CAR_Public/171218.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


            Monday, December 18, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 249



                            Headlines

AIR5 NETWORKS: "Glanton" Suit Seeks Unpaid wages & OT under FLSA
AKAL SECURITY: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Alonzo"
AKORN INC: Bid to Intervene in "Berg" Denied w/o Prejudice
AL DAHRA ACX: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, "Avila" Suit Says
ALAMO RENT: Faces "Ball" Suit in M. Dist. Florida

ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Faces "Fligmman" Suit in E.D. New York
ALTERRA GROUP: "Shevchuk" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA
ANAYA'S CUTTING: Fails to Pay for All Hours Worked, Araujo Says
ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MD: Impact Fee Refunds Order Affirmed
APEX TERMITE: "Silva" Suit Moved to Southern District of Florida

ASSOCIATES IN GASTROENTEROLOGY: "Smith" Suit Moved to D.S.C.
ATLANTA, GA: Faces "Fambro" Wage-and-Hour Suit
ATLANTIC CREDIT: Faces "Vento" Suit in E.D. New York
AW LINS: Faces "Pillay" Suit over Tip-Pooling
BEST & CO: "Carranza" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages under Labor Law

BNSF RAILWAY: "Gonzales" Suit Moved to E.D. Washington
BNSF RAILWAY: "Sumlin" Suit Moved to Central Dist. of California
BONNEVILLE BILLING: "Zachary" Suit Moved to District of Idaho
BRISK AIR: "Loya" Suit Moved to Southern District of Florida
BULTHAUP CORP: Faces "Matzura" Suit in S.D. New York

BURBANK MANAGEMENT: Terrell Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
BURLINGTON COAT: "Knight" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law
C. TECH COLLECTIONS: Faces "Cammy" Suit in E.D. New York
CALIBER HOLDINGS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage & OT, Moorehead Says
CALIFORNIA OFF TRACK: Faces "Castro" Wage-and-Hour Suit

CALLICO CONSTRUCTION: "Villatoro" Suit Seeks OT Pay under FLSA
CAPITAL PAWN: Faces "McCown" Suit over Unsolicited Text Messages
CEDARS SINAI: "Castro" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law
CENTRAL PLUMBING: Faces "Matzura" Suit in S.D. New York
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Underpays Help Desk Workers, Briggs Says

CHEESECAKE FACTORY: "Tibbetts" Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal.
CJ MAHAN: "Betzner" Suit Moved to Eastern District of Arkansas
CLEANSTREET: Fails to Pay All Wages, "Villanueva" Suit Says
COAST MEDICAL: Deducts $30 from Nurses' Pay, "Sweatt" Suit Says
CONTINENTAL SERVICE: Faces "Sloan" Suit in C.D. Calif.

CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: "Mazariegos" Suit Moved to E.D.N.Y.
CRAIG TOOLS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Menchaca Says
CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Faces "Solano" Suit in N.D. New York
DITECH FINANCIAL: Court Dismisses "Scally" FDCPA Suit
DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Faces "Morales" Suit in E.D. New York

DYNAMIC LEDGER: GGCC Sues over Initial Coin Offering
ELECTRONIC MERCHANT: "Winters" Suit Moved to D. New Jersey
EMERGENCY SERVICES RESTORATION: "Vigers" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage
EMPIRE INTERNATIONAL: "Paul" Suit Seeks OT Wages under FLSA
EQUIFAX INC: Court Extends Time to Respond in "Young" FCRA Suit

EQUIFAX INC: "Cuevas" Suit Moved to Central Dist. of California
EULEN AMERICA: "Pena" Suit Seeks OT & Minimum Wages under FLSA
EVOLUTION HOSPITALITY: Rizo Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
EXPEDIA INC: 7th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgments to OTAs
EYM GROUP: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Johnson" Suit Says

FEDEX FREIGHT: "Pina" Suit Moved to Southern District of Florida
FIRST CENTURY: Court Compel Arbitration in "Oliver"
FRANKLIN COUNTY, PA: Cmmw. Court Ruling in Privacy Suit Reversed
GALENA BIOPHARMA: $41K Attys' Fee Awarded in Securities Suit
GAP INC: "Coladonato" Suit Moved to New Jersey Federal Court

GEICO GENERAL: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment in Insurance Suit
GOSMITH INC: Faces "Hobbs" Suit over Spam Text Messages
GREEN STAR: Faces "Bohlke" Suit over Spam Text Messages
GRETNA, LA: Nelson and Richardson Sue over Arrests & Fines
GUITAR CENTER: Website Inaccessible to Blind, "Andrews" Suit Says

H MART INC: Faces "Matzura" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
HAPPY CAB: Court Enters Default Judgment in "Knox" FLSA Suit
HEALTH INSURANCE: Faces "Vigorito" Securities Class Action
HF MANAGEMENT: Court Dismisses "Ortiz" Unpaid OT Pay Suit
HOME HEALTH: "Yusupova" Suit Seeks Wages under Labor Law

HOMELAND SECURITY: Al Otro Suit Transferred to S.D. California
INTELLIPHARMACEUTICS INT'L: Lead Plaintiffs in "Shanawaz" Named
INTERFAITH MEDICAL: Underpaid Per Diem Physicians, Okeke Says
INTERSTATE SAFETY: $80K Settlement in "Owens" Suit Gets Approval
INVENTURE FOODS: "Schoenfeld" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Utz Merger

INVENTURE FOODS: "Shaoul" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Utz Merger
JUICY WINGZ: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Hernandez Says
KAPDAS INCORPORATED: Leroy Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT under FLSA
KEANE FRAC: "Tran" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA
KOCH FOODS: Conspiracy Claims in Antitrust Suit Remains

L & JG STICKLEY: Faces "Young" Suit in S.D. New York
L'OREAL USA: Faces "Spector" Suit over CeraVe Face Lotion
LATIN CLUB BAR: "Roe" Suit Seeks Back Pay under Labor Code
MADER NEWS: "Molina" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: Prelim Approval of Class Deal Denied

MARVIN ENGINEERING: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Iniguez Says
MDL 2741: "Schroeder" Suit v. Monsanto Moved to N.D. Cal.
MDL 2800: "Pantaze" Data Breach Suit Moved to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Morris" Suit Moved to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Ostoya" Suit Moved to N.D. Georgia

MDL 2800: "Highfield" Suit Moved to N.D. Georgia
MEMORIAL HEALTHCARE: "Verma" Suit Moved to E.D. Missouri
MICHIGAN: Court Certifies Class of Jewish Inmates
MILLER STARK: Deadline to File Judgment for Default Set in "Wade"
MONSANTO COMPANY: Joffe Sues Over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MOTORINO EAST: "Morales" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages under FLSA
MRS BPO: Court Denies Summary Judgment Bid in "Dinaples"
MUSICIAN'S FRIEND: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Andrews Says
NEIMAN MARCUS: Fails to Pay Compensation, "Roces" Suit Says
NORMANDIN'S: Court Grants Prelim Approval of "Brinker" Settlement

NORTH DAKOTA: "Hansen" Suit Moved from E.D. Pa. to Local Court
NOVAN INC: Cisneros Sues over Steep Share Price Drop
NUCO2 MANAGEMENT: "Hernandez" Suit Moved to E.D. California
NYU LANGONE: Underpays Nurse Aides, "Pruitt" Suit Claims
OCEAN DRIVE: "Esquenazi" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA

OCWEN LOAN: Court Grants Amendment in "Henry" WVCCPA Suit
OPUS PLATINUM: Faces "Terrell" Wage-and-Hour Class Suit
PACIFIC COAST SIGHTSEEING: "Nava" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
PEACHY DEVELOPMENTS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Velasquez Says
PEI WEI ASIAN: "Davis" Suit Moved to Southern District of Florida

PETERSEN-DEAN: Fails to Pay Wages, "Colmenero" Suit Says
PHILLIPS 66: Fails to Timely Pay Final Wages, Robbins Says
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: 2d Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Aikens"
PURDUE PHARMA: Teamsters Local 404 Sues over Opioid Effect
R.T.R. FINANCIAL: Faces "Chein" Suit in E.D. New York

