA
N J KNOW: Sued by Lopez for Not Paying Appropriate Overtime Wages
NGK INSULATORS: Fixes Price of Ceramic Substrates, Airflow Says
OCULAR THERAPEUTIX: "Gallagher" Suit Moved From N.J. to Mass.
OCULAR THERAPEUTIX: "Kim" Suit Transferred From N.J. to Mass.

PACIFIC HOME: Accused by "Menichiello" Suit of Violating TCPA
PARSLEY ENERGY: Johnston Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
PENN NATIONAL: Illegally Charges Resort Fees, Chapman Alleges
PIEDUCKS COMPANY: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Penaranda Claims
PLANET PAYMENT: Faces "Palkon" Suit Over Sale to Fintrax

POWERCOMM CONSTRUCTION: 4th Cir. Vacates $183K Fee Award
QUALITY NDT: "Warren" Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
RUBY TUESDAY: "Williams" Action Seeks to Halt Sale to NRD Capital
SCOTIABANK PUERTO RICO: Certification of Homeowners Class Sought
SECURITY SERVICE: "Ortiz" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

SIRIUS XM: Class Certification Sought in "Andrews" Suit
STAFFMARK HOLDINGS: Wins Prelim. OK of $5.6MM Deal in Fronda Suit
STONEMOR PARTNERS: Court Dismisses "Anderson" Securities Suit
TRIANGLE CAPITAL: Faces "Dagher" Securities Suit in New York
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Flores" Suit in Cal. Over Data Breach

UL LLC: "Lee" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
WAVE CREST: Ruling on Front Desk Workers Claims Reversed
WESTERN CONCRETE: Sued by Austin Over Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
WESTLAKE WELLBEING: Files 9th Cir. Appeal in "Edelstein" Suit
WISCONSIN: Court Denies Certification of CCI Inmates Class





                            *********


ASHLEY FURNITURE: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Razo" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Nicholas Razo filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Nicholas Razo v. Ashley Furniture Industries, et
al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00630-MWF-MRW, in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, Los Angeles.

The nature of suit is stated as other fraud.

The appellate case is captioned as Nicholas Razo v. Ashley
Furniture Industries, et al., Case No. 17-56770, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by December 21, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on January 22, 2018;

   -- Appellant Nicholas Razo's opening brief is due on March 1,
      2018;

   -- Appellees Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc., Ashley
      HomeStores, Ltd. and Does' answering brief is due on
      April 2, 2018; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant NICHOLAS RAZO, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

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

Defendants-Appellees ASHLEY FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INC., a
Wisconsin corporation, and ASHLEY HOMESTORES, LTD., a Wisconsin
corporation, are represented by:

          Darlene Mi-Hyung Cho, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, 17th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 595-9500
          Facsimile: (310) 595-9501
          E-mail: dcho@sidley.com

               - and -

          Rachel R. Goldberg, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          1 South Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 853-7000
          E-mail: rachel.goldberg@sidley.com

               - and -

          Rachel A. Straus, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          555 West 5th Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Telephone: (213) 896-6669
          E-mail: rstraus@sidley.com


AUTOZONE INC: Did Not Provide Meda with Counter Chairs, Say Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Monica Meda, an individual, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated Plaintiff, v. Autozone, Inc., Autozoners LLC,
Autoanything, Inc. and Does 1 thru 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 683600 (Cal. Super., November 16, 2017), seeks penalties and
other relief pursuant to section 2698 of the Labor Code,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs of suit, attorneys'
fees and such other and further relief pursuant to the applicable
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders.

Defendants maintains over 400 California stores, including the one
where Plaintiff worked, at 1116 W. Redondo Beach Blvd Gardena,
California 90247.

Defendants have failed to properly comply with Labor Code sections
1198 and 1199 by failing to provide Plaintiff with suitable
seating, including at the cash register, and the parts counter,
says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Liane Katzenstein Ly, Esq.
      Eric B. Kingsley, Esq
      Ari J. Stiller, Esq.
      KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
      16133 Ventura Blvd, Suite 1200
      Encino, CA 91436
      Tel: (818) 990-8300
      Fax: (818) 990-2903
      Email: eric@kingsleykingsley.com
             liane@kingsleykingsley.com
             ari@kingsleykingsley.com

             - and -

      Melanie Porter, Esq.
      STEPHEN DANZ & ASSOCIATES
      925 B Street, Ste. 605
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 955-8521
      Fax: (619) 342-4747

Monica Meda is represented by:

      Stephen F. Danz, Esq.
      STEPHEN DANZ & ASSOCIATES
      11661 San Vicente Blvd., Suite 500
      Los Angeles, CA 90049
      Tel: (310) 207-4568
      Fax:(310) 207-5006


COMCAST CABLE: Accused by "Chacon" Class Suit of Violating TCPA
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROLANDO CHACON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS MANAGEMENT, LLC and
COMPLETE RECOVERY FIRST, INCORPORATED d/b/a COMPLETE RECOVERY,
Case No. 1:17-cv-08434 (N.D. Ill., November 21, 2017), accuses the
Defendants of negligently, knowingly and willfully violating the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending, through its
agent(s), sales, solicitation and other automated telephone calls
to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone.

Comcast is a limited liability company of the state of Delaware,
which is authorized to do business in Illinois, and whose
principal place of business is located in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.  Comcast was engaged in the marketing and sale of
telephone, internet, television programming, and related services.

Complete Recovery is a corporation of the state of Illinois, whose
principal place of business is in Chicago, Illinois.  Complete
Recovery was engaged in the business of debt collection and other
related services on behalf of Defendant Comcast.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DAVITA HEALTHCARE: "Turner" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, Damages
------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Turner and Daisy Ventura individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. Davita Healthcare
Partners, Inc. and Total Renal Care Inc. Defendants, Case No. 17-
cv-02742, (D. Colo., November 16, 2017), seeks unpaid wages,
overtime compensation, a declaratory judgment, liquidated damages,
compensatory damages, punitive damages, costs, 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 provide health care services to patients thought the
United States and abroad, specializing in dialysis services for
patients with chronic kidney failure and end stage renal disease.
Plaintiffs were required to perform work-related duties during
meal breaks and were not paid for work-related interruptions that
occurred/occur during meal breaks during their shifts wherein they
worked more than five consecutive hours. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Colleen T. Calandra, Esq.
      Madison Fiedler Carlson, Esq.
      Darren Natvig, Esq.
      RAMOS LAW
      3000 Youngfield Street
      Wheat Ridge, CO 80215
      Telephone: (303) 733-6353
      Fax Number: (303) 865-5666
      Email: colleen@ramoslaw.com
             madison@ramoslaw.com
             darren@ramoslaw.com

             - and -

      Ronald L. Wilcox, Esq.
      WILCOX LAW FIRM, LLC
      383 Corona Street, #401
      Denver, CO 80218
      Telephone: (303) 594-6720
      Email: ron@wilcox.legal


DAVITA HEALTHCARE: "Wilson" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, Damages
------------------------------------------------------------
Lacey Wilson and Laura Barry individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. Davita Healthcare
Partners, Inc. and Total Renal Care Inc. Defendants, Case No. 17-
cv-02747, (D. Colo., November 16, 2017), seeks unpaid wages,
overtime compensation, a declaratory judgment, liquidated damages,
compensatory damages, punitive damages, costs, 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 provide health care services to patients thought the
United States and abroad, specializing in dialysis services for
patients with chronic kidney failure and end stage renal disease.
Plaintiffs were required to perform work-related duties during
meal breaks and were not paid for work-related interruptions that
occurred/occur during meal breaks during their shifts wherein they
worked more than five consecutive hours. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Colleen T. Calandra, Esq.
      Madison Fiedler Carlson, Esq.
      Darren Natvig, Esq.
      RAMOS LAW
      3000 Youngfield Street
      Wheat Ridge, CO 80215
      Telephone: (303) 733-6353
      Fax Number: (303) 865-5666
      Email: colleen@ramoslaw.com
             madison@ramoslaw.com
             darren@ramoslaw.com

             - and -

      Ronald L. Wilcox, Esq.
      WILCOX LAW FIRM, LLC
      383 Corona Street, #401
      Denver, CO 80218
      Telephone: (303) 594-6720
      Email: ron@wilcox.legal


DOE RUN: Missouri High Ct. Flips $2.1MM Award in Insurance Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc, issued an Opinion
reversing the judgment of the Circuit Court and enters judgment in
favor of St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company pursuant to
Rule 84.14.

The circuit court entered summary judgment in favor of The Doe Run
Resources Corporation, finding the pollution exclusion ambiguous
and unenforceable.

In 2007, a class action lawsuit was filed against Doe Run on
behalf of individuals living in the vicinity of the La Oroya
facility, alleging bodily harm caused by exposure to toxic
emissions emanating from Doe Run's facility.  After the class
action lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed, more than 25 minor
plaintiffs filed individual lawsuits against Doe Run (Reid
lawsuits).

Each lawsuit raises identical allegations that Doe Run released
harmful substances, like lead, arsenic, cadmium, and sulfur
dioxide, into the environment.  Plaintiffs claim these emissions
created a dust that permeated the surrounding air and water,
entering and settling inside the minor plaintiffs' houses and on
their furniture, clothing, water, and crops.

During the trial, St. Paul filed a motion for judgment under Rule
73.01, arguing it could not legally be required to reimburse Doe
Run for any costs incurred prior to Doe Run's tender of defense.
The trial court denied both motions.  It entered judgment against
St. Paul and awarded Doe Run approximately $1.75 million for
unpaid defense costs plus prejudgment interest.  Two months later,
the trial court entered its final judgment, reiterating its core
findings as to St. Paul's duty to defend, St. Paul's breach of
that duty, and the damages owed.  The court awarded Doe Run $2.1
million in damages and prejudgment interest and $12,000 in costs.
St. Paul appeals.

St. Paul asserts four points on appeal, arguing the trial court
erred by: (1) finding St. Paul owes a duty to defend Doe Run
because the unambiguous pollution exclusion bars defense coverage;
(2) finding St. Paul has a duty to defend Doe Run because the
other insurance provision precludes defense coverage; (3) awarding
defense costs to Doe Run incurred before the March 2012 tender of
the Reid lawsuits to St. Paul; and (4) awarding prejudgment
interest to Doe Run.

The Supreme Court finds that the Pollution Exclusion is
unambiguous and bars coverage.  Doe Run argues the pollution
exclusion has many layers of ambiguity and is incapable of
precluding defense coverage here.  The state Supreme Court agrees.

The effect of the pollution exclusion is clearly to proscribe the
types of claims raised in the Reid lawsuits. The basic allegations
are clear: toxic substances were in the air surrounding the La
Oroya facility; these substances harm people who breathe them; and
plaintiffs breathed this impure air. There is no question this
type of pollution is the exact type of damage excluded from
coverage under St. Paul's policy. The Eighth Circuit, applying
Missouri law, has found a virtually identical pollution exclusion
barred toxic tort coverage for claims arising out of Doe Run's
Missouri facility.  The state supreme court agrees.  The pollution
exclusion unambiguously bars coverage under these facts.

Nevertheless, Doe Run asserts the policy is ambiguous because it
precludes coverage for Doe Run's essential business materials,
and, under Hocker Oil, 997 S.W.2d at 518, the pollution exclusion
should be given no effect.

Despite Doe Run's attempts to frame the insurance coverage claims
in a more beneficial light, the Reid lawsuits do not allege any
damages or injuries directly caused by the storage, use,
maintenance, or other means of handling commercial lead or metals.
Each claim referring to any direct contact with these materials
falls into one of two categories: some claims merely raise
prerequisite allegations of Doe Run's ownership of the La Oroya
facility or the duty it owed to the plaintiffs, while the others
allege the handling of lead and other metals resulted in the
negligent release of toxic substances into the environment the
actual alleged cause of each plaintiff's injury or damage.
The only exposure the plaintiffs had to Doe Run's lead products
was via its release of toxic substances into the environment. And
because Doe Run is not in the business of polluting the
environment, these toxic emissions are not products Doe Run
intends to sell. That its toxic or hazardous materials are
valuable products if Doe Run properly contains them does not make
them any less pollutants' when they are abandoned and released
into the environment.  Because these toxic lead by-products are
not Doe Run's business commodities, Hocker Oil does not apply.

The judgment is reversed, and the state supreme court enters
judgment in favor of St. Paul pursuant to Rule 84.14.

The insurance coverage case is captioned THE DOE RUN RESOURCES
CORPORATION, Respondent, v. AMERICAN GUARANTEE & LIABILITY
INSURANCE and LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, and ST.
PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, No. SC96107
(Mo.).

A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's October 31, 2017 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yavh345y from Leagle.com.

St. Paul was represented by Robert T. Haar -- roberthaar@haar-
woods.com -- and Lisa A. Pake -- lpake@haar-woods.com -- of Haar &
Woods LLP, in St. Louis, (314) 241-2224; David M. Fedder --
david.fedder@dentons.com -- and Deborah C. Campbell --
deborah.campbell@dentons.com -- of Dentons US LLP in St. Louis,
(314) 440-6901; and Robert C. Johnson --
robert.johnson@dentons.com -- of Dentons US LLP in Chicago,
Illinois, (312) 876-8000.

Doe Run was represented by Jamie L. Boyer --
jamie.boyer@stinson.com -- of Stinson Leonard Street LLP in St.
Louis, (314) 259-4546; and Marc D. Halpern --
mhalpern@abelsonherron.com -- Vince H. Herron --
vherron@abelsonherron.com -- and Heather L. Mayer --
hmayer@abelsonherron.com -- of Abelson Herron Halpern LLP in San
Diego, California, (619) 618-7000.

Several organizations submitted briefs as friends of the Court.
The Complex Insurance Claims Litigation Association and the
American Insurance Association were represented by Alan K.
Goldstein of Goldstein and Price LC in St. Louis, (314) 421-0710;
Associated Industries of Missouri was represented by Stephen D.
Palley -- spalley@andersonkill.com -- of Anderson Kill in
Washington, D.C., (202) 416-6500; and United Policyholders was
represented by Timothy W. Burns -- Tburns@perkinscoie.com -- of
Perkins Coie LLP in Madison, Wisconsin, (608) 663-7460.


DOLLAR TREE: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Guillen" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Francisca Guillen filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled Francisca Guillen v. Dollar Tree
Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-03813-MWF-PJW, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Nov. 29, 2017, a
California federal jury found that Dollar Tree's practice of
providing pay stubs on cash register receipts for a class of 5,400
retail employees didn't violate a state law requiring that
employers provide accessible wage statements.

The jury found that Dollar Tree provided workers with easy access
to their electronic wage statements, ending an inquiry over
whether any failure to provide easy access was intentional or
caused any injuries.

The appellate case is captioned as Francisca Guillen v. Dollar
Tree Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-56779, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by December 21, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on January 22, 2018;

   -- Appellant Francisca Guillen's opening brief is due on
      March 1, 2018;

   -- Appellees Does and Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.'s answering
      brief is due on April 2, 2018; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant FRANCISCA GUILLEN, an individual, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531-1900
          E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com

Defendant-Appellee DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC., a Virginia
corporation, is represented by:

          Dominic John Messiha, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          2049 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 712-7343
          Facsimile: (310) 553-5583
          E-mail: dmessiha@littler.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Joseph Mann, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          1255 Treat Boulevard
          Walnut Creek, CA 94597
          Telephone: (925) 932-2468
          Facsimile: (925) 946-9809
          E-mail: jmann@littler.com

               - and -

          Elena R. Baca, Esq.
          Ryan David Derry, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS LLP
          515 South Flower Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 683-6000
          Facsimile: (213) 627-0705
          E-mail: elenabaca@paulhastings.com
                  ryanderry@paulhastings.com

Defendants-Appellees DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC., and DOES, 1-100,
inclusive, are represented by:

          Lindbergh Porter, Jr., Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          333 Bush Street, 34th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-1940
          E-mail: lporter@littler.com


EMMIS COMMUNICATIONS: Andrews Says Website Not Blind-Friendly
-------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Andrews, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Emmis Communications Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 522328/2017, (N.Y. Sup., November 16, 2017),
seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and compensatory damages
under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York State
Human Rights Law.

Defendant owns and operates www.wbls.com that offers a wide array
of the goods, services, testimonials, and other programs offered
by their radio station, WBLS. Plaintiff browsed and intended to
enter the contest "Try to Win 500 Dollars" on the website.
Plaintiff is legally blind and claims that the website is not
accessible to the blind. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FARMERS INSURANCE: Insurance Agents Hits Misclassification
----------------------------------------------------------
Irene Parry and Jeanette O'Sullivan, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Farmers Insurance
Exchange, Truck Insurance Exchange and Fire Insurance Exchange,
Defendants, Case No. BC6838856, (Cal. Super., November 16, 2017),
seeks compensatory damages, restitution of the funds that unjustly
enriched Defendant at the expense of the Plaintiffs, statutory
damages, liquidated damages and penalties, reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such
other and further relief pursuant to California Labor Laws and
Unfair Competition Law.

Farmers Group, Inc. and Farmers Insurance Exchange are insurance
companies incorporated in Nevada, with principal place of business
and headquarters at 6301 Owensmouth Ave., Woodland Hills, Los
Angeles County, CA 91367. They provide property and casualty
insurance, including homeowners' policies and business policies,
throughout the country, including in Arizona.

Farmers classify their captive agents in California as independent
contractors or entrepreneurs and small business owners who own
their Farmers' agencies, thus requiring them to pay all the
expenses of running the Farmers' agencies, such as rent, office
staff, and office equipment and supplies. Plaintiffs claim that
they are employees. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gretchen M. Nelson, Esq.
      Gabriel S. Barenfeld, Esq.
      NELSON & FRAENKEL LLP
      707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 3600
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone No.: (213) 622-6469
      Facsimile No.: (213) 622-6019
      Email: gnelson@nflawfirm.com
             gbarenfeld@nflawfirm.com


FEDERATED NATIONAL: 911 Dry Files Suit for Breach of Contract
-------------------------------------------------------------
911 DRY SOLUTIONS, INC., a/a/o FLORENCE WARMINGTON on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated v. FEDERATED NATIONAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. CACE-17-021125 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward
Cty., November 21, 2017), alleges breach of contract seeking
damages, which exceed $15,000, exclusive of interest, costs, and
attorneys' fees.