RASIER LLC: Heller et al. Sue over Theft of Rider & Driver Data
REPRODUCTIVE PARTNERS: Schrimsher Seeks OT Wages under Labor Code
RYB EDUCATION: Faces "Wang" Suit over Drop in ADR Price
SABER HEALTHCARE: "Travis" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
SAFETY-KLEEN: Brown & Diop Seek Unpaid Wages under Labor Code

SANOFI US: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Velasquez" Suit Says
SEED YOUR OWN: "Sou" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: "Anderson" Suit Moved to C.D. California
SHILLINGTON SCHOOL: Faces "Matzura" Suit in S.D. of New York
SLING MEDIA: 2d Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Heskiaoff" Suit

SLIDING DOOR CO: Faces "Matzura" Suit in S.D. New York
SPRINT SOLUTIONS: Trzupek Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
ST. FRANCIS COUNTY: Womack Seeks Minimum Wages & OT under FLSA
STARBUCKS CORP: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Carrington" Suit
STARR RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Dembele Says

STERLING JEWELERS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Hudson Claims
SURVEILLANCE SECURITY: Fails to Pay Wages, "Hughes" Suit Says
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Peck" Suit Remanded to Calif. State Court
T-MOBILE USA: Ct. Grants Telephonic Appearance in Mngt Conference
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Dismissal of "Santana" Affirmed in Part

TIMEX GROUP: Faces "Matzura" Suit in S.D. of New York
TOYOTA MOTOR: "Roscoe" Suit Moved to District of Massachusetts
U.S. BANK: "Duncan" Suit Moved to District of Maryland
U.S. HEALTHWORKS: "Rodriguez" Suit Moved to N.D. California
UBER TECH: Continues to Freeze Account, Rosales Claims

UBER TECH: Faces "West" Suit over Data Security Breach
UBER TECH: Faces "Townsend" Suit over Data Breach
UDREN LAW OFFICES: Pa. Super. Affirms Dismissal of "Glover"
UNION PACIFIC: "Logan" Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of Washington
UNITED STATES: "Harris" Suit v. FBOP Moved to S.D. Indiana

UNITED STATES: Court Enjoins Minors' Suit vs. ICE
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: "Millman" Class Certification Bid Premature
UNIVERSAL FITNESS: Rose Sues over Gym Memberships Rates
VISTANA MANAGEMENT: "Michel" Suit Seeks OT Wages under FLSA
VITAQUEST INT'L: "Shoaf" Suit Moved to District of New Jersey

WEINSTEIN COMPANY: Geiss et al. Sue over Unwanted Sexual Conduct
WEST BASIN WATER: Faces "Rastegar" Suit over Standby Charges
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Subclass Rep Replacement in "Schechner" Denied
WYNDHAM HOTELS: Faces "Ogen" Suit over Biometric Data Collection





                            *********



AIR5 NETWORKS: "Glanton" Suit Seeks Unpaid wages & OT under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Glanton and Tiffany Bent, on behalf of themselves and those
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Air5 Networks Holdings, LLC,
a Florida Corporation, Charles Glenn, Matthew Davis and George
Burton, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-02932-JSM-
TBM (M.D. Fla., Dec. 6, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages, unpaid wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and
cost pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Air5 has a policy and practice of
requiring Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees to work in
excess of 40 hours each workweek without paying overtime
compensation, and some earned points earned wages, as required by
FLSA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charlotte Kelly, Esq.
          JOHN BALES ATTORNEYS
          325 E. Twiggs St., Suite 100
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224 9100
          Facsimile: (813) 224 9109
          E-mail: Team-EmploymentLaw@JoneBales.com


AKAL SECURITY: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Alonzo"
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Ed E. Alonzo, Plaintiff, v. Akal Security, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. CV-17-00836-PHX-JJT (D. Ariz.), Judge John J.
Tuchi of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona
denied the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify a Conditional Class.

The Defendant employs the Plaintiff as an Air Security Officer
("ASO"), a position responsible for the supervision of deportees
during flights back to their home countries.  The Plaintiff
brought a Hybrid Collective and Class Action Complaint against the
Defendant on March 20, 2017.  The Complaint alleges that the
Defendant deducts a one-hour lunch break from pay for each
workday, regardless of whether the Plaintiff does in fact take a
lunch break.

In a prior Order, the Court dismissed two counts of the Complaint
for failure to state a claim.  The remaining count alleges that
the automatic one-hour deduction, regardless of whether the
Plaintiff takes a lunch break or works through the hour, violates
the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

The Plaintiff now moves to conditionally certify a proposed class
of ASOs working for the Defendant in Arizona on the grounds that
they are "similarly situated" to the Plaintiff within the meaning
of the FLSA.

Under even the lenient standards of the notice stage, Judge Tuchi
finds that the Plaintiff's allegations and sole declaration are
insufficient to show a putative class of similarly situated
individuals.  The Complaint itself provides little to no factual
allegations in support of the assertion that the ASOs are
similarly situated to the Plaintiff.  The only other evidence
amounts to a sworn description of the Plaintiff's job duties and
pay and does not even mention any other individual.

The Judge also notes that, even if the Plaintiff did establish a
class of similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff has not
sufficiently alleged that the class is subject to an illegal plan
or policy.  In the Complaint, the Plaintiff asserts that ASOs
perform tasks on the flight home.  Separately and distinctly, the
Plaintiff asserts that all ASOs are subjected to Akal's automatic
one-hour lunch deduction policy on the flight home.  Nowhere in
the pleadings or the declaration does the Plaintiff allege that
the other ASOs work during their lunch breaks.

The Plaintiff also seems to equate a bona fide meal break with the
ability to make phone calls, stream internet, run errands, and so
on.  However, the Judge says, FLSA regulations and district courts
in the Ninth Circuit define a bona fide meal break as one during
which the employee is "completely relieved from duty."  Although
it may be difficult to fully enjoy the lunch break due to the
conditions of the airplane, the ASOs' inability to enjoy
entertainment or run errands is not in itself a violation of the
bona fide meal break regulations.

Judge Tuchi concludes that the Plaintiff has failed to show that
other ASOs are similarly situated and subject to an illegal policy
of working without compensation during their meal breaks.  The
Judge cannot assume this simply because the Plaintiff alleges he
sometimes works through his.  Therefore, he denied the Plaintiff's
Motion to Certify a Conditional Class.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 21, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/peVaWR from Leagle.com.

Ed E Alonzo, Plaintiff, represented by Emily Adele Johnson, Lubin
& Enoch PC.

Ed E Alonzo, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew Seth Sarelson --
msarelson@kymplaw.com -- Kaplan Young & Moll Parron PLLC, Nicholas
Jason Enoch, Lubin & Enoch PC & Stanley Lubin, Lubin & Enoch PC.

Akal Security Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Derek H.
Sparks -- Derek.Sparks@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis PC, Jenna
Rinehart Rassif -- Jenna.Rassif@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis
PC & Sonya K. Boun -- Sonya.Boun@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis
LLP.


AKORN INC: Bid to Intervene in "Berg" Denied w/o Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT BERG, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AKORN, INC.; JOHN N. KAPOOR;
KENNETH S. ABRAMOWITZ; ADRIENNE L. GRAVES; RONALD M. JOHNSON;
STEVEN J. MEYER; TERRY A. RAPPUHN; BRIAN TAMBI; ALAN WEINSTEIN;
RAJ RAI; FRENSENIUS KABI AG; QUERCUS ACQUISITION, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 17 C 5016 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Thomas M. Durkin
of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, denied with prejudice Theodore Frank's motions
to intervene, and to consolidate.

Berg filed the action, and several other individuals filed similar
actions, against Akorn, the members of Akorn's board of directors,
and Frensenius Kabi AG, in order to force Akorn to make certain
revisions to the proxy statement it filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission in connection with Frensenius' bid to
acquire Akorn.  On July 10, 2017, Akorn made the changes to its
proxy statement sought by Berg in the case and the plaintiffs in
the other actions, making their claims moot.  Shortly thereafter,
all the cases were dismissed without prejudice by joint
stipulations pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1).
The plaintiffs' counsel also informed the Defendants that they
intended to seek their fees from them.