FNIC is a Florida corporation doing business under the laws of the
state of Florida, and sells homeowners' insurance policies
providing coverage throughout the State.

911 Dry is a Florida Corporation that provides reasonable,
necessary and related water remediation services in relation to
sudden, accidental and covered losses that are sustained by the
insureds of FNIC.  In consideration of the services provided, 911
Dry accepts from FNIC's insureds an assignment of benefits
("AOB"), which entitles them to maintain a first-party insurance
claim against FNIC for the cost of the services that they render.

911 Dry says it has standing to maintain this action since it has
obtained AOBs from FNICs insureds, including, but not limited to,
Florence Warmington, who submitted a claim for which FNIC has
expressly indicated that the amount of reimbursement is limited to
$3,000.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jose P. Font, Esq.
          FONT & NELSON, PLLC
          200 S Andrews Avenue, Suite 501
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 248-2920
          Facsimile: (954) 248-2134
          E-mail: jfont@fontnelson.com


FERNANDEZ & FERNANDEZ: Yanes Seeks to Certify Sales Agents Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled DAYLOR YANES, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. FERNANDEZ & FERNANDEZ
INSURANCE, INC., a Florida profit corporation, PREFERRED INSURANCE
NETWORK, INC., a Florida profit corporation, WILLIAM FERNANDEZ, an
individual, and ANTONIA FERNANDEZ, an individual, Case No. 1:17-
cv-23677-UU (S.D. Fla.), asks the Court to issue an order:

     (i) conditionally certifying a class of:

         current and former "insurance sales agents" who worked
         for Defendants within the last three years;

    (ii) directing the Defendants to produce to the Plaintiff's
         counsel within 20 days a list containing the names and
         last known addresses of putative Class Members, who
         worked for Defendants during the last three years; and

   (iii) authorizing counsel to send a notice to all individuals
         whose names appear on the list produced by the
         Defendants' counsel.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert W. Brock II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN
          17 East Flagler Street, Suite 223
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 358-6800
          Facsimile: (305) 358-6808
          E-mail: robert@kuvinlaw.com

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=k8j8Rtuf

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jonathan A. Beckerman, Esq.
          Miguel A. Morel, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          Wells Fargo Center
          333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2700
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 400-7500
          Facsimile: (305) 603-2552
          E-mail: jabeckerman@littler.com
                  mamorel@littler.com


FLOWERS FOODS: Wiatrek Seeks to Certify Class of Distributors
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled RICHARD WIATREK, Individually
and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated v. FLOWERS FOODS,
INC. and FLOWERS BAKING CO. OF SAN ANTONIO, LLC, Case No. 5:17-cv-
00772-XR (W.D. Tex.), seeks conditional certification and issuance
of a Court-approved notice to current and former Distributors, who
work/ed for the Defendants and were classified as independent
contractors and who did not receive proper overtime pay under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

To facilitate the purposes of the FLSA's collective action
provisions, Mr. Wiatrek asks the Court to:

   (1) approve the proposed Notice;

   (2) require the Defendants to post the Notice at all Flowers
       Baking Co. of San Antonio warehouses in areas plainly
       visible to employees;

   (3) require the Defendants to provide the e-mail addresses as
       well as the last known names and mailing addresses for all
       current and former workers within the potential class;

   (4) order the Defendants to produce this information within
       seven days of granting this motion, and in a usable
       electronic form to reduce any delays in sending out the
       notices;

   (5) authorize the Plaintiff to e-mail and mail the notice
       along with a self-addressed stamped return envelope to
       Kennard Richard, P.C., to potential opt-in class members;
       and

   (6) allow a period of 90 days after the initial notices are
       mailed for opt-in plaintiffs to file their Notices of
       Consent with the Court.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=YAjA5WN0

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alfonso Kennard, Jr., Esq.
          KENNARD LAW, PC
          2603 Augusta Drive, 14th Floor
          Houston, TX 77057
          Telephone: (713) 742-0900
          Facsimile: (713) 742-0951
          E-mail: Alfonso.kennard@kennardlaw.com


GRANITE ROCK: Did Not Violate Meal Period Policy, Cal. App. Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Sixth District, issued an
Opinion affirming the Trial Court's judgment in favor of
Defendants in the case captioned BRIAN DRISCOLL et al., Plaintiffs
and Appellants, v. GRANITE ROCK COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant,
No. H037662 (Cal. App.).

The trial court entered judgment in favor of Graniterock and
plaintiffs filed the appeal.  In addition, Graniterock filed a
cross-appeal of the trial court's grant of plaintiffs' motion for
summary adjudication of Graniterock's affirmative defense related
to the On-Duty Meal Period Agreement.

Graniterock concrete drivers Brian Driscoll, Kenneth Gallardo,
Donald Hopf, Chris Nowak and Brad Storm filed this action on
behalf of a class of approximately 200 current and former concrete
mixer drivers.  Plaintiffs claim that Graniterock failed to
provide concrete mixer drivers with off-duty meal periods and
failed to provide them with one additional hour of pay for meal
periods during which the drivers opted to continue working.

The trial court found that Plaintiffs failed to prove that the
drivers were forced, expected, or trained to involuntarily sign
On-Duty Meal Period Agreements or to miss off-duty meal periods
against their will.  The court noted that numerous drivers
testified that despite signing an [On-Duty Meal Period Agreement],
they understood that they could get a meal at any time without
revoking their On-Duty Meal Period Agreement.

Following consideration of the evidence at trial, including the
testimony of numerous concrete mixer drivers and dispatchers, the
court concluded that plaintiffs had not proven that Graniterock
forced any driver to forgo an off-duty meal period.  The court
stated: "Graniterock has affirmatively notified its employees that
they are entitled to a 30-minute off-duty meal period free from
its control through its policies, postings and communications.
Graniterock did nothing to interfere with drivers' ability to take
an off-duty meal period.  Rather, drivers did not take off-duty
meal periods because they did not want them. No one went hungry
they ate during their downtime. While dispatchers did not ask each
employee every day whether s/he wanted an off-duty meal period,
every driver stated that if asked s/he would say s/he did not want
one. The law does not require that the dispatchers ask each day
because that would be an exercise in futility."  The court further
found that Plaintiffs failed to prove that the drivers were
forced, expected, or trained to involuntarily sign On-Duty Meal
Period Agreements or to miss off-duty meal periods against their
will.

Plaintiffs raise two distinct arguments on appeal. First,
plaintiffs argue as they did in the trial court that Graniterock
failed to meet its legal obligation to provide a 30-minute duty-
free lunch period to its concrete mixer drivers. In addition,
plaintiffs assert a new argument on appeal that Graniterock
offered illegal financial incentives to induce its mixer drivers
to forgo their duty-free meal period in exchange for increased
pay.  In the cross-appeal, Graniterock argues that the trial court
erred when it granted plaintiffs' motion for summary adjudication
of Graniterock's affirmative defense related to the On-Duty Meal
Period Agreement.

Failure to Provide Duty-Free Meal Period

The trial court noted that the nature of the concrete mixing and
delivering industry made the scheduling of off-duty meal periods
in advance nearly impossible. The law is clear that an employer is
not required to schedule meal periods in order to comply with
their legal meal-period obligations. Moreover, an employer is not
required to guarantee or ensure that an employee take a 30-minute
off-duty meal period. Rather, as set forth in Brinker, the
employer's duty is to provide a 30-minute off-duty lunch period
that is free from an employer's control.

Plaintiffs argue that the trial courts finding that Graniterock is
only required to relieve from its control those drivers who
elected to take an off-duty meal period" demonstrates that it held
Graniterock to a lower standard than set forth in Brinker, which
held that in order to satisfy the requirements of section 512,
subdivision (a) and Wage Order No. 5, an employer must relieve its
employees of all duty, therefore violating the holding of Brinker.

However, the court prefaced this finding with the statement,
whether an employee was provided the opportunity to take an off-
duty meal in which the employer relinquishes all control is a
separate issue from whether an employee who decided to work during
his meal period and/or was under the employer's control was paid
for that time. The court found that when a concrete-mixer driver
requested to have an off-duty meal period, Graniterock granted
that request, and relinquished all control of the employee for the
30-minute off-duty period. This satisfies the requirement as set
forth in Brinker.

The trial court specifically found that the employees were not
required to waive an unwaivable right; rather, mixer drivers were
given the opportunity to take an off-duty meal period each day,
and could freely choose to take or not take such meal period.
Graniterock's policy of providing an off-duty lunch period, and
allowing its employees to choose to take such period at their
discretion is consistent with the holding of Brinker.

Illegal Financial Incentives

Plaintiff is correct that the existence of financial incentives is
factual, and that is precisely why the Cal. App. will not consider
the new argument on appeal. The facts of this case, including the
various reasons that drivers chose to work through lunch, were
highly contested.  Issues that are dependent on disputed facts may
not be argued for the first time in the appellate court.  The rule
is well settled that the theory upon which a case is tried must be
adhered to on appeal. A party is not permitted to change his
position and adopt a new and different theory on appeal. To permit
him to do so would not only be unfair to the trial court, but
manifestly unjust to the opposing litigant.

Here, plaintiffs did not argue at trial that Graniterock provided
illegal financial incentives to induce the mixer drivers to forgo
their off-duty meal period. As a result, Graniterock did not have
notice of the issue, nor did it argue or present evidence
specifically addressing the issue. Plaintiffs are precluded from
raising this argument for the first time on appeal. We note that
even if plaintiffs were to make this argument on appeal, there is
no undisputed evidence in the record to support a claim that
financial incentives were used to induce drivers to forgo an off-
duty meal period.

Graniterock's Cross-Appeal

Graniterock brings a cross-appeal of the trial court's grant of
plaintiffs' motion for summary adjudication of its affirmative
defense regarding the On-Duty Meal Period Agreement. The cross-
appeal was brought for this court to consider the issue in the
event the Cal. App. reversed the judgment. Because the Cal. App.
affirms the judgment, the Cal. App. dismisses the cross-appeal as
moot.

As to Plaintiffs' appeal, the judgment is affirmed.  Graniterock's
cross-appeal is dismissed as moot.

A full-text copy of the Cal. App.'s October 31, 2017 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y9wral5v from Leagle.com.


ICARD GIFT: Snyder's Bid to Certify Denied Following Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William P. Dimitrouleas entered an order in the lawsuit
captioned CECILIA SNYDER, individually and on Behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals v. ICARD GIFT CARD, LLC, a Florida
limited Liability company, and CASHSTAR, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 0:15-cv-61718-WPD (S.D. Fla.):

   1. denying as moot Defendant CashStar, Inc.'s Motion for
      Summary Judgment;

   2. denying as moot the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
      Certification;

   3. denying as moot Defendant iCard Gift Card, LLC's Motion for
      Summary Judgment; and

   4. directing the parties to file a joint stipulation of
      dismissal by December 6, 2017.

According to the Order, the parties have stated that they have
reached a settlement of the action and are in the process of
completing the necessary settlement procedures.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7BqH585S


IHI-NY LLC: "Barden" Claims Misallocated Tips, Off-the Clock Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Barden and Aigerim Danayeva, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. IHI-NY, LLC,
Philippe Massoud and Alexandre Massoud, Defendants, Case No.
522336/2017 (N.Y. Sup., November 16, 2017), seeks to recover
minimum wages, overtime compensation, misappropriated tips, call-
in pay, uniform maintenance pay, and other damages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law.

Defendants operate "Ilili," is a high-end Lebanese restaurant
located at at 236 5th Avenue in New York City where Plaintiffs
worked as servers. Defendants allegedly misappropriated gratuities
from Plaintiffs and other tipped employees by requiring them to
engage in a tip distribution scheme where tips were shared with
employees in positions that are not entitled to tips. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
      Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
      Armando A. Ortiz, Esq.
      Dana M. Cimera, Esq.
      FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
      28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 300-0375


INVENTURE FOODS: D&S Securities Class Suit Challenges Sale to Utz
-----------------------------------------------------------------
D&S Fraley Revocable Living Trust, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. Inventure Foods, Inc., Ashton D.
Asensio, Timothy A. Cole, Macon Bryce Edmonson, Paul J. Lapadat,
Terry McDaniel, and Joel D. Stewart, Case No. 2:17-cv-04277-SPL
(D. Ariz., November 21, 2017), accuses the Defendants of breaching
their fiduciary duties in connection with their efforts to sell
the Company to Utz Quality Foods, LLC ("Parent") and Heron Sub,
Inc. (the "Merger Sub") as a result of an unfair process for an
unfair price.

Utz will acquire each outstanding share of Inventure common stock
for $4 per share in cash, with a total valuation of approximately
$165 million.  The terms of the Proposed Acquisition were
memorialized in an October 25, 2017 filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Form 8-K attaching the definitive Agreement
and Plan of Merger.

Inventure manufactures and markets healthy/natural and indulgent
specialty snack food products in the United States and
internationally.  The Company operates in two segments, Frozen
Products and Snack Products.  The Company also manufactures
private label snack chip products for various grocery chains and
natural stores, and co-pack products for other snack
manufacturers.  The Individual Defendants are directors and
officers of the Company.

Non-party Parent is a Delaware Limited Liability Company with its
principal executive offices located in Hanover, Pennsylvania.
Parent manufactures and markets snack foods in the United States
and internationally.  Parent offers potato chips, pretzels, cheese
snacks, corn products, and popcorns.  Parent offers its products
through grocery stores, mass-merchants, club stores, convenience
stores, drug stores, and other channels.  Non-party Merger Sub is
a Delaware corporation and a direct wholly owned subsidiary of
Parent.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary F. Urman, Esq.
          DECONCINI MCDONALD YETWIN & LACY, P.C.
          2525 E. Broadway Blvd., Suite 200
          Tucson, AZ 85716-5300
          Telephone: (520) 322-5000
          Facsimile: (520) 322-5585
          E-mail: gurman@dmyl.com

               - and -

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          Two Bala Plaza, suite 510
          Bala Cynwid, PA 19004
          Telephone: (610) 667-6200
          E-mail: esmith@brodskysmith.com
                  mackerman@brodskysmith.com


JORDAN SCHOOL: S.G. Moves to Certify Class of Female Students
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned S.G., by and through her
general guardian, BRENT GORDON; et al. v. JORDAN SCHOOL DISTRICT,
et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-00677-RJS-DBP (D. Utah), ask the Court to
certify this class:

     All present and future female high school students attending
     high schools in Jordan, Canyon, or Granite School Districts,
     and all potential and future female students in these
     Districts who participate, seek to participate, and/or are
     deterred from participating in girls-only football teams, or
     in other sports or teams not offered at the Districts' high
     schools.

The Plaintiffs assert that they are girls, who wish to play girls-
only football, but the Defendants, namely, Canyon, Jordan, and
Granite School Districts (collectively "the Districts"), and the
Utah High School Activities Association refuse to launch that
program.  The Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief that will compel
the Districts to institute, and UHSAA to recognize, girls-only
football.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9Klj8Rwp

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark L. Smith, Esq.
          Michelle Correll, Esq.
          D. Loren Washburn, Esq.
          Jacob L. Fonnesbeck, Esq.
          SMITH CORRELL, LLP
          50 West Broadway, Suite 1010
          Salt Lake City, UT 84101
          Telephone: (801) 385-1800
          Facsimile: (801) 385-1820
          E-mail: msmith@smithcorrell.com
                  mcorrell@smithcorrell.com
                  lwashburn@smithcorrell.com
                  jfonnesbeck@smithcorrell.com

               - and -

          Brent Gordon, Esq.
          BRENT GORDON LAW
          477 Shoup Ave., 101
          Idaho Falls, ID 83402
          Telephone: (208) 552-0467
          Facsimile: (866) 886-3419
          E-mail: brent@brentgordonlaw.com

Defendants Canyon School District, Granite School District, Jordan
School District, James Briscoe, Martin Bates, and Patrice Johnson
are represented by:

          Darin B. Goff, Esq.
          Rachel G. Terry, Esq.
          UTAH ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
          160 E. 300 S., 6th Floor
          P.O. Box 140856
          Salt Lake City, UT 84114
          Telephone: (801) 366-0100
          E-mail: dgoff@agutah.gov
                  rachelterry@agutah.gov

Defendant UHSAA is represented by:

          Mark O. Van Wagoner, Esq.
          SAVAGE YEATES & WALDRON, PC
          170 S. Main Street, #500
          Salt Lake City, UT 84101
          Telephone: (801) 328-2200
          E-mail: movw@comcast.net

               - and -

          D. Craig Parry, Esq.
          PARR BROWN GEE & LOVELESS
          101 South 200 East, Suite 700
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111
          Telephone: (801) 532-7840
          E-mail: cparry@parrbrown.com


JTL CONSTRUCTION: Kaback Demands Payment of $440,915 Plus Costs
---------------------------------------------------------------
KABACK ENTERPRISES, INC., Individually and on behalf of all other
Lienors, Claimants or Creditors for work and/or materials due and
owing in connection with the construction and improvement of
certain real property described herein v. JTL CONSTRUCTION CORP.,
JOHN LOMIO, DANIEL J. HULBERT and "John Doe", said name being
fictitious, true name being unknown to the plaintiff, person
intended being an officer or director of JTL CONSTRUCTION CORP.,
Case No. 657013/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., November 20,
2017), demands judgment against JTL in the sum of $440,915,
together with interest, and costs and disbursements of this
action.