In the case in particular, Berg's counsel filed a Motion for Entry
of Stipulation and Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice.  The
motion document provided that the Court would retain jurisdiction
over all parties solely for the purposes of any potential further
proceedings relating to the adjudication of any claim by any
Plaintiff in the Akorn Section 14 Actions for attorneys' fees
and/or expenses.  The Court granted the motion to dismiss by
minute order on July 19, 2017, but did not enter the Stipulation
and Proposed Order.

Two months later, on Sept. 15, 2017, the parties filed another
Stipulation and Proposed Order Closing Case for All Purposes.
This document provided that the Plaintiffs in the Akorn Section 14
Actions have reached agreement with the Defendants with respect to
the Fee Claims and the Defendants have agreed to provide them with
a single payment of $322,500 in attorneys' fees and expenses to
resolve any and all Fee Claims, and thus there are no Fee Claims
to be adjudicated by the Court.  It provided further, that the
matter is fully resolved and no further issues remain in dispute,
and, there being no reason for the Court to retain jurisdiction
over the matter, the case should be closed for all purposes.

Three days later, before the Court could take any action with
respect to the September 15 proposed order, Frank, an owner of
1,000 Akorn shares, filed a motion to intervene for purposes of
objecting to the settlement of the attorneys' fee claims.  He
contends that the cases filed by Berg and the other Plaintiffs are
part of a "racket," pursued for the sole purpose of obtaining fees
for the Plaintiffs' counsel, which are successful because victim
Defendants like Akorn find it cheaper, and therefore rational, to
pay nuisance value attorneys' fees rather than contest them, and
further delay the merger.  Frank contends that this is a misuse of
the class action device for private gain.  Berg opposes Frank's
motion to intervene.

Judge Durkin finds that Frank clearly seeks to challenge or object
to the attorneys' fees settlement.  But he has not identified a
procedural mechanism that would serve as a vehicle for such an
objection.  There does not appear to be a process for the Court to
approve or reject the settlement akin to that under Rule 23 for
class actions or Rule 23.1 for derivative suits.

He says maybe Frank theorizes that the Court's retention of
jurisdiction, and the Plaintiffs' pending request for entry of an
order closing the case "for all purposes," means that the case
remains within the realm of a class action settlement that must
comply with Rule 23.  If this is Frank's theory, the Judge says,
Frank has not articulated it.

To the extent the Court's decision to retain jurisdiction in the
case may have facilitated Berg's counsel's ability to extract
greater fees from the Defendants, he is sympathetic to Frank's
frustration with the Plaintiffs' engineering of a device to evade
review under Rule 23 and the spirit of Walgreen.  But the fact
that the Plaintiffs' have dismissed their class claims without
prejudice, and that the Defendants have already reached an
agreement with their counsel, makes it difficult (if not
impossible) to see how the case remains within the ambit of Rule
23, or any other authority of the Court.

With respect to Frank's request for the Court to order
disgorgement of the attorneys' fees under its inherent authority
to address abuse of the judicial process, Judge Durkin does not
perceive a basis to take the extraordinary remedy of disgorgement.
Neither has Frank identified one.

For these reasons, the Judge denied without prejudice Frank's
motions to intervene and to consolidate.  Because the parties'
briefs on Frank's motion to intervene were focused on the Court's
subject matter jurisdiction and contributed little to the Court's
understanding of Frank's potential interest in this case; and
because the Court is concerned with Berg's apparent success in
evading the requirements of Rule 23, and takes seriously Frank's
contention that this case, although brought in the name of Akorn's
shareholders, actually serves to injure their interests (if only
derivatively); Judge Durlin granted Frank leave to refile his
motion to intervene (and motion to consolidate) by Dec. 8, 2017.

He directed that should Frank refile his motion, it should focus
on the issues identified by the Court in the Opinion regarding his
interest in this case generally.  Should Frank refile his motion,
Berg's opposition is due Dec. 22, 2017, and Frank's reply is due
Jan. 8, 2018.  If Frank does not file a motion by Dec. 8, 2017,
the Court will consider the case closed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 21, 2017 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/WKZJLw from Leagle.com.

Robert Berg, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher James Kupka --
ckupka@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky.

Robert Berg, Plaintiff, represented by Eric J. O'Bell --
ejo@OBellLawFirm.com -- Gauthier, Houghtaling & Williams, Andrew
Charles Murphy -- acm@ditommasolaw.com -- DiTommaso Lubin, P.C.,
Brian D. Long -- bdl@rl-legal.com -- Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.,
Elizabeth K. Tripodi -- etripodi@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP,
Patrick Doyle Austermuehle, DiTommaso Lubin, P.C., Peter Scott
Lubin -- psl@ditommasolaw.com -- DiTommaso Lubin Austermuehle &
Vincent Louis DiTommaso -- vdt@ditommasolaw.com -- DiTommaso
Lubin, P.C..

Akorn, Inc., Defendant, represented by Alexander Breckinridge, V -
- abreckinridge@joneswalker.com -- Jones Walker LLP, Anthony C.
Porcelli -- aporcelli@polsinelli.com -- POLSINELLI PC, Robert H.
Baron -- rbaron@cravath.com -- CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP, Robert
B. Bieck, Jr., Jones Walker LLP & Sohil M. Shah, Polsinelli, PC.

John N. Kapoor, Defendant, represented by Alexander Breckinridge,
V, Jones Walker LLP, Anthony C. Porcelli, POLSINELLI PC, Robert H.
Baron, CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP, Robert B. Bieck, Jr. --
rbieck@joneswalker.com -- Jones Walker LLP & Sohil M. Shah --
sshah@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli, PC.

Kenneth S. Abramowitz, Defendant, represented by Alexander
Breckinridge, V, Jones Walker LLP, Anthony C. Porcelli, POLSINELLI
PC, Robert H. Baron, CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP, Robert B. Bieck,
Jr., Jones Walker LLP & Sohil M. Shah, Polsinelli, PC.

Adrienne L. Graves, Defendant, represented by Alexander
Breckinridge, V, Jones Walker LLP, Anthony C. Porcelli, POLSINELLI
PC, Robert H. Baron, CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP, Robert B. Bieck,
Jr., Jones Walker LLP & Sohil M. Shah, Polsinelli, PC.

Ronald M. Johnson, Defendant, represented by Alexander
Breckinridge, V, Jones Walker LLP, Anthony C. Porcelli, POLSINELLI
PC, Robert H. Baron, CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP, Robert B. Bieck,
Jr., Jones Walker LLP & Sohil M. Shah, Polsinelli, PC.

Steven J. Meyer, Defendant, represented by Alexander Breckinridge,
V, Jones Walker LLP, Anthony C. Porcelli, POLSINELLI PC, Robert H.
Baron, CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP, Robert B. Bieck, Jr., Jones
Walker LLP & Sohil M. Shah, Polsinelli, PC.

Terry A. Rappuhn, Defendant, represented by Alexander
Breckinridge, V, Jones Walker LLP, Anthony C. Porcelli, POLSINELLI
PC, Robert H. Baron, CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP, Robert B. Bieck,
Jr., Jones Walker LLP & Sohil M. Shah, Polsinelli, PC.

Brian Tambi, Defendant, represented by Alexander Breckinridge, V,
Jones Walker LLP, Anthony C. Porcelli, POLSINELLI PC, Robert H.
Baron, CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP, Robert B. Bieck, Jr., Jones
Walker LLP & Sohil M. Shah, Polsinelli, PC.

Alan Weinstein, Defendant, represented by Alexander Breckinridge,
V, Jones Walker LLP, Anthony C. Porcelli, POLSINELLI PC, Robert H.
Baron, CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP, Robert B. Bieck, Jr., Jones
Walker LLP & Sohil M. Shah, Polsinelli, PC.

Raj Rai, Defendant, represented by Alexander Breckinridge, V,
Jones Walker LLP, Anthony C. Porcelli, POLSINELLI PC, Robert H.
Baron, CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP, Robert B. Bieck, Jr., Jones
Walker LLP & Sohil M. Shah, Polsinelli, PC.

Theodore H. Frank, Intervenor, represented by M. Frank Bednarz,
Center For Class Action Fairness.