On April 11, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, entered into
an agreement by the terms of which the Plaintiff was hired and
engaged to perform certain work, labor and services and to furnish
certain materials in connection with the construction and
improvement of the premises known as and located at Slow Foods
Gourmet Market Westfield Mall, in 4 World Trade Center, located at
150 Greenwich Street, in New York City.

The agreed price and fair and reasonable value of the work, labor
and services performed and the materials furnished was $1,169,915,
no part of which has been paid or credited, except the sum of
$729,000, leaving a balance due and owing of $440,915, the
Plaintiff alleges.  The Plaintiff contends that it is entitled to
judgment against the Defendant herein for the sum of $440,915,
with interest from April 11, 2016.

JTL Construction Corp., is a domestic corporation duly organized
and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the state of New
York.  The Individual Defendants are officers, directors or
persons controlling the business and assets of JTL.  JTL is in the
Construction Management business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stuart S. Zisholtz, Esq.
          ZISHOLTZ & ZISHOLTZ, LLP
          170 Old Country Road
          Mineola, NY 11501
          Telephone: (516) 741-2200
          E-mail: stu@zzllp.com


LAML LLC: "Reyes" Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum & Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
EFRAIN ANZURES REYES, GARCIA BENITO, LAZARO CORNEJAL RAMIREZ, LUIS
ANTONIO HERNANDEZ CAPETILLO, and PEDRO FERNANDO XUYA MORALES,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. LAML
LLC (d/b/a JOHN SULLIVAN'S BAR & GRILL), 240 BBJ PUB INC. (D/B/A
JACK DOYLE'S IRISH PUB), JOHN CREEGAN and BRENDAN CREEGAN, Case
No. 1:17-cv-09118 (S.D.N.Y., November 21, 2017), seeks to recover
alleged unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law.

LAML LLC (d/b/a Jack Doyle's Irish Pub) is a corporation organized
and existing under the laws of the state of New York, and
maintains its principal place of business in New York City.  240
BBJ Pub Inc. (d/b/a Jack Doyle's Irish Pub) is a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the state of New York,
and maintains its principal place of business in New York City.
The Individual Defendants are owners, officers ors agent of the
Defendant Corporations.

The Defendants own, operate and control two Irish restaurants one
of which is located at 210 West 35th Street, in New York City, and
the other one at 240 West 35th Street, in New York City, under the
names John Sullivan's Bar & Grill and Jack Doyle's Irish Pub.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 442nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
          E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com


LEASING ENTERPRISES: Shaffer Moves to Certify Class Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Shaffer, et al., ask the Court to conditionally certify the
action styled MARK SHAFFER et al. v. LEASING ENTERPRISES, LTD.,
d/b/a PERRY'S RESTAURANTS, LTD., Case No. 5:16-cv-01193-FB-ESC
(W.D. Tex.), as Fair Labor Standards Act collective action on
behalf of a class consisting of all current and former employees
of the Defendant, who were tipped employees performing dual jobs
in excess of 20% of their workweek between September 8, 2014, and
September 8, 2017.

The Plaintiffs have alleged that Perry's willfully and recklessly
charged its tipped employees a tip fee that is substantially
higher than what is permitted under the law.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to order the Defendant to
provide contact information for potential class members and
approve both the notice and the accompanying Web site proposed by
counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=pIIQfa5D

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Howard L. Steele, Jr., Esq.
          STEELE LAW GROUP, PLLC
          500 Dallas, Suite 3440
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 659-2600
          Facsimile: (713) 659-2601
          E-mail: hsteele@steele-law-group.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Lionel M. Schooler, Esq.
          JACKSON WALKER L.L.P.
          1401 McKinney Suite 1900
          Houston, TX 77010
          Telephone: (713) 752-4200
          Facsimile: (713) 308-4156
          E-mail: lschooler@jw.com


LOUISIANA: Court Narrows Claims in Drug Accused Suit
----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana issued an Order and Reasons granting in part and denying
in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the case captioned TAYLOR
CARLISLE, ET AL., v. NEWELL NORMAND, ET AL., Section "H" (1),
Civil Action No. 16-3767 (E.D. La.).

Before the Court are three Motions: A Motion to Dismiss filed by
Defendants Joe McNair and McNair & McNair, LLC; a Motion to
Dismiss filed by Defendants Richard Thompson and Joseph Marino;
and a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Kristen Becnel, Tracey
Mussal, and Kevin Theriot.

Plaintiffs challenge the manner in which the Jefferson Parish Drug
Court is conducted. In addition to their individual claims, they
seek to represent a class of individuals who were similarly
sentenced by the Drug Court.

Plaintiffs aver that all of these individuals were subject to a
pattern and practice of conduct whereby they were deprived of
liberty under color of state law.  They aver that the subject
class may consist of more than one thousand individuals and that
their claims involve common questions of law and fact.

Plaintiffs' Second Amending Complaint alleges additional factual
details as to how the Drug Court team, including Defendants
McNair, Marino, and the Drug Court Administrators, allegedly
conspired to have the Drug Court judge sanction Plaintiffs in
violation of due process.  Plaintiffs specifically allege that
Defendant Klees lied to Defendant Theriot about how Klees
discovered Plaintiff Carlisle's missing AA paperwork.  Plaintiffs
allege that Defendants knowingly ignored national treatment
standards and drug court guidelines in implementing the program.
Plaintiffs allege that the rights of all class members were
violated by Defendants' policies and practices of ignoring
treatment standards, recommending illegal sanctions, and
participating in proceedings lacking due process.

Three groups of Defendants again move separately to dismiss the
remaining and amended claims against them.

The Drug Court Administrators move the Court to dismiss all claims
against them pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).  They argue
that Plaintiffs, having been discharged from Drug Court, no longer
have standing to bring their claims.

Defendants McNair and McNair's Business also move to dismiss for
lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, as well as to
strike the class allegations.

Defendants Marino and Thompson move to dismiss the state-law
malpractice claims against them on the grounds that (a) the claims
do not fall under the Court's supplemental jurisdiction, (b) that
even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, the fact that the
sentences of which Plaintiffs complain have not been overturned
presents a compelling reason to decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction, and (c) that Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for
legal malpractice because the underlying sentences have not been
overturned, Plaintiffs fail to allege causation, and Plaintiffs'
allegations against Defendant Thompson are merely conclusory.

Defendants' Motions are granted in part.  All of Plaintiffs'
Section 1983 claims against Defendants Joe McNair, McNair &
McNair, LLC, Richard Thompson, Joseph Marino, Kristen Becnel,
Tracey Mussal, and Kevin Theriot in their personal and official
capacities, whether for injunctive or declaratory relief or
damages, are dismissed with prejudice.  Plaintiff Carlisle's
negligence claims against Defendants McNair and McNair & McNair,
LLC, remain.  Plaintiff Heron's negligence claims against
Defendants McNair and McNair & McNair, LLC are dismissed with
prejudice.  The class allegations against Defendants McNair and
McNair & McNair, LLC are stricken with respect to the negligence
claims.  All of Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant Thompson are
dismissed with prejudice.  Plaintiffs' legal malpractice claims
against Defendant Marino remain.

The Court finds that the factors weigh in favor of finding Drug
Court to be an arm of the state.  First, the statutes creating the
program clearly view it as a function of the state courts, which
are themselves state entities.  Second, from the information
included in Plaintiffs' Second Amending Complaint, Drug Court
appears to be funded by federal grants given to the state and
administered by the Louisiana Supreme Court.  Third, drug courts
are controlled by judicial districts, rather than local parishes,
and those judicial districts are not necessarily coterminous with
a given parish.  The fourth factor, whether the entity is
concerned with mainly local problems, is mixed. Drug courts are
administered by state entities, which suggests that they tackle
issues of statewide import.  The fifth and sixth factors, whether
the drug courts can sue, be sued, and own property in their own
names, are less important.  The Court does not have specific
information before it relating to those factors.  Even if those
factors were to lean in the opposite direction, they would not
overcome the clear weight of the prior factors toward finding Drug
Court to be an arm of the state.  Accordingly, all claims for
damages against the Moving Defendants in their official capacities
are dismissed with prejudice.

Even if the Moving Defendants were the correct parties against
which to seek such an injunction, the claim would be barred by
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973), which provided
that an injunction forcing the state to apply good time or time
served credits to Plaintiffs' current sentences would result in
earlier release, and the only avenue for such a remedy is a writ
of habeas corpus.

Plaintiffs here may not pursue the claims because they, unlike the
prisoners in Wolff v. McDonnell, Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539,
542, (1974), are not currently subject to the procedures they
allege to be deficient. The only interest Plaintiffs now have in
changing the Drug Court procedures is to be released from prison
sooner based on a retroactive declaratory judgment, a claim
foreclosed by Preiser.  Plaintiffs have failed to establish that
they are suffering, or are about to suffer, a harm redressible by
injunction or declaration directed against the Moving Defendants.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive and declaratory
relief against the Moving Defendants are dismissed with prejudice
for lack of standing.

The Court previously dismissed with prejudice Plaintiffs'
personal-capacity Section 1983 claims for damages against
Defendants McNair and the Drug Court Administrators.  Here,
however, the issue is not whether Plaintiffs' claims would call
into question their original convictions, but rather the
imprisonments imposed upon them during Drug Court. On that point,
Plaintiffs are very clear: Plaintiffs' challenge is to various
extended flat time 'incarcerations' without a hearing, without
evidence, orchestrated by program staff, without convictions,
after inter alia, ex parte communications between administrators
and the judge alleging they committed `technical infractions' of
the treatment program they entered as a part of their probation
agreement.

Plaintiffs plainly seek damages on the grounds that their
incarcerations during Drug Court were invalid. That is exactly the
type of claim barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).  At
the very least they seek damages for violations of due process
that would necessarily invalidate the imprisonments imposed as a
result of those violations. That the incarcerations were allegedly
not the result of a conviction, even if true, does not change the
analysis, as Heck repeatedly uses incarceration interchangeably
with sentence. Plaintiffs cite to no authority suggesting
otherwise.

Defendant McNair moves to dismiss the remaining claims against him
on the grounds that Plaintiffs failed to re-allege a negligence
claim against McNair or re-assert the existence of a therapist-
patient relationship.  The Court dismissed Plaintiff Heron's
negligence claim against Defendant McNair in the First
Supplementing Complaint for the failure to allege any facts
supporting a cause of action against McNair Plaintiff Heron again
makes no specific factual allegations against Defendant McNair
that would support a claim for negligence in the Second Amending
Complaint. Therefore Plaintiff Heron's negligence claims against
Defendants McNair and McNair's Business are dismissed with
prejudice.

Defendants McNair and McNair's Business also move to strike the
class allegations against them.  Plaintiffs make no argument
regarding the first element, and all claims for injunctive or
declaratory relief against Defendants McNair and McNair's business
have been dismissed, negating the second element. The only
remaining claim against Defendants McNair and McNair's Business is
Plaintiff Carlisle's claim for negligence, and Plaintiffs have
failed to demonstrate how common issues of fact or law regarding
that claim predominate. The negligence claim is highly individual,
depending on specific facts to establish a therapist-patient
relationship and the ways in which Defendants allegedly breached
the resulting duty.  Accordingly, the class allegations as to
Defendants McNair and McNair's Business are stricken.

Defendants Marino and Thompson move to dismiss Plaintiffs' legal
malpractice claims against them on the grounds that (a) the Court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claims or should
decline to exercise it, (b) that Plaintiffs fail to state a claim
for malpractice because Plaintiffs were the proximate cause of
their own imprisonment, and (c) that Plaintiffs fail to allege any
facts that would prove Defendants Marino and Thompson breached
their duty to Plaintiffs.

Although Defendant Marino argues that Plaintiffs have failed to
allege that Marino either breached his duty to Plaintiffs or was
the proximate cause of Plaintiffs' injuries, the Court finds that
Plaintiffs have done both. The Court already held that Louisiana
law does not require a criminal defendant to supply proof of
innocence before maintaining a legal malpractice action.
Plaintiffs have alleged that Defendant Marino failed to bring any
objections to the Drug Court judge over allegedly unconstitutional
procedures employed by the Drug Court team and Drug Court itself.

Plaintiffs' Second Amending Complaint provides specific factual
allegations regarding Defendant Marino's supposedly deficient
representation, including the failure to object to the
classification of a former Drug Court participant as a felon and
the failure to object to the imposition of contempt sentences.
These allegations, if true, make it plausible that Defendant
Marino's performance fell below the standard of care required of
him and caused Plaintiffs harm.

As those are the only elements of a legal malpractice claim that
Defendant Marino challenges, his motion to dismiss Plaintiffs'
malpractice claims is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 31, 2017 Order
and Reason is available at https://tinyurl.com/yde825dg from
Leagle.com.

Taylor Carlisle, Plaintiff, represented by Marie Olympia Riccio,
Marie Riccio Wisner, Attorney at Law, 700 Camp Street New,
Orleans, LA 70130-3702

Emile Heron, Plaintiff, represented by Marie Olympia Riccio, Marie
Riccio Wisner, Attorney at Law.

Joe McNair, Defendant, represented by Francis Horatio Brown, III -
- fbrown@mcglinchey.com -- McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC.

Newell Normand, Defendant, represented by Daniel Rault Martiny --
danny@martinylaw.com -- Martiny & Associates & Jeffrey David
Martiny, Martiny & Associates, 131 Airline Dr Ste 201, Metairie,
LA 70001-6265

Patricia Klees, Officer, Defendant, represented by Leonard Louis
Levenson, Leonard L. Levenson & Associates, 427 Gravier Street,
New Orleans, LA 70130, Christian Wayne Helmke, Leonard L. Levenson
& Associates, 424 Gravier St Fl 1, New Orleans, LA, 70130-2419,
Colleen Boyle Gannon, Richard A. Weigand, APLC, 427 GRAVIER STREET
THIRD FLOOR NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130 & Donna R. Barrios, Leonard L.
Levenson & Associates, 424 Gravier St Fl 1, New Orleans, LA,
70130-2419

McNair & McNair, L.L.C., Defendant, represented by Francis Horatio
Brown, III -- fbrown@mcglinchey.com -- McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC.

Jefferson Parish, Defendant, represented by W. Reed Smith,
Jefferson Parish Attorney's Office.

Joseph A Marino, Jr, Defendant, represented by Ralph R. Alexis,
III -- ralexis@phjlaw.com -- Porteous, Hainkel & Johnson, Brendan
Connick, Porteous, Hainkel & Johnson, 704 Carondelet St
New Orleans, LA 70130-377 & Glenn B. Adams -- gadams@phjlaw.com --
Porteous, Hainkel & Johnson.


MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: Tucker Appeals Decision in "Bacchi" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Interested Party Caroline Tucker filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit titled KAREN L. BACCHI v. MASSACHUSETTS
MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:12-cv-11280-DJC, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Boston.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Nov. 20, 2017, Judge
Denise J. Casper granted final approval to the class settlement in
the case.  The settlement provides for a common fund of $37.5
million for class members, MassMutual will continue for at least
ten years to provide safety fund calculations to the Massachusetts
Division of Insurance and MassMutual will pay the costs and
expenses for administrating and distributing the settlement funds
to class members (an expense that Plaintiffs estimate to exceed $3
million).

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

The appellate case is captioned as Bacchi v. Tucker, Case No. 17-
2129, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee KAREN L. BACCHI, individually and on behalf of
all persons similarly situated, is represented by:

          Jason B. Adkins, Esq.
          John Peter Zavez, Esq.
          ADKINS KELSTON & ZAVEZ PC
          90 Canal St., Suite 500
          Boston, MA 02114-0000
          Telephone: (617) 367-1040
          E-mail: jadkins@akzlaw.com
                  jzavez@akzlaw.com

               - and -

          Francis J. Balint, Esq.
          Andrew S. Friedman, Esq.
          BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT PC
          2325 E Camelback Rd., Suite 300
          Phoenix, AZ 85016-0000
          Telephone: (602) 274-1100
          E-mail: fbalint@bffb.com
                  afriedman@bffb.com

               - and -

          Mark A. Chavez, Esq.
          CHAVEZ & GERTLER, LLP
          42 Miller Avenue
          Mill Valley, CA 94941
          Telephone: (415) 381-5599
          E-mail: mark@chavezgertler.com

Interested Party-Appellant CAROLINE TUCKER is represented by:

          Mardi Harrison, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MARDI HARRISON
          125 Edison Furlong Rd.
          Doylestown, PA 18901
          Telephone: (267) 252-1035
          E-mail: mardi@SueTheBoss.com

               - and -

          Elaine Whitfield Sharp, Esq.
          WHITFIELD, SHARP & SHARP
          196 Atlantic Ave.
          Marblehead, MA 01945-0000
          Telephone: (781) 639-1862
          E-mail: elaine@sharplaw.net

Defendant MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY is
represented by:

          James R. Carroll, Esq.
          Kurt Wm. Hemr, Esq.
          Alisha Q. Nanda, Esq.
          SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          500 Boylston St., 23rd Floor
          Boston, MA 02116-0000
          Telephone: (617) 573-4800
          E-mail: james.carroll@skadden.com
                  kurt.hemr@skadden.com
                  alisha.nanda@skadden.com

Movant BABSON CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC is represented by:

          Kurt Wm. Hemr, Esq.
          SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          500 Boylston St., 23rd Floor
          Boston, MA 02116-0000
          Telephone: (617) 573-4800
          E-mail: kurt.hemr@skadden.com

Interested Party CHRISTINA CHAVEZ is represented by:

          Timothy J. Morris, Esq.
          Mary T. Rahmes, Esq.
          GIANELLI & MORRIS, ALC
          550 S Hope St., Suite 1645
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 489-1600
          E-mail: tim.morris@gmlawyers.com


Interested Parties CHRISTINA CHAVEZ and MICHAEL D. MYERS are
represented by:

          Mark F. Murphy, Esq.
          WULSIN MURPHY, LLP
          30 Walpole St.
          Norwood, MA 02062-0000
          Telephone: (781) 762-0088


MDL 2406: Court Stays Insurance Coverage Suit for 6 Months
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District
Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum granting Defendant Independence
Blue Cross's Motion to Dismiss or Stay insofar as the issue of
whether the relief sought by the plaintiffs in the multi-district
litigation styled In re: Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litig.,
Master File No. 2:13-cv-20000-RDP (M.D. Ala.) (MDL No. 2406), is
covered under the Managed Care Organization Errors and Omissions
Liability Insurance Policy is stayed for a period of six months.

The balance of the Motion is denied, and the case will proceed as
to whether coverage is barred by the Related Claim and/or Prior
Litigation Exclusions in the Policy.

Independence moves to dismiss or stay the declaratory judgment
action, asserting Allied World's coverage obligations depend on
the outcome of claims that have yet to be resolved in the MDL
Action.

Plaintiff Allied World Specialty Insurance Company, f/k/a Darwin
National Assurance Company, seeks a declaratory judgment that the
Policy it issued to Independence Blue Cross provides no coverage
for the claims asserted against Independence in multi-district
litigation in which Independence is a defendant in the Northern
District of Alabama.

Allied World asserts there is no coverage for the MDL Action and
the cases under the Policy because (1) the claims asserted against
Independence fall under the Related Claim Exclusion in the Policy;
(2) the claims asserted against Independence fall under the Prior
or Pending or Prior Claims Exclusions in the Policy; and (3)
plaintiffs in the MDL Action seek relief that does not constitute
Loss under the Policy and/or is uninsurable as a matter of law.

The Declaratory Judgment Act (DJA) permits a federal court to
"declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested
party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is
or could be sought."

Independence moves to dismiss Allied World's Complaint, arguing
Allied World's coverage obligations depend on facts that have yet
to be developed in the underlying antitrust cases. In the
alternative, Independence moves to stay this action pending the
resolution of the MDL Action.

The Court finds that Independence has offered no argument as to
how determining whether those exclusions bar coverage would
interfere with the MDL Action, and there is no indication the
coverage issue will be addressed in the MDL Action. Thus, a
general policy of restraint serves no purpose here where Allied
World's obligations under the Policy are not pending in the MDL
Action.  Similarly, there is no risk of duplicative litigation as
to those policy exclusions.  The Court therefore finds the
coverage dispute as to the Related Claim and Prior Litigation
Exclusion is ripe for consideration.

Allied World has conceded the discrete issue of whether the relief
sought by the plaintiffs in the MDL Action constitutes a Loss, is
uninsurable as a matter of law, or is otherwise not covered under
the Policy depends on the development of facts and the
determination of relief in the MDL Action, and may be stayed.
Indeed, because relief has not yet been assessed in the MDL
Action, it would be premature for this Court to decide whether the
relief sought in the underlying action is covered by the Policy.

This issue will therefore will be stayed.

Independence's Motion to Dismiss or Stay will be granted insofar
as the issue of whether the relief sought by the plaintiffs in the
underlying MDL Action is covered under the Policy is stayed for a
period of six months. The balance of the Motion is denied, and
this case shall proceed as to whether coverage is barred by the
Related Claim and/or Prior Litigation Exclusions in the Policy.

The insurance coverage case is captioned ALLIED WORLD SPECIALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY, formally known as DARWIN NATIONAL ASSURANCE
COMPANY v. INDEPENDENCE BLUE CROSS, Civil Action No. 17-1463 (E.D.
Pa.).

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 31, 2017
Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/ya55nmmg from
Leagle.com.

ALLIED WORLD SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, represented
by LOUIS H. KOZLOFF -- lkozloff@goldbergsegalla.com --  Goldberg
Segalla LLP.

ALLIED WORLD SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, represented
by HEIDI HUDSON RASCHKE -- hraschke@carltonfields.com -- CARLTON
FIELDS JORDEN BURT PA & STEVEN J. BRODIE --
sbrodie@carltonfields.com -- CARLTON FIELDS.

INDEPENDENCE BLUE CROSS, Defendant, represented by JOANN M. LYTLE
-- jlytle@mccarter.com --  MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP, ASHLEY LAUREN
TURNER -- aturner@mccarter.com --  MCCARTER & ENGLISH LLP,
JENNIFER BLACK STRUTT -- jstrutt@mccarter.com --  MCCARTER &
ENGLISH, LLP & NICHOLAS MANUEL INSUA -- ninsua@mccarter.com --
MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP.


MEDICAL BUSINESS: Seeks 7th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Rhone" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Medical Business Bureau, LLC, filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Diane Rhone v. Medical
Business Bureau, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-05215, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
brought the lawsuit on behalf of all persons in Illinois from whom
the Defendant attempted to collect a debt.

The appellate case is captioned as Diane Rhone v. Medical Business
Bureau, LLC, Case No. 17-3408, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that the
Appellant's brief is due on or before January 2, 2018, for Medical
Business Bureau, LLC.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee DIANE RHONE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Celetha Chatman, Esq.
          COMMUNITY LAWYERS GROUP, LTD.
          73 W. Monroe Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 757 1880
          Facsimile: (312) 476 1362
          E-mail: cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com

Defendant-Appellant MEDICAL BUSINESS BUREAU, LLC, is represented
by:

          Nicole Marie Strickler, Esq.
          MESSER STRICKLER, LTD.
          225 W. Washington Street
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 334-3442
          E-mail: strickler@messerstilp.com


METHODIST HEALTHCARE: Can't Compel Witness to Reply to Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee, Western Division, issued an Order denying Defendant's
Motion to Compel James E. Blount IV to respond to discovery in the
case captioned K.B., by and through her natural parent, JENNIFER
QASSIS; and LILLIAN KNOX-BENDER, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. METHODIST HEALTHCARE-
MEMPHIS HOSPITALS d/b/a Methodist Hospital and Le Bonheur
Children's Hospital, Defendant, No. 17-cv-2391-JMP-tmp (W.D.
Tenn.).

K.B. and Knox-Bender claim that Methodist overbilled them and
their insurance companies.  They are suing Methodist for breach of
contract, unjust enrichment, and violating the Tennessee Consumer
Protection Act.  K.B. and Knox-Bender argue that any applicable
statutes of limitations should be tolled due to Methodist's
allegedly fraudulent concealment of its practices.  They seek
compensation for the alleged overpayments, punitive damages, and
an injunction.

Methodist filed a motion to compel Blount to respond to discovery
and sit for an oral deposition.  Methodist seeks to depose Blount
on the following subjects: (1) Blount's and his clients'
understanding of Methodist's billing practices; (2) various
communications that Blount has had with Methodist; (3) Blount and
his co-counsel's access to legible copies of GCOA contracts prior
to 2016; and (4) Blount's handling of K.B.'s prior tort claims and
settlement.

According to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may
depose any person. However, because of the need to protect trial
counsel from gratuitous burdens and costs, as well as the need to
preserve the efficient function of the adversarial system, courts
are wary of the discovery tactic of deposing opposing counsel.
According to the test laid out in Shelton v. Am. Motors Corp., 805
F.2d 1323, 1327 (8th Cir. 1986), in order to depose Blount,
Methodist must demonstrate that (1) deposing Blount is the only
way to obtain the information it seeks, (2) this information is
relevant and not privileged, and (3) the information is crucial to
Methodist's preparation of the case.

The court finds that Methodist could learn most of this
information by deposing the plaintiffs and other witnesses.
Indeed, according to Methodist's motion, it has already done just
that.  Methodist noted in its motion that Qassis has admitted that
her knowledge of Methodist's billing practices comes entirely from
her attorneys" and retracted her prior statement that Methodist
had required her to sign a Lien Attachment before it treated
Methodist also observed that the depositions of the former and
current plaintiffs has so far confirmed their lack of knowledge
and material participation in this case.

As the information that Methodist seeks about Blount's, knowledge
of its billing habits is either available from other sources or
irrelevant, the court denies Methodist's motion to compel
deposition on this subject.

Methodist could learn all of this information by submitting
document requests to Blount, consulting hospital records, and
questioning its own employees. For instance, during the motion
hearing on this matter, the parties made the court aware that  at
least with respect to employee identification Methodist already
has all of the information that it needs in its own records of
billing phone calls.

Moreover, part of this information, like whether Methodist has
caused confusion and difficulty in resolving Blount's clients'
personal injury claims, is not crucial to Methodist's preparation
of the case.  Since the information about communications between
Blount and Methodist is either available by other means or not
crucial to the case, the court denies Methodist's motion to compel
deposition on this subject.

The issue on the accessibility of legible copies of GCOA appears
to be unsupported by the record and, thus, irrelevant.  The court
has reviewed the transcript from the hearing when the attorney
purportedly made the statement. In this transcript, the court
could find no indication that the attorney claimed recent
acquisition of a legible copy of the GCOA form. In any event,
Methodist has not adequately explained how the information would
be crucial to its preparation of the case. Because this
information is not relevant or crucial to Methodist's case, the
court denies Methodist's motion to compel deposition on this
subject.

Methodist has already demonstrated that the docket sheet and the
file that Blount provided for K.B.'s settlement contain no
evidence of court approval.  As for the cleanliness of K.B.'s and
Qassis's hands, that is a question that Methodist can resolve by
deposing K.B. and Qassis. While Methodist may take issue with the
reliability of these witnesses, that fact does not expose Blount
to deposition.

Thus, as this information is available to Methodist by means other
than a deposition of Blount, the court denies Defendants' motion
to compel deposition on this topic.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 31, 2017 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ycjf9o2m from Leagle.com.

Donna L. Russell, Miscellaneous, Pro Se.

K.B., by and through her natural parent, Jennifer Qassis,
Plaintiff, represented by A. James Andrews - jfalaw@sbcglobal.net
-- LAW OFFICE OF A. JAMES ANDREWS, Benjamin L. Taylor , TAYLOR
JONES & TAYLOR, 961 Main Street, Southaven, MS 38671 U.S.A, James
Edward Blount, IV , BLOUNT LAW FIRM1950 W Poplar, Collierville,
TN, 38017 & Karl A. Schledwitz , LAW OFFICE OF KARL A. SCHLEDWITZ.
530 Oak Court Dr Ste 400, Memphis, TN, 38117-3735
D.G., by and through his natural parent, Dayna Webster, Plaintiff,
represented by A. James Andrews, LAW OFFICE OF A. JAMES ANDREWS,
Benjamin L. Taylor, TAYLOR JONES & TAYLOR, James Edward Blount,
IV, BLOUNT LAW FIRM & Karl A. Schledwitz, LAW OFFICE OF KARL A.
SCHLEDWITZ.

Lillian Knox-Bender, Plaintiff, represented by A. James Andrews ,
LAW OFFICE OF A. JAMES ANDREWS, Benjamin L. Taylor , TAYLOR JONES
& TAYLOR, James Edward Blount, IV , BLOUNT LAW FIRM & Karl A.
Schledwitz , LAW OFFICE OF KARL A. SCHLEDWITZ.

J.S., by and through his natural parent, Jessica Williams, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
represented by A. James Andrews , LAW OFFICE OF A. JAMES ANDREWS,
Benjamin L. Taylor , TAYLOR JONES & TAYLOR, James Edward Blount,
IV , BLOUNT LAW FIRM & Karl A. Schledwitz , LAW OFFICE OF KARL A.
SCHLEDWITZ.

Methodist Healthcare -- Memphis Hospitals d/b/a Methodist Hospital
and Le Bonheur Children's Hospital, Defendant, represented by
Heather Joe Colturi -- hcolturi@bakerdonelson.com -- BAKER
DONELSON BEARMAN CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, Leigh McDaniel Chiles --
lchiles@bakerdonelson.com -- LEWIS THOMASON KING KRIEG & WALDROP,
PC, Matthew Sinon Mulqueen -- mmulqueen@bakerdonelson.com -- LEWIS
THOMASON KING KRIEG & WALDROP, PC & Buckner Wellford -
bwellford@bakerdonelson -- BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN CALDWELL &
BERKOWITZ.


METROPOLITAN CHILDREN: Sued by Allen for Not Paying OT Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHANNEL ALLEN, and other similarly-situated individuals v.
METROPOLITAN CHILDREN AND YOUTH, INC. - RENAISSANCE HEAD START,
Case No. 2:17-cv-13778-AJT-MKM (E.D. Mich., November 21, 2017),
arises from the Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act by allegedly failing and refusing to pay the
Plaintiff for work performed beyond 40 hours in each given
workweek during the relevant time frame at a rate one and one-half
times her normal hourly rate.

Metropolitan Children is a Michigan domestic nonprofit corporation
with its headquarters in Detroit, Michigan.  The Defendant
operates a head start program and provides custodial, educational,
and developmental services to preschool age children to prepare
them to enter elementary school grades.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
          Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, Suite 1700
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
                  crash@sommerspc.com


N J KNOW: Sued by Lopez for Not Paying Appropriate Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AUGUSTO MORALES LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. N J KNOW KNOW, INC (D/B/A KNOW KNOWN), JUNG
KIM (A.K.A. JOSEPH), JOON DOE, and TOMMY LEE, Case No. 2:17-cv-
11820 (D.N.J., November 20, 2017), alleges that the Plaintiff has
worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without
appropriate overtime compensation for the hours per week that he
has worked.

N J Know Know, Inc., is a corporation organized and existing under
the laws of the state of New Jersey.  The Individual Defendants
serve or served as owners, managers, principals or agents of the
Defendant Corporation.

The Defendants own, operate and control a women's clothing store
located at 5812 Bergenline Ave., in West New York, New Jersey,
under the name "Know Known."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sara J. Isaacson, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
          E-mail: sisaacson@faillacelaw.com


NGK INSULATORS: Fixes Price of Ceramic Substrates, Airflow Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
AIRFLOW CATALYST SYSTEMS, INC., and NETT TECHNOLOGIES INC., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. NGK
INSULATORS LTD.; NGK AUTOMOTIVE CERAMICS USA, INC.; CORNING
INTERNATIONAL KABUSHIKI KAISHA; CORNING INCORPORATED; DENSO
CORPORATION, and DENSO INTERNATIONAL AMERICA, INC., Case No. 2:17-
cv-13785-TGB-SDD (E.D. Mich., November 21, 2017), alleges that the
Defendants engaged in a global conspiracy to fix, maintain and
stabilize prices, rig bids, and allocate the market and customers
for Ceramic Substrates in the United States and elsewhere in
violation of the Sherman Act.

Ceramic Substrates were manufactured and/or sold by the Defendants
and their co-conspirators throughout the United States or
installed in motor vehicles that were manufactured or sold
throughout the United States.  "Ceramic Substrates" refers to
uncoated ceramic monoliths with a fine honeycomb structure that --
after being coated with a mix of metal and chemicals -- are used
in automotive catalytic converters as emission control devices in
exhaust-gas purification systems.

NGK Insulators, Ltd., is a Japanese corporation with its principal
office in Nagoya, Japan.  NGK Automotive Ceramics USA, Inc., is a
Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Novi,
Michigan.  NGK Automotive is a subsidiary of, and is wholly owned
or controlled by NGK Insulators.

Corning Incorporated is a New York corporation with its principal
place of business in Corning, New York.  Corning Int'l K.K. is a
Japanese corporation with its principal place of business in
Tokyo, Japan.  Corning Int'l is a subsidiary of Corning
Incorporated.

DENSO Corporation is a Japanese corporation with its principal
place of business in Kariya, Japan.  DENSO International America,
Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in Southfield, Michigan.  DENSO International is a
subsidiary of and wholly owned and/or controlled by DENSO
Corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David H. Fink, Esq.
          Darryl Bressack, Esq.
          Nathan J. Fink, Esq.
          FINK + ASSOCIATES LAW
          38500 Woodward Ave., Suite 350
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
          Telephone: (248) 971-2500
          E-mail: dfink@finkandassociateslaw.com
                  dbressack@finkandassociateslaw.com
                  nfink@finkandassociateslaw.com

               - and -

          Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
          Thomas B. Bright, Esq.
          Colleen L. Cleary, Esq.
          CERA LLP
          595 Market Street, Suite 2300
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2835
          Telephone: (415) 777-2230
          E-mail: scera@cerallp.com
                  tbright@cerallp.com
                  ccleary@cerallp.com

               - and -

          Joseph C. Kohn, Esq.
          William E. Hoese, Esq.
          Douglas A. Abrahams, Esq.
          KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
          One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 238-1700
          E-mail: jkohn@kohnswift.com
                  whoese@kohnswift.com
                  dabrahams@kohnswift.com

               - and -

          Gregory P. Hansel, Esq.
          Randall B. Weill, Esq.
          Michael S. Smith, Esq.
          PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU & PACHIOS LLP
          One City Center, P.O. Box 9546
          Portland, ME 04101
          Telephone: (207) 791-3000
          E-mail: ghansel@preti.com
                  rweill@preti.com
                  msmith@preti.com

               - and -

          Steven A. Kanner, Esq.
          William H. London, Esq.
          Michael E. Moskovitz, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
          Bannockburn, IL 60015
          Telephone: (224) 632-4510
          E-mail: skanner@fklmlaw.com
                  wlondon@fklmlaw.com
                  mmoskovitz@fklmlaw.com

               - and -

          Eugene A. Spector, Esq.
          William G. Caldes, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
          Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq.
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.
          1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-0300
          E-mail: espector@srkw-law.com
                  bcaldes@srkw-law.com
                  jjagher@srkw-law.com
                  jspector@srkw-law.com

               - and -

          M. John Dominguez, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 204
          Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
          Telephone: (877) 515-7955
          E-mail: jdominguez@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          David A. Young, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Ave., NW, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          E-mail: dyoung@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Matthew W. Ruan, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          88 Pine Street, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 838-7797
          E-mail: mruan@cohenmilstein.com


OCULAR THERAPEUTIX: "Gallagher" Suit Moved From N.J. to Mass.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned THOMAS GALLAGHER, 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-05011, was transferred on November 20,
2017, from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
(Boston).

The Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-
12288-GAO to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is a federal securities class action on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants, who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly
traded securities of Ocular Therapeutix from May 5, 2017, through
July 6, 2017, both dates inclusive.  The Plaintiff seeks to
recover compensable damages caused by the Defendants' alleged
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Ocular Therapeutix focuses on the development and
commercialization of therapies for diseases and conditions of the
eye using its proprietary hydrogel platform technology in the
United States.  The Company is incorporated in Delaware and its
principal executive offices are located in Bedford, Massachusetts.

The Company's lead product is DEXTENZA, which is in Phase III
clinical trial for the treatment of post-surgical pain and
inflammation, allergic conjunctivitis; and in Phase II clinical
trial for the treatment of inflammatory dry eye disease.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          609 W. South Orange Avenue, Suite 2P
          South Orange, NJ 07079
          Telephone: (973) 313-1887
          Facsimile: (973) 833-0399
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

Defendants OCULAR THERAPEUTIX, INC., AMARPREET SAWHNEY, ANDREW
HURLEY, GEORGE MIGAUSKY and ERIC ANKERUD are represented by:

          Ryan M. Chabot, Esq.
          Michael G. Bongiorno, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
          7 World Trade Center
          250 Greenwich Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 295-6302
          Facsimile: (212) 937-7300
          E-mail: ryan.chabot@wilmerhale.com
                  michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com

               - and -

          Peter J. Kolovos, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
          60 State Street
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 526-6493
          Facsimile: (617) 526-5000
          E-mail: peter.kolovos@wilmerhale.com

Movant Khaled Ramadan is represented by:

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
          E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com

Movant Ocular Therapeutix Investor Group is represented by:

          Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
          BEATIE AND OSBORN, LLP
          599 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 888-9000
          Facsimile: (212) 888-9664
          E-mail: ekorsinsky@bandolaw.com

               - and -

          Melissa Ann Fortunato, Esq.
          BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
          885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (203) 788-3165
          E-mail: fortunato@bespc.com

Movant Osi Peters is represented by:

          Jennifer Sarnelli, Esq.
          GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
          560 Sylvan Avenue
          Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
          Telephone: (201) 567-7377
          Facsimile: (201) 567-7337
          E-mail: jsarnelli@GARDYLAW.com

Movant Glenn Stephenson is represented by:

          Sherief Morsy, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          E-mail: smorsy@faruqilaw.com

Movant Ocular Investor Group is represented by:

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


OCULAR THERAPEUTIX: "Kim" Suit Transferred From N.J. to Mass.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case 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 on November 20, 2017, from the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston).

The Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-
12286-GAO to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is a purported class action brought on behalf of all
investors, who purchased or otherwise acquired Ocular securities
between March 10, 2016, and July 11, 2017, inclusive, seeking
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Ocular 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.  Ocular is incorporated in the state of Delaware and
its principal executive offices are located in Bedford,
Massachusetts.[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

               - and -

          Nicholas I. Porritt, Esq.
          Adam M. Apton, Esq.
          1101 30th Street NW, Suite 115
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 524-4290
          Facsimile: (202) 333-2121
          E-mail: nporritt@zlk.com
                  aapton@zlk.com

Defendants OCULAR THERAPEUTIX, INC., AMARPREET SAWHNEY, ANDREW
HURLEY, ERIC ANKERUD and George Migausky are represented by:

          Michael G. Bongiorno, Esq.
          Ryan M. Chabot, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
          7 World Trade Center, 250 Greenwich Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 937-7220
          Facsimile: (212) 937-7300
          E-mail: michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com
                  ryan.chabot@wilmerhale.com

               - and -

          Peter J. Kolovos, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
          60 State Street
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 526-6493
          Facsimile: (617) 526-5000
          E-mail: peter.kolovos@wilmerhale.com

Movant Glenn Stephenson is represented by:

          Sherief Morsy, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          E-mail: smorsy@faruqilaw.com

Movant Ocular Investor Group is represented by:

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

Movant Osi Peters is represented by:

          Jennifer Sarnelli, Esq.
          GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
          560 Sylvan Avenue
          Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
          Telephone: (201) 567-7377
          Facsimile: (201) 567-7337
          E-mail: jsarnelli@GARDYLAW.com


PACIFIC HOME: Accused by "Menichiello" Suit of Violating TCPA
-------------------------------------------------------------
DENISE MENICHIELLO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. PACIFIC HOME REMODELING, INC., and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 8:17-cv-02029
(C.D. Cal., November 20, 2017), alleges that the Defendants
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related
regulations, specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions.

Pacific Home Remodeling, Inc., is in the business of home
improvement.  The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants
are currently unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PARSLEY ENERGY: Johnston Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL JOHNSTON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. PARSLEY ENERGY, INC. d/b/a PEINC, INC., Case
No. 7:17-cv-00234 (W.D. Tex., November 20, 2017), seeks to recover
alleged unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Parsley Energy, Inc., doing business as PEINC, Inc., is
headquartered in Austin, Texas.  Parsley is an oil and gas company
operating throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  rschreiber@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


PENN NATIONAL: Illegally Charges Resort Fees, Chapman Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
DUSTIN CHAPMAN, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. PENN NATIONAL GAMING, INC., a Pennsylvania
corporation; TROPICANA LAS VEGAS HOTEL AND CASINO, INC., a
Delaware corporation; TROPICANA LAS VEGAS, INC. a Nevada domestic
corporation d/b/a Tropicana Las Vegas, Case No. 2:17-cv-02924-GMN-
PAL (D. Nev., November 21, 2017), accuses the Defendants of
charging overnight guests a mandatory, per-night resort fee, which
includes daily access for two guests each day to the fitness
center at the property, daily in-room Internet access for two
devices, and all local phone calls.

Despite the Internet Tax Freedom Act's prohibition on the taxation
of Internet access, the Defendants improperly and illegally
charged their overnight guests the Clark County Combined Transient
Lodging Tax on the entire Resort Fee, including the portion of the
Resort Fee that constitutes charges for Internet access, Mr.
Chapman argues.

Penn National Gaming, Inc., is a Pennsylvania corporation with its
principal place of business in Wyomissing, Pennsylvania.  PENN-
NGI, together with its subsidiaries, Tropicana Las Vegas, Inc. and
Tropicana Las Vegas Hotel and Casino, Inc., operate Tropicana Las
Vegas Hotel and Casino.

Tropicana Las Vegas Hotel And Casino, Inc., is a Delaware
corporation with its principal place of business in Las Vegas,
Nevada.  Tropicana Las Vegas, Inc., is a domestic corporation,
doing business in the state of Nevada as Tropicana Las Vegas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Don Springmeyer, Esq.
          Bradley Schrager, Esq.
          WOLF, RIFKIN, SHAPIRO, SCHULMAN & RABKIN, LLP
          3556 E. Russell Road, 2nd Floor
          Las Vegas, NV 89120-2234
          Telephone: (702) 341-5200
          Facsimile: (702) 341-5300
          E-mail: dspringmeyer@wrslawyers.com
                  bschrager@wrslawyers.com

               - and -

          Frank B. Ulmer, Esq.
          MCCULLEY MCCLUER PLLC
          1022 Carolina Blvd., Suite 300
          Charleston, SC 29451
          Telephone: (855) 467-0451
          Facsimile: (662) 368-1506
          E-mail: fulmer@mcculleymccluer.com

               - and -

          Joshua T. Ripley, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: jripley@bm.net


PIEDUCKS COMPANY: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Penaranda Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
JORGE LUIS PENARANDA, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. PIEDUCKS COMPANY, LLC, and CLAUDIO NUNES,
individually, Case No. 1:17-cv-24212-MGC (S.D. Fla., November 20,
2017), alleges that the Defendants knowingly and willfully failed
to pay the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees at time and
one half of their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants managed, owned and operated a business for profit
in Miami-Dade County, Florida.  Claudio Nunez owns and/or operates
Pieducks.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan S. Minick, Esq.
          JONATHAN S. MINICK, P.A.
          1850 SW 8th Street, Suite 307
          Miami, FL 33135
          Telephone: (786) 441-8909
          Facsimile: (786) 523-0610
          E-mail: jminick@jsmlawpa.com


PLANET PAYMENT: Faces "Palkon" Suit Over Sale to Fintrax
--------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS PALKON, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. PLANET PAYMENT, INC., CARL J. WILLIAMS, SHANE H. KIM,
CAMERON R. M. MCCOLL, JONATHAN KAIDEN, FINTRAX GROUP, FRANKLIN UK
BIDCO LIMITED, and FINTRAX US ACQUISITION SUBSIDIARY, INC., Case
No. 2:17-cv-06771 (E.D.N.Y., November 20, 2017), stems from a
proposed transaction, pursuant to which Planet Payment will be
acquired by Fintrax Group and its affiliates.

On October 26, 2017, Planet Payment's Board of Directors caused
the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with
Franklin UK Bidco Limited ("Parent") and Fintrax US Acquisition
Subsidiary, Inc. ("Merger Sub").  Pursuant to the terms of the
Merger Agreement, Fintrax commenced a tender offer, set to expire
on December 18, 2017, and shareholders of Planet Payment will
receive $4.50 in cash for each share of Planet Payment common
stock.

Planet Payment is a Delaware corporation and maintains its
principal executive offices in Long Beach, New York.  The
Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.
Planet Payment is a provider of international payment and
transaction processing and multi-currency processing services.

Parent is a private limited company incorporated under the laws of
England and Wales and a party to the Merger Agreement.  Merger Sub
is a Delaware corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent,
and a party to the Merger Agreement.  Fintrax Group is
headquartered in Galway, Ireland, and is an affiliate of Parent
and Merger Sub.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy J. MacFall, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 683-3516
          E-mail: tjm@rigrodskylong.com

               - and -

          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
          Wilmington, DE 19803
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310
          Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
          E-mail: bdl@rigrodskylong.com
                  gms@rl-legal.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (484) 324-6800
          E-mail: rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com


POWERCOMM CONSTRUCTION: 4th Cir. Vacates $183K Fee Award
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, issued an
Opinion vacating the District Court's awarding of $183,764 in
attorney's fees to Plaintiffs in an action under the Maryland Wage
and Hour Law (MWHL) and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
against Powercomm Construction, Inc., and its owner, David
Kwasnik, Sr.

Plaintiff Gregory Randolph initiated the lawsuit by filing a
proposed class action under the MWHL and proposed collective
action under the FLSA.  Randolph alleged that Defendants, his
former employers, failed to pay their employees the required wage
for overtime work.  Randolph sought unpaid wages with interest,
economic damages allowed by the MWHL and FLSA, attorney's fees,
and a declaration that Defendants had violated the MWHL and FLSA.

Defendants contend that the district court erred in failing to
discount the fee award based on the dismissal of 10 Plaintiffs
(out of 65) at the summary judgment stage. In addition, Defendants
argue that a significant reduction in the award was required
because the settlement amount was much less than the amount of
damages initially sought by Plaintiffs.

The district court declined to reduce the fee award based on the
results obtained because Plaintiffs purportedly received 38% of
their claimed damages that they incurred during the statute of
limitations period, and the court did not want to discourage
plaintiffs' attorneys from reaching reasonable settlements by
reducing the fee award. Although the latter justification may be
persuasive, the Fourth Circuit finds that the District Court
clearly erred in its characterization of the percentage of claimed
damages received by Plaintiffs.

The district court seems to have arrived at the 38% figure by
either relying on the settlement discount percentage or by
dividing the settlement amount ($100,000) by the amount of unpaid
wages claimed in Plaintiffs' second amended Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(a)(1) disclosure ($263,305).

However, the district court overlooked the fact that Plaintiffs
pursued liquidated damages under both the MWHL and the FLSA,
resulting in a total alleged damages amount of $789,916. When the
settlement amount is divided by this figure, one discovers that
Plaintiffs received about 13% of the damages that they sought.
While the district court was not required to proportionally reduce
the award to account for this disparity, the court certainly erred
in relying on the 38% figure to support its reasoning.

Therefore, on remand, the district court should also reconsider
its finding at step three that the relief obtained represents 38%
of the relief claimed by Plaintiffs for claims that accrued within
the statute of limitations.

Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit vacates the district court's fee
award and remand for further proceedings.

The appeals case is GREGORY RANDOLPH, on his own behalf and on
behalf of all others similarly situated; DANA BROWN; TWANDA
BANISTER; GREGORY EUBANKS; ARTHUR HINNANT; EZRA CHARLES CALLOWAY;
RHASAAN DARK; RODNEY WILLIAMS; KENNETH JACKSON; GEORGE MILES;
JAMAL DREW; KENNETH SEARLES; DEXTER ANDERSON; BERNARD BROWN;
NATESHIA DECHE BEASLEY; EUNICE MELTON; ROBIN MELTON; EARNEST LEE
ALLEN, JR.; SHANINA WASHINGTON; MELVIN L. WEBB-BEY; SYLVIOUS
WILLIAMS; FASIL ALEMAYEHU; AMISHA BENNETT; EDWARD ROBINSON;
DANIELLE SMITH; RONALD WALL; ROY BENNETT; MELQUIN GAINO; LESLIE
GROSS; ANTONIO WALL; LAMONT NEWTON; ANTHONY WILLS; LAMARR YOUNG;
MICHELLE BENNETT; RODNEY BROOKS; LARRY JEFFERSON; LENARD PRINGLE;
JUSTIN FOSTER; EDDIE PERKINS; SEAN E. PITTMAN; JIMMIE MISSOURI;
KEVIN SORRELL; TERENCE BROWN; TERRANCE DOVE; ERIC SHEFFEY; TERRELL
TWITTY; JEFF JORDAN; SAMUEL HEGWOOD; JOHNNY BOYKIN; BERNARD
BENNETT; LAVELLE GANT; DONALD RAY JONES; CORNELIUS REDFEARN;
DARNELL MADDOX; RONALD YOUNG; CALVIN GORHAM, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
and VAN EUBANKS; DAVID PETERSON; JACQUELINE RIDLEY; RALEIGH WALL;
MICHAEL ALLEN; ANDRE ADAMS; REGINA FREEMAN; ALONZO E. MUDD; ROBERT
L. WALL, JR.; WILLIAM HOLLAND, Plaintiffs, v. POWERCOMM
CONSTRUCTION, INC.; DAVID KWASNIK, SR., Defendants-Appellants, No.
16-2370 (4th Cir.).

A full-text copy of the Fourth Circuit's October 31, 2017 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycdxsm7l from Leagle.com.

Geoffrey M. Bohn -- gbohn@bohn-battey.com  -- Robert A. Battey --
rbattey@bohn-battey.com -- BOHN & BATTEY, PLC, Arlington,
Virginia, for Appellants.

Nicholas Woodfield -- nwoodfield@employmentlawgroup.com -- R.
Scott Oswald -- soswald@employmentlawgroup.com -- EMPLOYMENT LAW
GROUP, PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.


QUALITY NDT: "Warren" Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
DUSTIN WARREN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. QUALITY NDT, INC., Case No. 6:17-cv-01527 (W.D. La.,
November 20, 2017), seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime wages
and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Quality is a Louisiana corporation.  Quality offers oilfield
support services, including inspection, to the oil and natural gas
industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Telecopier: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
                  mparmet@brucknerburch.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          Telecopier: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com

               - and -

          Kenneth W. DeJean, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH W. DEJEAN
          417 W. University Ave.
          P.O. Box 4325
          Lafayette, LA 70502
          Telephone: (337) 235-5294
          Telecopier: (337) 235-1095
          E-mail: kwdejean@kwdejean.com


RUBY TUESDAY: "Williams" Action Seeks to Halt Sale to NRD Capital
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Williams, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc., Stephen I. Sadove,
James F. Hyatt, II, F. Lane Cardwell, Jr., Mark W. Addicks, Kevin
T. Clayton, Donald E. Hess, Bernard Lanigan Jr., Jeffrey J.
O'Neill, RTI Holding Company, LLC, and RTI Merger Sub, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-00499 (E.D. Tenn., November 16, 2017),
seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with
them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the
acquisition of Ruby Tuesday by NRD Capital, rescinding it and
setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages in the event
defendants consummate the merger, costs of this action, including
reasonable allowance for attorneys' and experts' fees and such
other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

NRD Capital will acquire all of the outstanding shares of common
stock of Ruby Tuesday for $2.40 per share. The deal is valued at
approximately $335 million and is expected to close in the first
quarter of 2018.

Defendants filed a proxy statement that failed to include
financial projections and valuation analyses performed by its
financial advisor, UBS Securities LLC, critical to making their
decision on the said merger, the complaint asserts.