AL DAHRA ACX: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, "Avila" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
LUIS AVILA, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AL DAHRA ACX, INC., A
corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No.
BC685992 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 6, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid
wages penalties, injunctive relief, and restitution of all
benefits Defendants have enjoyed from their failure to pay all
wages owed and other violations of the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiffs alleges that Defendants failed to comply with
California labor laws governing the inclusion of bonus pay in
overtime rate calculations, resulting in unpaid overtime wages,
failure to pay all wages due on termination, and failure to
maintain accurate payroll records. These unlawful acts result in
liability for unlawful business practices.

Al Dahra ACX, Inc. supplies forage, roughage, and feed products.
It offers alfalfa hay, timothy hay, Sudan grass, oat hay, Bermuda
products, timothy hay, dehydrated alfalfa, dehydrated rye grass,
rye grass, straw products, pellet products, feed ingredients, and
other grass hay and straw products for dairy, beef, horse, and
camel.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nazo Koulloukian, Esq.
          KOUL LAW FIRM
          3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 761 5484
          E-mail: nazo@koullaw.com

               - and -

          Sahag Maiarian, II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
          18250 Ventura Blvd.
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Telephone: (818) 609 0807
          Facsimile: (818) 609 0892


ALAMO RENT: Faces "Ball" Suit in M. Dist. Florida
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alamo Rent a Car,
LLC. The case is styled John Ball, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Alamo Rent a Car, LLC
a Missouri limited liability company, Enterprise Holdings, Inc.
a Missouri corporation and Enterprise Leasing Company of Orlando,
LLC a Missouri limited liability company, Defendants, Case No.
6:17-cv-02106-GKS-GJK (M.D. Fla., December 8, 2017).

Alamo Rent a Car is a car rental agency in the United States.
Based in Clayton, Missouri, it has branches across North America,
South America, Africa, Europe, and Oceania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Christopher J. Lynch, Esq.
   Christopher J. Lynch, P.A
   6915 Red Road, Suite 208
   Coral Gables, FL 33143
   Tel: (305) 443-6200
   Email: clynch@hunterlynchlaw.com

      - and -

   Edmund A. Normand, Esq.
   Normand Law, PLLC
   62 W. Colonial St., Suite 209
   Orlando, Fl 32814
   Tel: (407) 603-6031
   Email: ed@ednormand.com

      - and -

   Jacob Lawrence Phillips, Esq.
   Normand Law, PLLC
   62 W. Colonial St., Suite 209
   Orlando, Fl 32814
   Tel: (407) 403-6031
   Email: jacob@ednormand.com


ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Faces "Fligmman" Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alltran Financial,
LP. The case is styled Lea Fligman, on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. Alltran
Financial, LP formerly known as: United Recovery Systems, L.P.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07176 (E.D. N.Y., December 8, 2017).

Alltran Financial is a debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
   Adam J. Fishbein, P.C.
   735 Central Avenue
   Woodmere, NY 11598
   Tel: (516) 668-6945
   Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


ALTERRA GROUP: "Shevchuk" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
ULYANA SHEVCHUK, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ALTERRA GROUP, LLC d/b/a ALTERRA HOME
LOANS, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02922-APG-PAL (D. Nev.,
Nov. 21, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant hired Plaintiff and
others similarly situated to provide assistance to customers with
applying for and processing home loans. The Plaintiff worked for
Defendant from June 1, 2015 through January 25, 2017. The
Plaintiff and others similarly situated are required to arrive at
Defendant's place of business and perform services, including, but
not limited to, assist customers with applying for and processing
home loans. The Plaintiff and the class worked well over 40 hours
per week. Typically, Plaintiff worked above 45 hours per week
without being paid proper overtime compensation.

Alterra Group offers home loan and mortgage services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Leon Greenberg, Esq.
          Dana Sniegocki, Esq.
          LEON GREENBERG PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          2965 South Jones Blvd - Suite E3
          Las Vegas, NV 89146
          Telephone: (702) 383 6085
          Facsimile: (702) 385 1827
          E-mail: leongreenberg@overtimelaw.com;
                  dana@overtimelaw.com


ANAYA'S CUTTING: Fails to Pay for All Hours Worked, Araujo Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANDRES ARAUJO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ANAYA'S CUTTING, INC., a California
Corporation; MARTIN ANAYA, an individual; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC684452 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov.
21, 2017), alleges that the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees have not been paid, during the relevant liability
periods, wages for all time worked, including overtime wages, as a
result of, including but not limited to, maintaining a policy
whereby each week, Plaintiff and the Class Members were paid for
all regular time worked up to 40 hours per week via paycheck and
was paid cash for any hours worked in excess of 40 hours per work.
Often times the cash payments did not compensate the class members
for the actual overtime hours they worked. From
July 2, 2017 through August 24, 2017, Plaintiff was paid entirely
in cash, and was not compensated for all hours worked. The
Defendants also rounded the time on Plaintiff and another
employees timecards thereby reporting less hours than was actually
worked before clocking out.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer F. Hooshmand, Esq.
          Devon M. Lyon, Esq.
          LYON LEGAL, P.C.
          2698 Junipero Ave., Suite 201A
          Signal Hill, CA 90755
          Telephone: (562) 216 7382
          Facsimile: (562) 216 7385
          E-mail: d.lyon@lyon-legal.com
                  j.hooshmand@lyon-legal.com


ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MD: Impact Fee Refunds Order Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HALLE DEVELOPMENT, INC. et al., v. ANNE ARUNDEL
COUNTY, Case No. 1299 (Md. Spec. App.), Judge Robert A. Zarnoch of
the U.S. Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed the
district court's judgment for the County to award counsel fees in
the amount of 39% of the $1,342,360 in refunds plus 5% interest on
each refund, and from that 39%, the County was ordered to pay
Greiber 67.6% and Phillip F. Scheibe 32.4%, but withhold 20% of
Scheibe's fee to the benefit of those entitled to a refund.

The case began in February of 2001 when the Appellees filed a
class action complaint in the circuit court on behalf of all
current owners of real property located within the boundaries of
Anne Arundel County.  The class action grew out of the County's
unlawful retention of development impact fees from property owners
in the County between 1988 and 1996.  The property owners' action
to recover refunds of impact fees has spanned more than 16 years,
resulting in numerous orders of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel
County and appellate opinions from the Court and the Court of
Appeals.

The circuit court initially dismissed the complaint, finding the
property owners failed to exhaust their administrative remedies,
but the Court reversed that decision on appeal.  There, it held
that the Appellants could maintain an action in assumpsit due to
the absence of an effective administrative remedy following the
County's failure to publish a refund notice.  On remand, the
circuit court conditionally certified the class action pursuant to
Md. Rule 2-231(b)(3).

On Dec. 15, 2006, the circuit court issued its decision on the
merits, finding that $4,719,359 in refunds were due to the current
owners of specified fee-paying properties, with 5% interest from
the date of each initial fee's payment.  The court included fees
collected in 1988 through 1996.  On appeal, the County argued that
the circuit court erred by refusing to permit the County to count
the encumbrances in calculating the refund.

In its Feb. 7, 2008 opinion and May 7, 2008 supplemental opinion,
the Court held that the circuit erred by excluding fees that were
encumbered within six years following collection.

The County petitioned and the Plaintiffs cross-petitioned for
review by the Court of Appeals, which issued its opinion May 6,
2009.  The Court, however, declined to review issues, and its
prior holdings became the law of the case.  Thereafter, the Court
affirmed its 2008 decision on all issues on which it granted
certiorari.

On Sept. 15, 2009, the circuit court appointed John R. Greiber as
the lead counsel for the Class and denied Scheibe's Motion to
Strike Greiber as the counsel.  The circuit court allowed Scheibe
to stay on as counsel only for the named class representatives.
Later, he filed a Supplemental Motion to Strike Counsel, which the
circuit court denied on March 2, 2011.

On March 25, 2011, following a 15-day bench trial, the circuit
court issued its order and opinion, finding that property owners
were due $1,342,360 in impact fee refunds, plus 5% interest for
each property owner from the date of each impact fee payment to
the date of the refund.  The circuit court, citing to the Court's
prior opinion as the law of the case, accepted the County's
calculation of fees that were expended or encumbered on eligible
projects.

On July 24, 2012, the circuit court entered its order as a final
judgment, and the property owners appealed to the Court again.  In
its July 29, 2013 opinion, the Court held that the circuit court
did not err or abuse its discretion in entering the March 25, 2011
order.