Ruby Tuesday is a casual dining restaurant chain with restaurants
in 41 states, 14 foreign countries and Guam. Plaintiff is a
stockholder of Ruby Tuesday. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Philip N. Elbert, Esq.
     Jeffrey A. Zager, Esq.
     NEAL & HARWELL, PLC
     1201 Demonbreun Street, Suite 1000
     Nashville, TN 37203
     Tel: (615) 244-1713
     Fax: (615) 726-0573

              - and -

     RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
     2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
     Wilmington, DE 19803
     Telephone: (302) 295-5310
     Facsimile: (302) 654-7530


SCOTIABANK PUERTO RICO: Certification of Homeowners Class Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled YIRIES JOSEPH ASEF SAAD
MAURA, et al. v. SCOTIABANK PUERTO RICO, MIDFIRST BANK, PR ASSET
PORFOLIO 2013-1 INTERNATIONAL LLC, MWPR CR LLC, COOP DE AHORRO Y
CREDITO DE CIALES, ROOSEVELT REO PR IV CORP., RUSHMORE LOAN
MANAGEMENT, WM CAPITAL PARTNERS 53 LLC, BANCO COOPERATIVO DE
PUERTO RICO, AUTORIDAD PARA EL FINANCIAMIENTO DE LA VIVIENDA DE
PUERTO RICO, ROOSEVELT REO PR CORP., CITIMORTGAGE INC., ROOSEVELT
REO, TAX-FREE PR TARGET MATURITY FUND, INC; PR MORTGAGE-BACKED,
ROOSEVELT CAYMAN ASSET COMPANY, BANK OF AMERICA N.A., UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE RURAL DEVELOPMENT a/c/c LA
ADMINISTRACION DE HOGARES DE AGRICULTORES, BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING
LLC, FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION T/C/C FANNIE MAE, JAMES
B. NUTTER & CO., LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING LLC, ROOSEVELT CAYMAN
ASSET COMPANY II, LEHMAN RE LIMITED, A BERMUDA CORPORATION,
SANTANDER FINANCIAL SERVICES, DLJ MORTGAGE CAPITAL, U.S. BANK
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, LIME PROPERTIES RESDENCIAL LTD, RNPM LLC,
FIRST BANK, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (FARM SERVICE AGENCY), UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA (FARM SERVICE AGENCY), UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE
CORPORATION (FREDDIE MAC), FEDERAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION (FANNIE
MAE), WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES,
ROOSEVELT CAYMAN ASSET COMPANY II, JAMES B. NUTTER & COMPANY,
LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING LLC, LIME RESIDENTIAL LTD, BAYVIEW LOAN
SERVICING LLC, RNPM LLC, TRM LLC, LIHMAN RE LIMITED A BERMUDA
CORPORATION, COOPERATIVA DE AHORRO Y CREDITO LAS PIEDRAS, BANCO
POPULAR OF PUERTO RICO, BANCO SANTANDER DE PUERTO RICO, ISLAND
FINANCE CORPORATION, ORIENTAL BANK PUERTO RICO, OPERATING PARTNERS
LLC, XYZ INSURANCE COMPANY, UNKOWN DEFENDANTS, Case No. 3:17-cv-
02263-FAB (D.P.R.), file with the Court their amended motion
reiterating class certification and memorandum in support of their
motion.

The Class is defined as:

     All persons in the United States of America or with real
     state property in the United States of America who have
     continued to be kicked out of their homes based on false
     documents and who have been told to stop making their
     mortgage payments and thus, having their financial situation
     affected by Defendants' actions.  They have allegations of
     misconduct in illegal, unlawful, wrongful and negligent
     origination and qualification, loan process and closing,
     predatory lending, robo-signing, faulty paperwork, dual
     tracking, illegal mortgage servicing, illegal foreclosure,
     among other misconduct.  Also, all persons in the United
     States of America or with real state property in the United
     States of America whose loans have been serviced by
     Defendants and all related actions, who have complied with
     their obligation under a trial loan modification program and
     have not received a permanent modification pursuant to the
     loan modification agreement, who have been subjected to Loss
     Mitigation process at the same time that a foreclosure claim
     is been filed against them and/or have been subject to an
     illegal foreclosure and harmed thereby.

The Plaintiffs are YIRIES JOSEPH ASEF SAAD MAURA, WILLIAM LOPEZ
COLON, his spouse NANCY COLON BERRIOS and the CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP
CONSTITUTED BETWEEN THEM, GILBERTO GONZALEZ VELEZ, JESUS EMMANUEL
MONROIG JIMENEZ his spouse JAZMIN ERIKA RODRIGUEZ MORALES and the
CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED BETWEEN THEM, MARETZA MENDEZ
MUNIZ, ROLANDO RADHAMES GUTIERREZ DE JESUS his spouse ZULEIKA
COSME RIVERA and the CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED BETWEEN
THEM, SONIA YVID CONDE BURGOS, NELLY RAMONITA GONZALEZ RODRIGUEZ,
JAVIER BAERGA SCHROEDER, CARLOS JOSE SUAREZ GUILLEN, ANTONIO ROSA
AGOSTO, MARILYN DELGADO PEREZ, GERARDO ACOSTA FIGUEROA his spouse
NEIDA INES HERNANDEZ IRIZARRY and the CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP
CONSTITUTED BETWEEN THEM, JULIO VICTOR CASTRO LOPEZ his spouse
MADELINE TRINIDAD DIAZ and the CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED
BETWEEN THEM, LUIS ANGEL MARTINEZ OTERO his spouse DAMARIS TORRES
NUNEZ and the CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED BETWEEN THEM,
GABRIEL CHAVEZ DIAZ his spouse NAHIR ZARAGOZA VALLE and the
CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED BETWEEN THEM, SONIA LINNETTE
ROMERO RAMOS, ROBERTO PEREZ RAMIREZ his spouse CLARIVETTE CASTRO
NARVAEZ and the CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED BETWEEN THEM,
LIZZETTE MARIA ALEJANDRO OCASIO, MILKA YADIRA RIVERA RIVERA,
MIRIAM THERESA RIVERA TORRES, TOMAS A VELEZ MARTINEZ his spouse
GLORISA CORDERO CABRERA and the CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED
BETWEEN THEM, HAYDEE RODRIGUEZ NICHOLS, RAFAEL ANTONIO FONSECA
MARRERO, LADY TRISTANY MELENDEZ, VIVIANA SANCHEZ SERRANO, SANTA
ORTIZ SALINAS, JAVIER ANTONIO RIVERA DUENO his spouse YAMELIT
MALDONADO SOTO and the CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED BETWEEN
THEM, CARMEN JOSEFINA VALENTIN DAVILA, VIVIAN ENID FLORES MERCED,
MARIA ISABEL TORO LEVY, ESTATE OF JUAN ARSENIO VELAZQUEZ DURAN,
LESLIE MOLINA CANCEL, SANDRA DE LOS ANGELES FERNANDEZ GARCIA, INES
YAMIRA RIVERA AQUINO, JOSE ANTONIO DIAZ PEREZ, PROVIDENCIA
RODRIGUEZ VEGA, LUIS EDUARDO PARDO TORO, EVELYN IVETTE PEREZ
LOURIDO, JOSE MANUEL RIVERA COLON his spouse IVETTE MARIA PEREZ
NIEVES and the CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED BETWEEN THEM,
EDWIN CASILLAS BERRIOS his spouse MARIA FELICITA ANDRADE MALDONADO
and the CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED BETWEEN THEM, RAMON
SANCHEZ PAGAN, JOSE MANUEL LOPEZ CRUZ his spouse MARIA DE LOURDES
BLECK ESTEVES and the CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED BETWEEN
THEM, RAFAEL EDUARDO NARVAEZ CABEZAS, VIRGEN NOEMI MARRERO
CARBALLO, ENRIQUE TOLLENS ACOSTA his spouse DIANNETTE GONZALEZ
CHARLES and the CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED BETWEEN THEM,
FRANCISCA CHARLES BELEN, ANASTACIO FALCON ROSARIO, ESTATE OF
MARISOL AMARO MEDINA, RAFAEL RODRIGUEZ RIVERA, CATHERINE MORALES
CASTRO, MICHAEL JOSEPH MORRIS ZAMORA, FERNANDO SUAREZ GUILLEN,
JORGE CEDENO, LUIS EDGARDO SANTIAGO COLON, ADALBERTO REYES GARCED
his spouse GLADYS MARIE RIVERA RODRIGUEZ and the CONJUGAL
PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED BETWEEN THEM, ANGEL LUIS BERRIOS ORTIZ his
spouse GISELA RIVERA SANTIAGO and the CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP
CONSTITUTED BETWEEN THEM, MARIA MARGARITA ONDINA GORDO, WALDEMIR
COLON LEBRON, MANUEL ANGEL VEGA BONILLA his spouse PAMELA IVETTE
PEREZ RIVERA and the CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED BETWEEN
THEM, REINALDO OQUENDO VEGA his spouse MARIBEL HERNANDEZ PEREZ and
the CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED BETWEEN THEM, IVAN RAFAEL
SOTOMAYOR SERRA his spouse MARIA VELILLA SOTOMAYOR and the
CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED BETWEEN THEM, WANDA LEILANY
ALEJANDRO RUIZ, ANGELA LUCIA ROSARIO DE LEON, IRIS YOLANDA CARDONA
TIRADO, JOSE ALBERTO HERNANDEZ TORRES, RUBEN MIRANDA MERCADO his
spouse SONIA ACEVEDO and the CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED
BETWEEN THEM, ROBERTO SALICRUP HERNANDEZ his spouse GLORIA MARIA
RUIZ COLON and the CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED BETWEEN THEM,
JOSE ALFREDO JIMENEZ FIGUEROA, JULIO RONDON REYES his spouse
GRISETH MOJICA GONZALEZ and the CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED
BETWEEN THEM, JAIME RAFAEL VIDAL RODRIGUEZ his spouse DINORAH
SANCHEZ FIGUEROA and the CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED BETWEEN
THEM, HARRY RODRIGUEZ CRUZ, JUAN FERNANDO CRUZ TORRES his spouse
EVELYN MORALES SUAREZ and the CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED
BETWEEN THEM, MANUEL IVAN CRIADO CRIADO his spouse ZAYRA DEL
ROSARIO TORRES MATOS and the CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED
BETWEEN THEM, JUAN MANUEL RODRIGUEZ IRIZARRY his spouse MARIA
MILAGROS DURAN MORALES and the CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED
BETWEEN THEM, CLARA MORETA RODRIGUEZ, IAN DEL LLANO JIMENEZ his
spouse KAREN BARREDA RIVERA and the CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP
CONSTITUTED THEREIN, RUTH NOEMI RIVERA COLON, JOSE ANTONIO
CONCEPCION SOTO his spouse NELIDA RAMOS LOPEZ and the CONJUGAL
PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED THEREIN, LILLIAM BETHZAIDA HERNANDEZ
AMARO, JOSE ANTONIO VALDIVIA, AMETZA DELGADO CARDONA, WILLIAM
PAGAN RODRIGUEZ his spouse EULOGIA R DEL RIO TORRES and the
CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED THEREIN, MARCELO MERCADO ORTIZ,
MORAIMA RIVERA GONZALEZ, CARMEN GLORIA GARCIA RIVERA, PEDRO
SEVILLA ESTELA, his spouse MARITZA RIVERA RODRIGUEZ and the
CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED THEREIN, GLORIA MARGARITA ALICEA
RIVERA, REYNALDO RODRIGUEZ COLON, DENISSE DEMOYA BURGOS, LUIS
FRANCISCO ORTIZ OSUNA his spouse GRORIBEL SOTO DE JESUS and the
CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED THEREIN, PABLO GUADALUPE MENDOZA
his spouse ANTUANETTE RAMOS AYALA and the CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP
CONSTITUTED THEREIN, LUZ ESTELA POUERIET DIAZ, EMERITO RUIZ
RODRIGUEZ his spouse OLGA IVETTE SANABRIA VELAZQUEZ and the
CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED THEREIN, PATRICIO RODRIGUEZ LOPEZ
his spouse EUNICE MARIBEL LUGO MEJIAS and the CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP
CONSTITUTED THEREIN, JOHNNY EDGAR MELENDEZ GONZALEZ his spouse
MARIA BELEN DIAZ RIVERA and the CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED
THEREIN, JUAN DIAZ PEREZ his spouse CARMEN NELIDA BRAVO SOTO and
the CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED THEREIN, ROLANDO AVILA PEREZ
his spouse ELIZABETH CHAMPANA GAGNERON, and the CONJUGAL
PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED THEREIN, HIRAN ORTIZ ORTIZ, MIGUEL ANGEL
MARQUEZ CAMACHO his spouse MARIBEL SANTANA SANTANA, and the
CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED THEREIN, YASSER CRUZ PADILLA his
spouse ALBA YANIRA TORRES CINTRON, and the CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP
CONSTITUTED THEREIN, DONOVAN MALDONADO CRUZ, MARIA AWILDA CRUZ
ACEVEDO, YOLANDA ARROYO FONTANEZ, MANUEL ANTONIO TOLEDO GARCIA his
spouse BRUNILDA ROJAS GONZALEZ, and the CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP
CONSTITUTED THEREIN, FERNANDO LUIS ROSARIO CARDONA his spouse
RODYLOIDA RUIZ DELGADO and the CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED
THEREIN, NERISLIANG CRESPO RIVERA, ISMAEL PAGAN CEDENO his spouse
WANDA GONZALEZ RIVERA and the CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED
THEREIN, JOSE M. CURET SALIM his spouse JUANITA ALVARADO SAEZ and
the CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED THEREIN, RICARDO JOSE VAZQUEZ
SERRA, YVETTE LORRAINE BONHOMME SANTOS, RICARDO RENE SOTO BONILLA,
JORGE JOSE ROSA MIRANDA, MARIA ISABEL OTERO CARABALLO, ANNIEL
CARRASQUILLO AMARO, GLENDA MARIE VIERA RIVERA, ESTATE OF ANGEL
MANUEL LLORENS ORLANDI, JUDITH MATOS NEGRON, ESTATE OF SOL
MARGARITA CABRERA MUNOZ, ESTATE OF VIRGILIO OSCAR RIVERA
RODRIGUEZ, DESERIE CINTRON CABRERA, NELSON NUNEZ ROLON his spouse
MAYRA ELENA ORTIZ RENTAS and the CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED
THEREIN, NELSON ALVARADO HERNANDEZ, EDWIN GIRALD TORRES his spouse
MYRNA PEREZ MORALES and the CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED
THEREIN, GINNETTE PEREZ CAMPO, GILBERTO CRUZ PEREZ, ANGEL LUIS
MATOS RAMOS, ILDEFONSO MARTINEZ SANTIAGO, EVELYN RAMOS CORTES,
LUIS EUGENIO DIOU AGRAIT, his spouse MARIA DE LOS ANGELES COLON
MOREL and the CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED THEREIN, GILBERT
ARROYO LOPERENA his spouse LEIDA MENDEZ PAGAN and the CONJUGAL
PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED THEREIN, ESTATE OF EDWIN PEREZ AYALA,
MARGARITA RIVERA RIVERA, EDA PEREZ CABRERA, EDWIN GLASS MARTINEZ
his spouse CARMEN RIVERA VILLEDA and the CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP
CONSTITUTED THEREIN, JOHN MACEIRA LOPEZ, MARCOS E RODRIGUEZ GOMEZ
his spouse NANCY MELENDEZ VALENTIN and the CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP
CONSTITUTED THEREIN, EDWIN MARTINEZ RIVERA, JOAQUIN JOSE JARQUE
RODRIGUEZ, ANGEL LOUIS CARMONA BENET his spouse MARIA DE LOS
ANGELES HERNANDEZ DIAZ and the CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED
THEREIN, FELIX JOSE RIVERA PEREZ, CARMEN GLORIA GOMEZ NUNEZ,
JOHANN ENID MARTINEZ ORTIZ, EDWIN MARRERO TORRES, ARISTIDES LOPEZ
RAMOS his spouse MARIA MERCEDES REYES CONCEPCION and the CONJUGAL
PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED THEREIN, ANA LUISA BERRIOS DOBLE, SARA
VICTORIA COLON VEGA, IVAN DAVID COLON VEGA, ESTATE OF JULIO
ENRIQUE COLON, ANGEL LUIS DAVILA REYES, NESTOR CRUZ DIAZ his
spouse ADELIZ FERRER DECAMPS and the CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP
CONSTITUTED THEREIN, FRIDA MARCHOSKY KOGAN, JUAN ERNESTO DEL
ROSARIO MASINI his spouse IVEA MARIA SELLES HERNANDEZ and the
CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED THEREIN, JOSE GERALDO ROMAN
GONZALEZ his spouse EVELYN SERRANO AGUEDA and the CONJUGAL
PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED THEREIN, HECTOR LUIS RIVERA RODRIGUEZ his
spouse OLGA ENETTE RIVERA CRESPI and the CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP
CONSTITUTED THEREIN, EUGENIO JOEL RAMOS CALDERON his spouse ERIKA
ENCARNACION SANCHEZ and the CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED
THEREIN, RAMON LUIS SOTO MORALES his spouse ELSIE SUSAN SANCHEZ
GONZALEZ and the CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED THEREIN, EDWIN
FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ his spouse LOURDES HERNANDEZ LLANES and the
CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED THEREIN, FRANCISCA CRUZ DELGADO,
ANGEL LUIS RODRIGUEZ CAMACHO his spouse SANDRA IVETTE ROMAN DIAZ
and the CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED THEREIN, CARLOS ALBERTO
ALVAREZ RIVERA his spouse WILMA GANDARA GORRITZ and the CONJUGAL
PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED THEREIN, PEDRO RAFAEL HERNANDEZ SANCHEZ
his spouse ZORAIDA SANTOS PAGAN and the CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP
CONSTITUTED THEREIN, ESTHER ROSA LOPEZ MEDINA, AGUSTIN ALEJANDRO
CRUZ his spouse EILEEN DALMARY JIMENEZ GAVILLAN and the CONJUGAL
PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED THEREIN, JOSE ANTONIO LAPORTE ESPADA,
ROBERTO OCANA SERRANO, ALEJANDRO ESTRADA MAISONET his spouse
DIANNE QUILES LUGO and the CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED
THEREIN, YOLANDA QUILES SERRANO, CECILIO ALLENDE QUINONES his
spouse WANDA I VILLAFANE MATOS and the CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP
CONSTITUTED THEREIN, JESUS MANUEL MALDONADO PEREZ his spouse OLGA
I. GONZALEZ DIAZ and the CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED THEREIN,
DEOGRACIA TAPIA FEBRES his spouse CARMEN BENITEZ GARAY and the
CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED THEREIN, JOSE ANTONIO GONZALEZ
ARCE his spouse EVELYN CRUZ FLORES and the CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP
CONSTITUTED THEREIN, HILDA DEL ROSARIO FIGUEROA SANTIAGO, RUZAIDI
VILLAFANE ESQUILIN, EFRAIN LLANES COLON his spouse XIOMARA ZABALA
GARCIA and the CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED THEREIN, ERVIN
RODRIGUEZ LABOY his spouse GLORIA BERMUDEZ VARGAS and the CONJUGAL
PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED THEREIN, LUIS ENRIQUE RAMOS PITRE his
spouse GRISELDA CRESPO ARVELO and the CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP
CONSTITUTED THEREIN, MIGUEL ANGEL RIOS SANTIAGO, JAIME MACHADO
ROMAN, CARLOS LUIS AMADOR FERNANDEZ, MIRIAM CARRION SOTO, ESTATE
OF WALBERTO NUSSA GONZALEZ, MARIBEL TORRES ENCARNACION, JOSE RAMON
CINTRON MERCADO, BRUNILDA SANTIAGO RIVERA, ESTATE OF CONCEPCION
GONZALEZ RIVERA, GLENDALYS GONZALEZ SANTIAGO, LESTER I. GONZALEZ
SANTIAGO, JOSE ARNALDO GONZALEZ SANTIAGO, ALEXY SOTO ROSARIO his
spouse IVELISSE VEGUILLA COLON and the CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP
CONSTITUTED THEREIN, PEDRO JAVIER RODRIGUEZ QUILES his spouse
WALESKA DEL CARMEN MALDONADO RODRIGUEZ and the CONJUGAL
PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED THEREIN, DAVID ALVAREZ LOPEZ his spouse
GLENNY DIAZ DOMINGUEZ and the CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED
THEREIN, ERIC SANTIAGO HALAIS BORGES, MURIEL RIVERA MUNOZ, IVONNE
BERNARD RIVERA, GRACIANO VELEZ ALBALADEJO his spouse ANA YAMILE
SERRANO CASTRO, and the CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED THEREIN,
WILLIAM RODRIGUEZ OJEDA his spouse MARIA FELICIANO MENDEZ, and the
CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED THEREIN, JOSE A. VARGAS ARRATIBEL
his spouse GLORIA A. RODRIGUEZ TRUJILLO, and the CONJUGAL
PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED THEREIN, MARIA CELIA LEBRON QUINTANA,
ANTONIO MUNOZ SUAREZ, HIRAM PENA ROLDAN his spouse OLGA PAGAN
MALDONADO, and the CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED THEREIN,
MIGUEL ANTONIO CHEVERE DONES, his spouse LUZ NEREIDA STUART DIAZ
and the CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED THEREIN, MIRIAM JANETTE
MERCADO ACOSTA, MIGUEL ANGEL MEDINA LOPEZ, his spouse IVA YADIRA
DE JESUS GARCIA, and the CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED THEREIN,
LUIS MANUEL FERNANDEZ VELAZQUEZ, ANA L TOLEDO DAVILA, JULIO
ENRIQUE RIVERA NEGRON, his spouse ELIZABETH MONTALVO MELENDEZ and
the CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED THEREIN, SAMUEL LUCIANO
PEREZ, his spouse MARIA LUISA CRUZ RIVERA and the CONJUGAL
PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED THEREIN, NATHAN CABAN GARCIA, his spouse
MARIA MAGDALENA REYES PAGAN and the CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP
CONSTITUTED THEREIN, MARILYN FONSECA COTTO, JOSE NOEL RODRIGUEZ
ALVAREZ, ABC PLAINTIFFS, UNKNOWN PLAINTIFFS, ON BEHALF OF
THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS IN SIMILAR SITUATION.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kmz3hzlm

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Vanessa Saxton-Arroyo, Esq.
          COLEGIO DE ABOGADOS DE PUERTO RICO
          PO Box 191590
          San Juan, PR 00919-1590
          Telephone: (787) 667-8094
          E-mail: vanessa.saxton@capr.org

               - and -

          John A. Stewart-Sotomayor, Esq.
          PO BOX 140357
          Arecibo PR 00614-0357
          Telephone: (787) 955-0516
          E-mail: stewart_j_esq@msn.com


SECURITY SERVICE: "Ortiz" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Ortiz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-
situated, Plaintiff, v. Security Service Specialists, Inc. and
Albano F. Ponte, Defendants, Case 17-3384 (Mass., November 16,
2017), seeks unpaid overtime wages, interest, reasonable
attorney's fees and costs of litigation under Massachusetts
Overtime Law.

Security Service Specialists is a company providing security
services, where Ortiz worked as a special officer, patrolling,
community policing, and making arrests. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Raven Moeslinger, Esq.
     Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq.
     Law Office of Nicholas F. Ortiz, P.C.
     99 High Street, Suite 304
     Boston, MA 02110
     Office: (617) 338-9400
     Email: rm@mass-legal.com


SIRIUS XM: Class Certification Sought in "Andrews" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled JAMES E. ANDREWS on behalf
himself and all persons similarly situated v. SIRIUS XM RADIO,
INC., and Does 1 through 100 inclusive, Case No. 5:17-cv-01724-PA-
AFM (C.D. Cal.), moves for an order certifying this class pursuant
to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

     All United States residents who, within the past four years,
     were sent a marketing letter from Defendant or who received
     marketing phone call from Defendant using "personal
     information" obtained by Defendant from car dealerships that
     had recently sold the car in question to the customer.

Mr. Andrews also alerts the Court that he has concurrently filed
motions to file under seal two documents (declarations) in
connection with this Motion.  He has also concurrently filed an Ex
Parte Application to continue the hearing date on the Motion.

The class action complaint alleges that the Defendant acquires the
name and address of persons, who purchase cars equipped with
SiriusXM radios from motor vehicle records and then sends
marketing letters to them.  The Plaintiff alleges violation of the
Driver Privacy Protection Act.

The Court will commence a hearing on January 8, 2018, 1:30 p.m.,
to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=uM6SfDVd

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Wilens, Esq.
          LAKESHORE LAW CENTER
          18340 Yorba Linda Blvd., Suite 107-610
          Yorba Linda, CA 92886
          Telephone: (714) 854-7205
          Facsimile: (714) 854-7206
          E-mail: jeff@lakeshorelaw.org

               - and -

          Jeffrey P. Spencer, Esq.
          THE SPENCER LAW FIRM
          903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 220
          San Clemente, CA 92673
          Telephone: (949) 240-8595
          Facsimile: (949) 240-8515
          E-mail: jps@spencerlaw.net

Defendant SIRIUS XM RADIO, INC., is represented by:

          Thomas Demitrack, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          North Point
          901 Lakeside Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44114-1190
          Telephone: (216) 586-7141
          Facsimile: (216) 579-0212
          E-mail: tdemitrack@jonesday.com


STAFFMARK HOLDINGS: Wins Prelim. OK of $5.6MM Deal in Fronda Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
United States Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James grants
preliminary approval to the $5.6 million settlement in the lawsuit
titled EARL FRONDA v. STAFFMARK HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Case No.
3:15-cv-02315-MEJ (N.D. Cal.).

The proposed Settlement Class is conditionally certified for
settlement purposes.  The Settlement Class is defined as any and
all individuals employed by the CBS Defendants at CEVA Freight,
LLC, CEVA Logistics U.S., Inc. and/or any other location of CEVA,
CEVA's parents or any CEVA-related entity operating in California
during the Class Period.  The Class Period is defined as April 17,
2011, through the date of this Order.

On April 17, 2015, the Plaintiff initiated this litigation in
Alameda County Superior Court, naming as Defendants Staffmark,
CEVA, and Amazon.com LLC.  CEVA removed the action to this Court
on May 22, 2015.  The Plaintiff asserts eight claims based on
California state law: (1) Failure to Provide Meal Periods, (2)
Failure to Provide Rest Periods, (3) Failure to Pay Hourly Wages,
(4) Failure to Provide Accurate Written Wage Statements, (5)
Failure to Timely Pay All Final Wages, (6) Failure to Pay Wages
without Discount, (7) Unfair Competition, and (8) Civil Penalties
under the Private Attorneys General Act.

The Settlement does not resolve claims against CEVA Logistics,
U.S., Inc., though it does resolve claims by the Settlement Class
against any joint employers of the CBS Defendants, including CEVA
Freight, LLC and CEVA Logistics U.S., Inc., to the extent that any
of the claims settled as to the CBS Defendants would apply to any
CEVA defendant.

For purposes of the Settlement, the Court appoints and designates
Plaintiff Earl Fronda as class representative, and Shaun Setareh,
Esq., and H. Scott Leviant, Esq., of the Setareh Law Group as
Class Counsel for the Settlement Class.

For purposes of the Settlement, the Court approves the proposed
Class Notice plan as set forth in the Settlement, and appoints
KCC, LLC as the Settlement Administrator to perform the duties
described in the Settlement.

The Court also set certain dates, including the February 26, 2018
deadline for Class Members to submit a valid written request to be
excluded from the Settlement.  The deadline for the Plaintiff to
file a motion for final approval and Class Counsel to file a
motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and service award is on March
22, 2018.

The Court will hold a final fairness hearing on May 31, 2018, at
10:00 a.m.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=zp77kMMx


STONEMOR PARTNERS: Court Dismisses "Anderson" Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum granting Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss the case captioned JUDSON ANDERSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
STONEMOR PARTNERS, L.P., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 16-
6111 (E.D. Pa.).

This is a consolidated class action arising out of Plaintiffs'
purchase of common units1 in StoneMor, L.P., which provides
funeral and cemetery services and products.  The Amended Complaint
contains two counts.  Count One alleges violations of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10(b)5
promulgated there-under. Count Two alleges violations of Section
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act.  Plaintiffs allege that
Defendants made or failed to make statements in violation of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

To state a claim for relief under section 10(b), a plaintiff must
plead facts demonstrating that (1) the defendant made a materially
false or misleading statement or omitted to state a material fact
necessary to make a statement not misleading; (2) the defendant
acted with scienter; and (3) the plaintiff's reliance on the
defendant's misstatement caused him or her injury.

The first issue is whether the statements alleged were, in fact,
false or misleading. A statement is false or misleading if it is
factually inaccurate, or additional information is required to
clarify it.

Category A Statements

Starting with the statements in Category A, Plaintiffs focus on
statements in StoneMor's distribution announcements that it was
performing well.  These statements laud the strong performance of
StoneMor's base operations and continued strength in revenue
growth and distributable free cash flow that allowed StoneMor to
increase distribution.

Because Plaintiffs allege that StoneMor actually relied on equity
proceeds to fund the distributions, (rather than operation
performance) and its ability to do so was almost entirely
dependent on its ability to sell equity in the capital markets,
thus arguably not on Available Cash these statements are arguably
false or misleading as plead.

Therefore, some of the Category A statements are at least arguably
false or misleading.

Category B Statements

The Category B statements pertain to the connection between
StoneMor's operations and distributions. StoneMor stated to
investors and analysts that StoneMor's primary source of cash from
which to pay partner distributions is operating cash flow.
Because StoneMor's Category B statements referred to non-GAAP
metrics, and were accurate portrayals of those metrics, they are
not false. Similarly, because StoneMor also disclosed the GAAP
metrics, and disclosed that GAAP-based operating revenues and cash
flows were lower than cash distributions, the Category B
statements were not misleading. Therefore, none of the Category B
statements are sufficient to state a securities fraud claim.

Category C Statements

Regarding the Category C statements, Plaintiffs claim that
Defendants made actionable misstatements about how StoneMor
intended to use funds from its equity offerings.  Because these
statements were literally true, and the entire picture was
publically disclosed, the Category C statements are not
misleading.

Category D Statements

Category D includes certain certifications made in Defendants' SEC
filings, namely 10-Ks and 10-Qs. These statements are part of
statutorily-required certifications under regulations promulgated
under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

In pertinent part, these statements by Defendants report that,
based on their knowledge, the information in the filings was
accurate, and that they had designed and evaluated internal and
disclosure controls.

Here, Plaintiffs do not allege that StoneMor's unit price moved in
response to either the certifications or their correction. Rather,
Plaintiffs claim that the unit price dropped because StoneMor
slashed its distribution.

Therefore, the statements in Category D are not actionable.

Materiality

Having established that at least some of Plaintiffs' claims (in
Category A) may allege misleading statements and omissions, the
next issue is whether they are material.

StoneMor disclosed that its GAAP revenues and operating cash flows
were lower than cash distributions. In addition to these
disclosures, Plaintiffs themselves state that the truth of the
scheme was recognized by investors long ago, based on publically
available information. Thus, Plaintiffs essentially concede that
no information was concealed. Even if StoneMor focused investor
and analyst attention on non-GAAP financial measures, it
contemporaneously presented GAAP financial measures, which are not
alleged to be inaccurate or misleading.

Also, Plaintiffs do not allege anything false or misleading about
the reconciliation StoneMor offered between the GAAP and non-GAAP
measurements. Because StoneMor disclosed all of the information
that Plaintiffs allege it concealed, and a reasonable investor
would account for the disclosed information, Plaintiffs have not
sufficiently plead a material omission or misstatement.

Scienter

The next requirement imposed on a Rule 10b-5 claim is that a
plaintiff must allege that a defendant acted with scienter.
Scienter is a mental state embracing intent to deceive,
manipulate, or defraud.

Plaintiffs attempt to show scienter under a recklessness theory.
In 1979, the Third Circuit adopted the Seventh Circuit's
definition of recklessness in this context. A reckless statement
is one that is highly unreasonable and involves not merely simple,
or even inexcusable negligence, but an extreme departure from the
standards of ordinary care, and which presents a danger of
misleading buyers or sellers that is either known to the defendant
or is so obvious that the actor must have been aware of it.

Under a recklessness theory, knowledge can be shown by
demonstrating that the fact was so obviously material that the
defendant must have been aware both of its materiality and that
its non-disclosure would likely mislead investors.

Section 20(a) Claim

Because a claim for controlling person liability requires proof of
a separate underlying violation of the Exchange Act and the
underlying 10-b claim fails, the Section 20(a) claim also fails.
The Court will grant Defendants' motion to dismiss as to both
counts of the Complaint.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 31, 2017
Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/ya2p3vvy from
Leagle.com.

JUDSON ANDERSON, Plaintiff, represented by CHRISTOPHER L. NELSON -
- cln@weiserlawfirm.com -- THE WEISER LAW FIRM, P.C.

JUDSON ANDERSON, Plaintiff, represented by JACOB A. GOLDBERG --
jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM,JAMES M. FICARO --
jmf@weiserlawfirm.com -- THE WEISER LAW FIRM PC, ROBERT B. WEISER,
THE WEISER LAW FIRM PC, 22 Cassatt Avenue, Berwyn, PA 19312,
VINCENT A. COPPOLA, PRIBANIC & PRIBANIC, 513 Court Place,
Pittsburgh, PA 15219, MICHAEL J. HYNES -- mhynes@hkh-lawfirm.com -
- HYNES KELLER & HERNANDEZ & NAUMON A. AMJED -- namjed@ktmc.com --
, KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK LLP.

STONEMOR PARTNERS, L.P., Defendant, represented by BRIAN J.
SLIPAKOFF -- bslipakoff@duanemorris.com -- DUANE MORRIS LLP, CRAIG
ZIEMINSKI - czieminski@velaw.com -, VINSON & ELKINS LLP, JAMES H.
STEIGERWALD -- JHSteigerwald@duanemorris.com --  DUANE MORRIS LLP,
MERIWETHER T. EVANS -- mevans@velaw.com -- VINSON & ELKINS LLP,
MICHAEL C. HOLMES -- mholmes@velaw.com -- VINSON & ELKINS LLP, AMY
E. TANKERSLEY - apery@velaw.com -- VINSON & ELKINS LLP & R. KENT
PIACENTI -- kpiacenti@velaw.com -- VINSON & ELKINS LLP.

LAWRENCE MILLER, Defendant, represented by BRIAN J. SLIPAKOFF,
DUANE MORRIS LLP,CRAIG ZIEMINSKI, VINSON & ELKINS LLP, JAMES H.
STEIGERWALD, DUANE MORRIS LLP,MERIWETHER T. EVANS, VINSON & ELKINS
LLP, MICHAEL C. HOLMES, VINSON & ELKINS LLP, AMY E. TANKERSLEY,
VINSON & ELKINS LLP & R. KENT PIACENTI, VINSON & ELKINS LLP.

SEAN P. MCGRATH, Defendant, represented by BRIAN J. SLIPAKOFF,
DUANE MORRIS LLP,CRAIG ZIEMINSKI, VINSON & ELKINS LLP, JAMES H.
STEIGERWALD, DUANE MORRIS LLP,MERIWETHER T. EVANS, VINSON & ELKINS
LLP, MICHAEL C. HOLMES, VINSON & ELKINS LLP, AMY E. TANKERSLEY,
VINSON & ELKINS LLP & R. KENT PIACENTI, VINSON & ELKINS LLP.

ROBERT B. HELLMAN, JR., Defendant, represented by BRIAN J.
SLIPAKOFF, DUANE MORRIS LLP, JAMES H. STEIGERWALD, DUANE MORRIS
LLP & R. KENT PIACENTI, VINSON & ELKINS LLP.

TIMOTHY YOST, Defendant, represented by BRIAN J. SLIPAKOFF, DUANE
MORRIS LLP, JAMES H. STEIGERWALD, DUANE MORRIS LLP & R. KENT
PIACENTI, VINSON & ELKINS LLP.

WILLIAM R. SHANE, Defendant, represented by BRIAN J. SLIPAKOFF,
DUANE MORRIS LLP,CRAIG ZIEMINSKI, VINSON & ELKINS LLP, MERIWETHER
T. EVANS, VINSON & ELKINS LLP,MICHAEL C. HOLMES, VINSON & ELKINS
LLP, AMY E. TANKERSLEY, VINSON & ELKINS LLP,JAMES H. STEIGERWALD,
DUANE MORRIS LLP & R. KENT PIACENTI, VINSON & ELKINS LLP.