On May 13, 2014, the circuit court awarded counsel fees in the
amount of 39% of the $1,342,360 in refunds plus 5% interest on
each refund.  From that 39%, the County was ordered to pay Greiber
67.6% and Scheibe 32.4%, but withhold 20% of Scheibe's fee to the
benefit of those entitled to a refund.  On Aug. 8, 2016, following
the circuit court's rulings on various other motions, the court
issued its final order and on Nov. 7, 2016, the County paid as
directed.

On appeal to the Court, Scheibe, as the counsel for appellants and
named class members, challenges the circuit court's determination
of available impact fee refunds and interest, its designation of
Greiber as the lead counsel for the Class and its division of
attorneys' fees.

Judge Zarnoch holds that the circuit court did not err in its
award of $1,342,360 in impact fee refunds and 5% interest per
annum on each refund, or in its designation of Greiber as the lead
counsel for the Class.  Based on an analysis of the same arguments
raised in the appeal, the Court held in its 2013 opinion that the
law of the case doctrine compelled the circuit court to determine
impact fee encumbrances pursuant to our 2008 prior holding.  He
discerns no error by the circuit court.  As there has been no
change in the facts underlying the 2013 opinion, the holding of
the Court that the circuit court did not err in its consideration
of funds that were encumbered within six years following
collection is still the law of the case.  The circuit court,
therefore, did not err in determining that the funds were timely
encumbered, and applying that amount to the sums available for
refund.

The Judge further holds that the Appellants' arguments on the
issues of whether to include encumbrances and how the court must
treat ineligible expenditures, the denial post-judgment interest,
and the court's designation of lead counsel -- all of which the
Court have previously addressed and decided or were not properly
raised in a prior appeal -- are barred by the doctrine of the law
of the case.  It was within the trial court's discretion to
apportion reasonable attorneys' fees in the absence of a written
fee agreement signed by the named class representatives.  The
circuit court engaged in a detailed analysis of the factors listed
in MRPC 1.5(a), and others, to determine a reasonable percentage
of the common fund in counsel fees, and it considered the work of
both Greiber and Scheibe in apportioning those fees between them.
The court's findings were not clearly erroneous.  Accordingly, the
Judge concludes that the circuit court did not abuse its
discretion in awarding a percentage of the common fund as counsel
fees to Greiber as the lead counsel for the class, or in its
division of fees.

Finally, during the course of the litigation, both the County and
the property owners have attempted to go back in time to either
return to arguments previously lost on appeal or to remedy past
procedural failures.  The County, eventually, accepted its fate
and it has complied with the circuit court's final disposition of
the case.  The Appellants, on the other hand, have raised
arguments that the Court has already rejected.  Judge Zarnoch says
the law of the case doctrine bars almost every argument the
Appellants raise in the appeal.  Similarly, the challenge to the
circuit court's division of counsel fees returns to the same
grounds relied on in arguing that the circuit court erred in its
designation of Greiber as the lead counsel, which it addressed in
2013.  For the same reasons the Court has in its prior opinions,
the Judge affirms the order of the circuit court entered on Aug.
8, 2016.

For these reasons, Judge Zarnoch affirmed the judgment of the
circuit court for the County.  The costs be paid by the
Appellants.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 22, 2017 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/j84666 from Leagle.com.


APEX TERMITE: "Silva" Suit Moved to Southern District of Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Alfredo Jose Canizares Silva and
other similarly-situated technicians, the Plaintiff, v. Apex
Termite & Pest Management, Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation and
Lien Zamora, Individually, the Defendants, Case No. 17-025140-CA-
01, was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-
Dade, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida (Miami) on Dec. 4, 2017.  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-24370-KMW to the proceeding. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Kathleen M. Williams.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason Saul Remer, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Court House Tower
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416 5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416 5005
          E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Lawrence Joseph McGuinness, Esq.
          Juliana Gonzalez, Esq.
          MCGUINNESS & GONZALEZ, P.A.
          3126 Center Street
          Coconut Grove, FL 33133
          Telephone: (305) 448 9557
          Facsimile: (305) 448 9559
          E-mail: ljmpalaw@netzero.com
                  juliana_gonzalez@hotmail.com


ASSOCIATES IN GASTROENTEROLOGY: "Smith" Suit Moved to D.S.C.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Ashlee Smith, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Associates in Gastroenterology PA and Berkeley Endoscopy Center
LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2017-CP-40-06035, was removed from
the Court of Common Pleas Richland County, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of South Carolina (Columbia) on Nov. 22,
2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-03179-TLW
to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Chief Judge
Terry L Wooten.

Associates In Gastroenterology is a medical group practice located
in Wexford, PA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Paul Porter, Esq.
          CROMER BABB PORTER AND HICKS
          PO Box 11675
          Columbia, SC 29211-1675
          Telephone: (803) 799 9530
          E-mail: paul@cbphlaw.com

               - and -

          Janet Elizabeth Rhodes, Esq.
          BURNETTE SHUTT AND MCDANIEL PA
          PO Box 1929
          Columbia, SC 29202
          Telephone: (803) 850 0912
          Facsimile: (803) 904 7910
          E-mail: jrhodes@burnetteshutt.law

The Defendants are represented by:

          Charles Edgar McDonald, III, Esq.
          Christopher Ray Thomas, Esq.
          William L Duda, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK AND STEWART
          PO Box 2757
          Greenville, SC 29602
          Telephone: (864) 271 1300
          Facsimile: (864) 242 0037
          E-mail: charles.mcdonald@ogletreedeakins.com
                  christopher.r.thomas@ogletreedeakins.com
                  bill.duda@ogletreedeakins.com


ATLANTA, GA: Faces "Fambro" Wage-and-Hour Suit
----------------------------------------------
Edward Fambro, Michael Holmes and Kimberly Gertman, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated who consent to
their inclusion in a collective action, the Plaintiffs, v. City of
Atlanta, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-04960-WSD (N.D. Ga., Dec.
6, 2017), alleges that the City failed to compensate Plaintiffs
and other similarly situated employees in the City's Corrections
Department for accrued compensatory time upon their separation
from employment.  The City also failed to compensate them for
overtime after their comp time accruals reached 480 hours. The
City periodically and unlawfully truncated the compensatory
accruals of the class.

The Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a collective of similarly
situated individuals, to wit, "All persons who the City of Atlanta
employed in the City's Corrections Department in the three years
prior to December 6, 2017, who were awarded compensatory time in
lieu of overtime, and who consent in writing to their inclusion in
a collective action."

Atlanta is the capital of the U.S. state of Georgia. It played an
important part in both the Civil War and the 1960s Civil Rights
Movement. Atlanta History Center chronicles the city's past, and
the Martin Luther King Jr. National Historic Site is dedicated to
the African-American leader's life and times.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin D. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Esq.
          Charles R. Bridgers, Esq.
          DELONG, CALDWELL, BRIDGERS,
          FITZPATRICK, BENJAMIN, LLC
          3100 Centennial Tower
          101 Marietta Street
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 979-3150
          Facsimile: (404) 979 3170
          E-mail: charlesbridgers@dcbflegal.com
                  kevin.fitzpatrick@dcbflegal.com


ATLANTIC CREDIT: Faces "Vento" Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Atlantic Credit &
Finance, Inc. The case is styled Claudia Vento, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Atlantic
Credit & Finance, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07179 (E.D.
N.Y., December 8, 2017).