STONEMOR GP, LLC, Defendant, represented by BRIAN J. SLIPAKOFF,
DUANE MORRIS LLP & R. KENT PIACENTI, VINSON & ELKINS LLP.

STONEMORE GP HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendant, represented by BRIAN J.
SLIPAKOFF, DUANE MORRIS LLP & R. KENT PIACENTI, VINSON & ELKINS
LLP.

AMERICAN CEMETERIES INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTORS, LLC, Defendant,
represented by BRIAN J. SLIPAKOFF, DUANE MORRIS LLP & R. KENT
PIACENTI, VINSON & ELKINS LLP.

HARVEY S. WACHMAN, Movant, represented by VINCENT A. COPPOLA,
PRIBANIC & PRIBANIC.

NORMAN MACHI, Movant, represented by VINCENT A. COPPOLA, PRIBANIC
& PRIBANIC.

ROBIN J. MACHI, Movant, represented by VINCENT A. COPPOLA,
PRIBANIC & PRIBANIC.

DENNIS LIVELY, SR., Movant, represented by VINCENT A. COPPOLA,
PRIBANIC & PRIBANIC.

JOSEPH K. ODENWALD, Movant, represented by VINCENT A. COPPOLA,
PRIBANIC & PRIBANIC.

ALAN M. SMITH, Movant, represented by VINCENT A. COPPOLA, PRIBANIC
& PRIBANIC.

ROBERT CRANDALL, Movant, represented by LEE ALBERT, Glancy Prongay
& Murray LLP.


TRIANGLE CAPITAL: Faces "Dagher" Securities Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
ELIAS DAGHER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. TRIANGLE CAPITAL CORPORATION, E. ASHTON POOLE, STEVEN
C. LILLY and GARLAND S. TUCKER, III, Case No. 1:17-cv-09102
(S.D.N.Y., November 21, 2017), is a federal securities class
action on behalf of all purchasers of Triangle common stock
between May 7, 2014, and November 1, 2017, inclusive, seeking
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Defendant Triangle is a specialty finance company that provides
customized financing to lower middle market companies located
primarily in the United States.  The Company focuses on lending to
private companies with annual revenues between $10 million and
$250 million.  The Individual Defendants are directors and
officers of the Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          David C. Walton, Esq.
          Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: davew@rgrdlaw.com
                  bcochran@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
          JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
          600 West Broadway, Suite 1540
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 230-0063
          Facsimile: (619) 255-1856
          E-mail: frankj@johnsonfistel.com

               - and -

          W. Scott Holleman, Esq.
          JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
          99 Madison Avenue, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 802-1486
          Facsimile: (212) 602-1592
          E-mail: sholleman@johnsonfistel.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Flores" Suit in Cal. Over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALEJANDRO FLORES; individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. RASIER, LLC, a Limited Liability Company;
RASIER-CA, LLC., a Limited Liability Company; and UBER
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a corporation; DOES 1 through 15, inclusive,
Case No. 2:17-cv-08503 (C.D. Cal., November 21, 2017), is brought
on behalf of those who have worked as Uber Black, Uber Pool, Uber
SUV, or UberX drivers in the United States, and on behalf of all
riders, who ordered Uber rides during or near the time of the data
breach incident.

On November 21, 2017, Uber's new CEO, Dara Khosrowshahi said, "I
recently learned that in late 2016 we became aware that two
individuals outside the company had inappropriately accessed user
data stored on a third-party cloud-based service that we use."

Rasier, LLC, is a Limited Liability Company headquartered in San
Francisco, California.  Rasier-CA, LLC is a Limited Liability
Company headquartered in San Francisco.

Uber Technologies, Inc., is a corporation headquartered in San
Francisco.  Uber Technologies is the parent company of Defendants
Rasier and Rasier-CA.  The Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names
and capacities of the Doe Defendants.

The Uber Defendants provide car service in cities throughout the
country via an on demand dispatch system that enables users to
hail a car service driver using a mobile phone through the User
application, and which enables transportation providers to accept
and fulfill such on-demand requests for transportation services by
Users seeking transportation services through the use of a
driver's application.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bobby Saadian, Esq.
          Colin M. Jones, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 381-9988
          Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
          E-mail: bobby@wilshirelawfirm.com
                  colin@wilshirelawfirm.com


UL LLC: "Lee" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID LEE on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. UL LLC, a Foreign Corporation, Case No. 1:17-cv-01617 (E.D.
Wisc., November 20, 2017), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 on behalf of current and former exempt Field
Specialist/Field Engineer employees of the Defendant, to recover
alleged unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs
and attorneys' fees.

UL LLC is a Northbrook, Illinois entity that provides safety
consulting and certification services to its customers
globally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A. Walcheske, Esq.
          Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
          Kelly L. Temeyer, Esq.
          WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
          15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Suite 304
          Brookfield, WI 53005
          Telephone: (262) 780-1953
          Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
          E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
                  sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
                  ktemeyer@walcheskeluzi.com


WAVE CREST: Ruling on Front Desk Workers Claims Reversed
--------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division One,
issued an Opinion reversing the Trial Court's order denying Class
Certification on Front Desk Employees Claims in the case captioned
MARTHA L. MONCADA et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. WAVE CREST
HOTELS AND RESORTS LLC, Defendant and Respondent, No. D070107
(Cal. App.).

In this wage and hour class action lawsuit, the trial court denied
the plaintiffs' motion to certify a class and a number of
subclasses with respect to the defendant's meal break, rest break,
grace period, and overtime calculation practices.  Moncada filed a
class action complaint against Wave Crest and added Torres as a
plaintiff.  Moncada and Torres filed a first amended complaint,
which Wave Crest answered.

In particular, the plaintiffs alleged Wave Crest did not provide
its employees with timely meal breaks, rest breaks for employees
who work between six and eight hours, and payment for five-minute
periods before and after the ends of scheduled shifts.  The
plaintiffs further alleged that Wave Crest failed to properly
calculate its employees base pay for purposes of paying overtime.

The trial court heard the plaintiffs' motion to certify subclasses
with respect to the labor law violations the plaintiffs had
alleged.  The trial court found that with respect to the bulk of
the plaintiffs' claims, Wave Crest's liability could not be
determined on a classwide basis, and hence class certification was
not appropriate.

Here, the trial court denied class certification with respect to
most of plaintiffs' claims because it found individual issues
predominate regarding the entitlement to or the fact of damages.
The Cal. App. finds no abuse of discretion in that determination.
The Cal. App., however, disagrees with the trial court's
disposition of the plaintiffs' proposed front desk class on the
grounds there is no suitable representative.  The record here
fully supports the trial court's determination the plaintiffs'
meal time, rest time and grace period claims are not amenable to
class treatment because liability cannot be determined on a class-
wide basis.

The trial court found that the employee declarations to the effect
that they missed meal breaks were insufficient to show a common
policy, because among other reasons they were contradicted by 224
employee declarations submitted by Wave Crest to the effect that
those employees took their meal breaks in a timely manner.  The
trial court found that the expert's statistical analysis was
unpersuasive because it was based on a relatively small sample and
because at most that only 13 percent of the sampled records showed
a failure to take timely meal breaks.
Given this record, in which the defendant's express policy
complied with the law, and only conflicting anecdotal evidence and
unpersuasive statistical evidence supported plaintiffs' claims,5
the trial court could reasonably conclude, as it did, that
liability could only be shown by way of individual proof, which in
turn made class treatment impractical.

The fact many employees worked between six and eight hours plainly
does not show they were denied a second break. The conflicting
evidence from employees also fails to show any common policy.
Thus, the trial court could again properly conclude class
treatment was not appropriate because liability would require
individual proof.

Wave Crest permitted employees to clock in five minutes before a
shift commenced and five minutes after a shift was completed;
under this policy, the employee was only paid for the time of the
scheduled shift and not for any time worked before the shift ended
or after it was completed. Plaintiffs argued that by effectively
rounding down employee shifts, Wave Crest was unfairly depriving
employees of earned wages.

However, as in Brinker, in order to prove such an off-the-clock
claim, plaintiffs would have to rebut the presumption they only
began working when their scheduled shifts commenced and ended; as
in Brinker, they could not do so without individual proof of such
work during the five-minute grace periods before and after shifts
and hence, as in Brinker, the off-the-clock claims asserted here
were not subject to class litigation. Brinker, supra, 53 Cal.4th
at pp. 1051-1052.).

To establish any liability the plaintiffs would have to show that
employees actually ate food provided by Wave Crest, the value of
the food, and proof that in the same pay period the employee
worked overtime. Because there are no records with respect to what
particular employees consumed, proof of this claim would
necessarily depend on evidence provided by individual employees.
Thus, the trial court could reasonably determine that the claim
was not suitable for resolution as a class claim.

The Cal. App. does not accept the plaintiffs' contention this
claim could be litigated by determining the cost of the food Wave
Crest provided all employees over the period covered by their
allegations and spreading that cost over all employees, whether
they took the meals or, like Torres, usually declined them. Unless
an employee in fact took a meal offered by his or her employer, we
are unwilling to find that the meal was part of the employee's
compensation.

When a trial court determines that a class representative is not
suitable representative of the class it should at least afford
plaintiffs the opportunity to amend their complaint, to redefine
the class, or to add new individual plaintiffs, or both, in order
to establish a suitable representative. If, after the trial court
has thus extended an opportunity to amend, the class still lacks a
suitable representative, the court may conclude that it must
dismiss the action.

Here, in failing to give the plaintiffs' an opportunity to locate
a new potential class representative, the trial court abused its
discretion. The cases make it clear that until a trial court has
given class representatives an opportunity to locate a suitable
representative, it cannot find that such a representative is
unavailable.

As to the plaintiffs' front desk employees claim, the Cal. App.
said it must reverse and remand with instructions that the
plaintiffs be permitted to locate a suitable representative.

A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' October 31, 2017 Opinion
is available at  https://tinyurl.com/ycztesnb from Leagle.com.

Williams Iagmin info@williamsiagmin.com -- and Jon R. Williams -
williams@williamsiagmin.com -- Cadena Churchill and Raul Cadena,
701 B St # 1700, San Diego, CA 92101, USA for Plaintiffs and
Appellants.

Higgs Fletcher & Mack, 401 West A Street, Suite 2600, San Diego,
CA 92101-7910, John Morris, Alexis S. Gutierrez and Rachel E.
Moffitt for Defendant and Respondent.


WESTERN CONCRETE: Sued by Austin Over Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
MIKE AUSTIN, an individual, and DANIEL L. VOEKS, JR., an
individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. WESTERN CONCRETE PUMPING, INC., a California
corporation, CHARLES REED, an individual, and BRETT REID, an
individual, Case No. 3:17-cv-02363-AJB-MDD (S.D. Cal., November
21, 2017), alleges that pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the Plaintiffs are entitled to all remedies, including straight
and overtime wages, liquidated damages, penalties, and attorneys'
fees and costs.

Western Concrete Pumping, Inc., is a corporation organized under
the laws of the state of California and has its principal place of
business in Vista, California.  Western Concrete operates a fleet
of over 125 concrete pumps, ranging in size from 25 to 61 meters,
and has employed approximately 250 employees in the states of
California, Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arizona.  The
Individual Defendants are owners, officers, directors,
shareholders, or principals of Western Concrete.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
          Leslie E. Hurst, Esq.
          Jennifer L. MacPherson, Esq.
          BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1490
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 338-1100
          Facsimile: (619) 338-1101
          E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com
                  lhurst@bholaw.com
                  jmacpherson@bholaw.com

               - and -

          Scott H. Toothacre, Esq.
          Michael R. Weinstein, Esq.
          FERRIS & BRITTON, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1450
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 233-3131
          Facsimile: (619) 232-9316
          E-mail: stoothacre@ferrisbritton.com
                  mweinstein@ferrisbritton.com


WESTLAKE WELLBEING: Files 9th Cir. Appeal in "Edelstein" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Westlake Wellbeing Properties LLC and Four Seasons
Hotels Limited filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
titled Scott Edelstein, et al. v. Westlake Wellbeing Properties,
et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-06488-AB-JEM, in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was originally filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California on July 28, 2017, and was assigned Case No. BC669646.
The lawsuit was removed to the District Court on September 1,
2017.

The Plaintiffs seek to recover statutory damages, punitive
damages, costs and attorneys' fees as a result of the Defendants'
alleged willful violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act.  Despite having more than a decade to become
compliant with FACTA, the Defendants have willfully violated this
law and failed to protect Plaintiffs and others similarly situated
against identity theft and credit card fraud by printing more than
the last five digits of the account number and the expiration date
on credit and debit card cardholders' receipts when they transact
business with Defendants, the Plaintiffs allege.

The appellate case is captioned as Scott Edelstein, et al. v.
Westlake Wellbeing Properties, et al., Case No. 17-80242, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents SCOTT EDELSTEIN, individually and on behalf
of all similarly situated individuals, and STEVEN BROOKS,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals,
are represented by:

          Alex Katofsky, Esq.
          Daniel Gaines, Esq.
          GAINES & GAINES, APLC
          27200 Agoura Road, Suite 101
          Calabasas, CA 91301
          Telephone: (818) 703-8985
          Facsimile: (818) 703-8984
          E-mail: alex@gaineslawfinn.com
                  daniel@gaineslawfirm.com

Defendants-Petitioners WESTLAKE WELLBEING PROPERTIES LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, and FOUR SEASONS HOTELS
LIMITED, a Canada corporation, are represented by:

          Steven Andrew Ellis, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
          601 S. Figueroa Street, 41st Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 426-2500
          Facsimile: (213) 623-1673
          E-mail: SEllis@goodwinprocter.com

               - and -

          Thomas Hefferon, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
          901 New York Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 346-4029
          Facsimile: (202) 346-4444
          E-mail: thefferon@goodwinproctor.com


WISCONSIN: Court Denies Certification of CCI Inmates Class
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin issued an Opinion and Order denying Plaintiff's Motion
for Reconsideration in the case captioned EFRAIN CAMPOS, ROBERT
WIRTH, JUAN NIETO, and STANLEY NEWAGO, Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL
DITTMAN, LINDA ALSUM O'DONOVAN, DAVID KURKOWSKI, LUCAS M. WEBER,
KEVIN W. PITZEN, BRAD HOMRE, and CINDY O'DONNELL, Defendants, No.
17-cv-545-jdp (W.D. Wis.).

Pro se plaintiffs Efrain Campos, Robert Wirth, Juan Nieto, and
Stanley Newago are inmates in the custody of the Wisconsin
Department of Corrections currently housed at the Columbia
Correctional Institution.  They bring the proposed class action
under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 alleging that defendants, CCI and DOC
officials, terminated plaintiffs from their prison work
assignments in retaliation for plaintiffs' comments during a
prison investigation and in violation of plaintiffs' procedural
due process and equal protection rights.  Plaintiffs also move to
proceed as a class action and for appointment of class counsel.

Plaintiffs bring procedural due process, First Amendment
retaliation, and equal protection claims against defendants.

Here, the Court finds that plaintiffs have failed to identify a
cognizable liberty or property interest. Prisoners do not have a
liberty interest in prison jobs.  Nor do they have a liberty or
property interest in specific prison procedures, such as issuance
of conduct reports.  But this is not to say that plaintiffs have
no avenue to seek redress for the loss of their jobs.

To state a claim for retaliation under the First Amendment,
plaintiffs must identify: (1) the constitutionally protected
activity in which they were engaged; (2) one or more retaliatory
actions taken by defendants that would deter a person of "ordinary
firmness" from engaging in the protected activity; and (3)
sufficient facts to make it plausible to infer that plaintiffs'
protected activity was one of the reasons defendants took the
action they did against him.

Losing a job and a well-paying job, by prison standards could
deter a person of ordinary firmness in plaintiffs' position from
telling the truth in the future. But plaintiffs have not alleged
enough to raise a plausible connection. The Court will allow
plaintiffs a short time to submit an amended complaint alleging
facts showing that each defendant caused plaintiffs to lose their
jobs because plaintiffs told the truth rather than remain silent.

The purpose of the equal protection clause is to secure every
person within the State's jurisdiction against intentional and
arbitrary discrimination.

Plaintiffs' theory is that defendants' improper purpose was the
fact that plaintiffs told the truth during the contraband
investigation, but they have not alleged facts sufficient to
support that theory.  The Court held that it's just as likely that
defendants terminated plaintiffs and dismissed plaintiffs'
grievances concerning the termination because they believed that
plaintiffs lied during the contraband investigation, which would
be a valid justification for their actions. The Court will allow
plaintiffs a short time to submit an amended complaint alleging
facts showing that each defendant caused plaintiffs to lose their
jobs for an improper purpose.

It appears that all members of the prospective class are already
joined as plaintiffs in this action, with the exception of Wirth,
so class status would be inappropriate, and the Court will deny
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

Plaintiffs have provided no evidence that they have attempted to
recruit legal representation on their own. This is reason enough
to deny plaintiffs' motion.  Even if this requirement were met,
plaintiffs have not shown that they lack the ability to litigate
their claims. It is too early to tell whether their claims will
outstrip their litigation abilities.

The Court says that if it allows plaintiffs to proceed against
defendants on some claims, the case still may not pass the
relatively early stage in which defendants may file a motion for
summary judgment based on a preliminary issue that could result in
dismissal of the case before it advances deep into the discovery
stage of the litigation.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 31, 2017 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycy8uop3 from
Leagle.com.

Efrain Campos, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Juan Nieto, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Stanley Newago, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Michael Dittman, Defendant, represented by Corey Francis
Finkelmeyer, Wisconsin Department of Justice.




                             *********


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  * * *