Atlantic Credit & Finance purchases and manages unsecured and
consumer-distressed assets. It also purchases various consumer-
distressed asset types, including credit card receivables, retail
credit card receivables, automotive deficiencies, healthcare
receivables, telecommunication receivables, and utilities
receivables.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


AW LINS: Faces "Pillay" Suit over Tip-Pooling
---------------------------------------------
RACHAEL SHIRES and SPENCER PILLAY, Each Individually and on Behalf
of all Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. AW LINS ASIAN
CUISINE DOWNTOWN LITTLE ROCK, LLC, and "ANDY" LIU and "JENNY" LIU,
the Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00771-BSM (E.D. Ark., Nov. 21,
2017), seeks to recover declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and civil penalties and
costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, within the applicable
statutory limitations period as a result of Defendants' failure to
pay minimum wages under the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act and the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Ms. Shires was a server at AW Lins.  Mr. Pillay was a bartender at
AW Lins. They were told they will be paid $2.63 per hour plus
tips, and $5.00 per hour plus tips, respectively, and they have so
far received all of their pay in cash. The Defendants, however,
did not let Plaintiffs keep all of the tips they received. Rather,
when Plaintiffs were hired, they were told that part of their tips
would be collected by management as a part of a tip-pooling
arrangement. The tips collected were distributed to other AW Lins
employees such as busboys and servers, but was also distributed to
employees in management positions. Because Defendants did not
operate a valid tip pool, they were required to pay Plaintiffs and
its other tipped employees at least $7.50 (and $8.50 under state
law) per hour. The Plaintiffs bring this suit individually and on
behalf of all other servers and bartenders employed by Defendants.

The Defendants own and/or operate AW Lins, an Asian cuisine
restaurant in Pulaski County, located at 17717 Chenal Parkway in
Little Rock.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
          Little Rock, Arkansas 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221 0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787 2040
          E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


BEST & CO: "Carranza" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages under Labor Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
Washington Carranza, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Best & Co. Hair Cutters
Ltd., Nubest Personal Fitness Salon, Inc., and Michael Mazzei, the
Defendants, Case No. 716200/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nov. 21, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, maximum liquidated
damages, and attorneys' fees, pursuant to the New York Minimum
Wage Act and New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was paid at his straight
regular rate for overtime hours worked in some weeks during his
employment with Defendants and Plaintiff was not paid for each and
all hours worked in each week during his employment with
Defendants. For example, for the weekly pay period ending October
24, 2015, Plaintiff worked at least 42.75 hours and was paid at
his straight regular rate of $13.40 an hour for each and all of
these 42.75 hours worked. Likewise, for the weekly pay period
ending April 16, 2016, The Plaintiff worked at least 41 hours and
was paid at his straight regular rate of $13.40 an hour for each
and all of these 41 hours worked. Similarly, for the weekly pay
period ending March 11, 2017, Plaintiff worked at least 42.50
hours and was paid at his straight regular rate of $14.50 an hour
for each and all of these 42.50 hours worked.
These examples are reflective of Defendants' payment pattern
throughout numerous weeks of Plaintiff's employment with them.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BNSF RAILWAY: "Gonzales" Suit Moved to E.D. Washington
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Gregory Neal Gonzales,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. BNSF Railway Company, the Defendant, Case No. 17-
00002-51180-11, was removed from the Superior Court of Washington
Franklin County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Washington on Nov. 22, 2017. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 4:17-cv-05193-TOR to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Chief Judge Thomas O. Rice.

BNSF Railway is one of the largest freight railroad networks in
North America, second to the Union Pacific Railroad, and is one of
eleven North American Class I railroads.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          India Lin Bodien, Esq.
          INDIA LIN BODIEN ATTORNEY AT LAW
          2522 N Proctor St No. 387
          Tacoma, WA 98407
          Telephone: (253) 212 7913
          E-mail: india@indialinbodienlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          William Thomas Montgomery, Esq.
          MONTGOMERY SCARP & CHAIT PLLC
          1218 3rd Avenue, Suite 2400
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 625 1801
          Facsimile: (206) 625 1807
          E-mail: tom@montgomeryscarp.com


BNSF RAILWAY: "Sumlin" Suit Moved to Central Dist. of California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Henry Sumlin and Brian Lee,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. BNSF Railway Company and Does 1-10, the Defendants,
was removed from the San Bernardino Superior Court, CIVDS1721925,
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Eastern Division - Riverside) on Nov. 22, 2017. The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:17-cv-02364-JFW-KK to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge John F. Walter.

BNSF Railway is one of the largest freight railroad networks in
North America, second to the Union Pacific Railroad, and is one of
eleven North American Class I railroads.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Craig J Ackermann, Esq.
          Sam Vahedi, Esq.
          ACKERMANN AND TILAJEF PC
          1180 South Beverly Drive Suite 610
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          Telephone: (310) 277 0614
          Facsimile: (310) 277 0635
          E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com


               - and -

          David S Winston, Esq.
          WINSTON LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1180 South Beverly Drive Suite 610
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          Telephone: (424) 288 4568
          Facsimile: (424) 532 4062
          E-mail: david@employmentlitigators.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
          MELMED LAW GROUP PC
          1180 South Beverly Drive Suite 610
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          Telephone: (310) 824 3828
          Facsimile: (310) 862 6851
          E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com

Attorneys for BNSF Railway Company:

          Amanda Pade Ellison, Esq.
          Koree Blyleven, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          555 S Flower Street 50th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 489 3939
          Facsimile: (213) 243 2539
          E-mail: apade@jonesday.com
                  kblyleven@jonesday.com


BONNEVILLE BILLING: "Zachary" Suit Moved to District of Idaho
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Lehmkuhl Zachary, individually,
and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Bonneville Billing and Collections, Inc., a Utah Corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. CV-17-00776, was removed from the Seventh
Judicial District for Madison County, to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Idaho (Pocatello - Eastern) on Dec. 7, 2017.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:17-cv-00503-DCN to
the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge David C.
Nye.

Bonneville Billing is a collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan Adam Ballard, Esq.
          Ballard Law, PLLC
          237 N. 2nd East, Suite 102
          Rexburg, ID 83440
          Telephone: (208) 359 5532
          E-mail: ryanballardlaw@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Donald J Farley, Esq.
          POWERS TOLMAN FARLEY, PLLC
          345 Bobwhite Court, Ste. 150
          P. O. Box 9756
          Boise, ID 83707
          Telephone: (208) 577 5100
          Facsimile: (208) 577 5101
          E-mail: djf@powerstolman.com


BRISK AIR: "Loya" Suit Moved to Southern District of Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled MARK A LOYA, individually and for
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BRISK AIR, INC.,
a Florida profit corporation and ANDY ANDRES, individually,
Defendants, Case No. CACE 17-018981, was removed from the 17th
Judicial Circuit for Broward County, Florida, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida (Ft Lauderdale) on Nov.
21, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:17-cv-
62289-FAM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Federico A. Moreno.

Brisk Air offers residential and commercial HVAC repair service
serving the Phoenix, Arizona area since 2000.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brody Max Shulman, Esq.
          Jason Saul Remer, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Courthouse Tower
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416 5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416 5005
          E-mail: bshulman@rgpattorneys.com
                  jremer@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          M. Benjamin Murphey, Esq.
          LAWLOR WHITE & MURPHEY, LLP
          2211 Davie Blvd.
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33312
          Telephone: (954) 525 2345
          Facsimile: (954) 730 8908
          E-mail: bmurphey@lwmlegal.com


BULTHAUP CORP: Faces "Matzura" Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bulthaup
Corporation. The case is styled as Steven Matzura and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bulthaup
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-09669 (S.D. N.Y.,
December 8, 2017).

Bulthaup offers kitchen and living space systems with which you
can design your living space to suit your needs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
   The Law Office of Justin A. Zeller, P.C.
   277 Broadway, Suite 408
   New York, NY 10007
   Tel: (212) 229-2249
   Fax: (212) 229-2246
   Email: Jazeller@zellerlegal.com


BURBANK MANAGEMENT: Terrell Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
JAKE D. TERRELL, an individual, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BURBANK MANAGEMENT GROUP,
INC.; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No.
BC684565 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 27, 2017), seeks to recover all
unpaid wages due at the time of termination or resignation to
Plaintiff and the Proposed Class under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, for at least four years prior to the
filing of this action and continuing to the present, the Defendant
has had a consistent policy of failing to inform Proposed Class
Members of their right to take meal periods by way of a lawful
policy and requiring Proposed Class Members within the State of
California, including Plaintiff, to work at least five hours
before receiving a meal period and failing to pay the employees
one hour of pay at the employees' regular rate of compensation for
each workday that the meal period was provided after five hours,
as required by California state wage and hour laws.

For at least four years prior to the filing of this action and
continuing to the present, Defendant has had a consistent policy
of failing to inform Proposed Class Members of their right to take
rest periods by way of a lawful policy and of failing to provide
Proposed Class Members within the State of California, including
Plaintiff, rest periods of at least 10 minutes per four hours
worked or major fraction thereof and failing to pay such employees
one hour of pay at the employee's regular rate of compensation for
each workday that the rest period was not provided, as required by
California state wage and hour laws.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Darren M. Cohen, Esq.
          KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
          16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 990 8300
          Facsimile: (818) 990 2903
          E-mail: dcohen@kingsleykingsley.com


BURLINGTON COAT: "Knight" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Omar Knight, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Burlington Coat Factory Direct
Corporation, and New Beginnings Commercial/Residential Cleaning
Plus, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 716248/2017 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Nov. 22, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages under the New York
Labor Law.

The Plaintiff alleges pursuant to the NY Civil Practice Law and
Rules 901, on behalf of himself and a class of other similarly-
situated current and former employees who were employed by
Defendants, individually and/or jointly, within the six-year
period preceding the filing of this action to the date of
disposition of this action, that he and they: 1) were paid an
hourly rate less than or equal to the applicable New York State
minimum wage rate; and 2) worked a spread of hours of more than 10
hours in a day; that he and they are entitled to an extra hour of
pay for each such day pursuant to New York Minimum Wage Act and
the regulations thereunder including 12 NYCRR.

The Plaintiff further complains under Civil Practice Law and
Rules, on behalf of himself and a class of other similarly
situated current and former hourly employees who worked for
Defendants as manual workers and who: 1) were employed by
Defendants within the State of New York as manual workers; 2)
entitled to maximum liquidated damages and interest for being paid
overtime wages and non-overtime wages later than weekly; and 3)
entitled to costs and attorneys' fees, pursuant to the
New York Labor Law; as well as an injunction prohibiting
Defendants from continuing to violate the weekly payment
requirement for manual workers set forth in NYLL.

Burlington Coat Factory -- http://www.BurlingtonCoatFactory.com/-
- is an American national off price department store retailer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


C. TECH COLLECTIONS: Faces "Cammy" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against C. tech Collections,
Inc. The case is styled Morris Cammy, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. C. tech Collections, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07175 (E.D. N.Y., December 8, 2017).

C. Tech Collections is a debt collection agency located in Mount
Sinai, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CALIBER HOLDINGS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage & OT, Moorehead Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
LANCE MOOREHEAD, Individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, known and unknown, the Plaintiff, v. CALIBER
HOLDINGS CORPORATION d/b/a CALIBER COLLISIONS CENTERS, CALIBER
COLLISIONS, and CALIBER COLLISIONS EXPRESS, the Defendants, Case
No. 5:17-cv-01308-F (W.D. Okla., Dec. 5, 2017), seeks to recover
minimum wages and overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Defendant is aware or should be aware
that federal law requires it to pay all employee full minimum wage
and overtime wages for all hours over 40 worked in any work week.
The Plaintiff is similarly situated to Defendant's other employees
undertaking class duties because those employees were also paid in
violation of the FLSA and subjected to Defendant's illegal policy
or practice of failing to pay Plaintiff a minimum wage for hours
worked; and failing to pay Plaintiff overtime for all hours worked
over 40 in a workweek.

Caliber Holdings Corporation operates as a holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, provides auto repair services
such as paintless dent repair, auto glass, and vehicle reassembly,
as well as offers car rentals, insurance, towing, and warranty
services. Caliber operates throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacque Pearsall, Esq.
          2548 NW Expressway, Suite 102
          Oklahoma City, OK 73112
          Telephone: (405) 609 6601
          Facsimile: (405) 673 5785
          E-mail: jacquepearsall@gmail.com


CALIFORNIA OFF TRACK: Faces "Castro" Wage-and-Hour Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD CASTRO, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. NORTHERN CALIFORNIA OFF
TRACK WAGERING, INC., a California corporation, and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. RG17883233 (Cal. Super.
Ct. Nov. 21, 2017), seeks to recover penalties and damages for
Defendants' violations of the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants jointly and severally
have acted intentionally and with deliberate indifference and
conscious disregard to the rights of all employees by failing to
keep accurate records and failing to provide accurate itemized
wage statements identifying all required information, including
without limitation, the address of the employer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William L. Marder
          POLARIS LAW GROUP
          501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
          Hollister, CA 95023
          Telephone: (831) 531 4214
          Facsimile: (831) 634 0333

               - and -

          Dennis S. Hyun, Esq.
          HYUN LEGALM, APC
          515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488 6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488 6554


CALLICO CONSTRUCTION: "Villatoro" Suit Seeks OT Pay under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE A. VILLATORO, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. CALLICO CONSTRUCTION CORP. (d/b/a
CALLICO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY), GLENN J. CANCRO and ALAN CANCRO,
the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-12084 (D.N.J., Nov. 27, 2017),
seeks to recover overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendants. The Callico
Construction Corp. is a construction company owned by Glenn J.
Cancro and Alan Cancro located at 13-15 Wright Avenue No. 15,
Jersey City, New Jersey, 07306-6417.

Mr. Villatoro worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without receiving the appropriate compensation for the hours
over 40 per week that he worked. Rather, Defendants failed to
maintain accurate recordkeeping of his hours worked and failed to
pay Plaintiff additional overtime premium for any hours worked
over 40. Defendants' conduct extended beyond Plaintiff Villatoro
to all other similarly situated employees.

The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring
Plaintiff and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per
week without providing them the overtime compensation required by
federal and state law and regulations.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Sara 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


CAPITAL PAWN: Faces "McCown" Suit over Unsolicited Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------------
RUTH MCCOWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. CAPITAL PAWN II OF FLORIDA, a limited
liability company, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00665-UA-MRM
(M.D. Fla., Dec. 5, 2017), seeks to stop Defendant from its
practice of sending unsolicited text messages to cellular
telephones without the recipient's prior express written consent
and to obtain redress for all persons injured by its conduct,
including injunctive relief.

The Defendant operates a chain of retail outlets that sell
previously used item. In order to promote different sales and
promotions, Defendant contacts consumers with solicitation
messages. Unfortunately for consumers, Defendant conducted (and
continues to conduct) a wide-scaling telemarketing campaign that
features the repeated sending of unwanted solicitation text
messages to consumers' cellular telephones without consent -- and
even to those who have demanded that text messages stop -- in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Stefan Coleman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN P.A.
          201 S. Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor
          Miami, FL 333131
          Telephone: (888) 333 9427
          Facsimile: (888) 498 8946


CEDARS SINAI: "Castro" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA CASTRO, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated,
and the general public, the Plaintiff, v. CEDARS SINAI HEALTH
SYSTEM, a California corporation; CEDARS SINAI MEDICAL CENTER, a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. BC684388 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 22, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid wages, restitution, and related relief
under the California Labor Law.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to provide her and
all other similarly situated individuals with meal periods, failed
to provide them with rest periods, failed to pay premium wages for
missed meal and/or rest periods, failed to pay them for all hours
worked, failed to pay overtime wages at the correct rate, failed
to pay double time wages at the correct rate, failed to provide
them with accurate written wage statements, and failed to timely
pay them all of their final wages following separation of
employment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          H. Scott Leviant, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone (310) 888 7771
          Facsimile (310) 888 0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                  scott@setarehlaw.com


CENTRAL PLUMBING: Faces "Matzura" Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Central Plumbing
Specialties Co., Inc. The case is styled Steven Matzura and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Central Plumbing Specialties Co., Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-
cv-09671 (S.D. N.Y., December 8, 2017).

Central Plumbing Specialties Co., Inc. distributes faucets, sinks,
and fittings.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
   The Law Office of Justin A. Zeller, P.C.
   277 Broadway, Suite 408
   New York, NY 10007
   Tel: (212) 229-2249
   Fax: (212) 229-2246
   Email: Jazeller@zellerlegal.com


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Underpays Help Desk Workers, Briggs Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ISRAFEL BRIGGS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC and TIME
WARNER CABLE SERVICES LLC AS AGENT FOR TWC ADMINISTRATION, the
Defendants, Case No. 716187/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nov. 21, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, attorneys' fees, costs,
and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest under New York Labor
Law.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated nonexempt hourly paid customer service
representatives and help desk leads ("Help Desk Workers") employed
by Time Warner Cable Services LLC As Agent For TWC Administration
("Time Warner") and subsequently by Time Warner and Defendant
Charter Communications, LLC ("Charter") in the State of New York
at any time during the period commencing six years prior to the
filing of this action and continuing until such further date as
the practices complained of are discontinued. The Defendants have
engaged and continue to engage in illegal and improper wage
practices. These practices include: requiring Help Desk Workers to
perform work without compensation during meal breaks; failing to
pay Help Desk Workers overtime of time and one-half their regular
rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a week; and failing to
provide accurate wage statements.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          THE LAW FIRM OF LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C.
          1613 Northern Boulevard
          Roslyn, NY 11576
          Telephone: (516) 625 0105


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: "Tibbetts" Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Adriana Tibbetts and Darryl
Tibbetts, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs. v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants,
Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00968, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Western Division - Los Angeles) on Nov. 22, 2017. The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-08508-R-SK to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Manuel L. Real.

Cheesecake Factory operates restaurants in United States. It also
operates full-service casual dining restaurants in Chicago; Los
Angeles; Las Vegas; Houston; Dallas; Garden City, New York; and
Sunrise, Florida. In addition, the company operates a self-service
limited-menu food service.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph Patrick Fusco, Esq.
          IACONIS FUSCO, LLP
          340 Trinity Place
          Malverne, NY 11565
          Telephone: (516) 535 9295
          Facsimile: (516) 535 9295
          E-mail: jfusco@iaconisfusco.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Louis Smith, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          500 Campus Drive Suite 400
          Florham Park, NJ 07932
          Telephone: (973) 360 7900
          Facsimile: (973) 295 1321
          E-mail: smithlo@gtlaw.com


CJ MAHAN: "Betzner" Suit Moved to Eastern District of Arkansas
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Paul Betzner; Rhonda Betzner;
James Alberson; Tiffani Alberson, as a parent and next friend of
Mattison Jernigan, a minor; Kelley Kelly; Tony Patterson; and
Fredonia, City of also known as: Biscoe, City of on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs v. CJ Mahan Construction
Company LLC, Parsons-Mahan Joint Venture, Parsons Construction
Group Inc., John Does 1-30, and API Equipment LLC, Case No. 59SCV-
17-00038, was removed from the Prairie County Circuit Court, to
the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of Arkansas (Little
Rock) on Nov. 27, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:17-cv-00778-BRW to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Billy Roy Wilson.

Based in Columbus, Ohio, C.J. Mahan Construction Company, LLC is a
heavy-civil and marine contractor with a proven track-record for
success on some of the most challenging and complex infrastructure
projects east of the Mississippi.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John Doyle Nalley, Esq.
          LOVELL & NALLEY
          Post Office Box 606
          Benton, AR 72015-0606
          Telephone: (501) 315 7491
          Facsimile: (501) 778 4979
          E-mail: johndoylenalley@hotmail.com

               - and -

          Mattie A. Taylor, Esq.
          Randall I. Hall, Esq.
          HALL & TAYLOR LAW PARTNERS
          Post Office Box 242055
          Little Rock, AR 72223
          Telephone: (501) 404 2333
          Facsimile: (501) 404 2336
          E-mail: randy@littlerocktriallawyers.com

Attorneys for CJ Mahan Construction Company LLC:

          Scott P. Richardson, Esq.
          MCDANIEL, RICHARDSON, & CALHOUN, PLLC
          1020 West Fourth Street, Suite 410
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 235 8336
          Facsimile: (501) 588 2104
          E-mail: scott@mrcfirm.com

Attorneys for Parsons-Mahan Joint Venture:

          Gary D. Marts, Jr., Esq.
          Stephen R. Lancaster, Esq.
          WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS
          200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3699
          Telephone: (501) 212 1234
          Facsimile: (501) 376 9442
          E-mail: gmarts@wlj.com
                  slancaster@wlj.com

Attorneys for API Equipment LLC:

          Jennifer Cameron Kellett, Esq.
          3010 Goodwyn Green Circle
          Memphis, TN 38111
          Telephone: (901) 490 7456


CLEANSTREET: Fails to Pay All Wages, "Villanueva" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
OSCAR VILLANUEVA, as an individual and on behalf of all employees
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CLEANSTREET, a California
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case
No. BC684440 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 21, 2017), seeks to recover
all Wages including overtime under the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff and Class Members were non-exempt employees covered
under one or more IWC Wage Order(s), and Labor Code section 510,
and/or other applicable Wage Orders, regulations and statutes, and
each Class Member was not subject to an exemption for executive,
administrative or professional employees, which imposed
obligations on the part of Defendant to pay Plaintiff and Class
Members lawful overtime compensation. The Plaintiff and Plaintiff
Class were covered by one or more IWC Wage Order(s), and Labor
Code section 226.7 and other applicable Wage Orders, regulations
and statutes which imposed an obligation on the part of Defendant
to pay Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class rest and meal period
compensation. The Defendant was obligated to pay Plaintiff and
Class Members for all hours worked. However, Defendant had a
policy and practice of not paying Plaintiff and Class Members for
all hours worked by requiring its employees to work off-the clock.
For example, Plaintiff often stayed after his shift ended in order
to assist other drivers with their routes.

Clean Street provides cleaning and sweeping services for
municipalities and private facilities throughout California. It
offers municipal street sweeping, concrete scrubbing-grease
removal, bus stop cleaning, storm water system cleaning, special
event clean-up, sidewalk cleaning, graffiti removal, and business
district.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
          Anna R. Salusky, Esq.
          Katherine J. Odenbreit, Esq.
          Alina B. Mazeika, Esq.
          MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
          249 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 590 5550
          Facsimile: (562) 590 8400
          E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
                  asalusky@mahoney-law.net
                  kodenbreit@mahoney-law.net
                  amazeika@mahoney-law.net


COAST MEDICAL: Deducts $30 from Nurses' Pay, "Sweatt" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOYCE SWEATT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. COAST MEDICAL SERVICE, INC., SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, INC., and DOES 1 to 100, the
Defendants, Case No. BC684665 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 22, 2017),
seeks to recover $30.00 from Plaintiff's pay as a result of
Defendants' violation of the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the class members
worked for Defendants as per diem nurses. The Defendants are
Temporary Services Employers pursuant to Labor Code section
201.3(a). The Defendants assigned Plaintiff and the class members
to work for various hospitals on a day-to-day basis. Plaintiffs
were entitled to payment at the end of each day pursuant to Labor
Code section.  To receive payment at the end of the day,
Defendants deducted $30.00 from Plaintiffs and the class members'
paychecks. The Defendants entered into an employment contract with
Plaintiff on November 22, 2016. The terms of the Travel Agreement
were, in relevant part, that Plaintiff would be assigned to
Southern California Hospital at Culver City for thirteen weeks
between November 28, 2017 and February 26, 2017.

The Plaintiff was terminated from her position before February 26,
2017, in breach of the Travel Agreement after Defendants breached
the Travel Agreement, Plaintiff still continued working as a per
diem nurse. While working as a per diem nurse, Plaintiff was
entitled to payment at the end of each day pursuant to Labor Code,
but Plaintiff was required to acquiesce to a $30 deduction to
receive wages. The Plaintiff notified the Labor and Workforce
Development Agency and Defendants on October 4, 2017 of the intent
to seek PAGA penalties, as required by Labor Code section
2699. Once 65 days have elapsed since the letter was sent,
Plaintiff will amend to request PAGA penalties.

Coast Medical Service is a customer driven healthcare staffing
company focused on per diem and travel nursing opportunities in
Greater Los Angeles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Starr, Esq.
          Adam M. Rose, Esq.
          Theodore R. Tang, Esq.
          FRONTIER LAW CENTER
          23901 Calabasas Road, STE 2074
          Calabasas, CA 91302
          Telephone: (818) 914 3433
          Facsimile: (818) 914 3433
          E-mail: robert@frontierlawcenter.com
                  adam@frontierlawcenter.com
                  theodore@frontierlawcenter.com


CONTINENTAL SERVICE: Faces "Sloan" Suit in C.D. Calif.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Continental Service
Group, Inc. The case is styled Ranisha Sloan, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v Continental
Service Group, Inc. dba ConServe, Defendant, Case No. 12:17-cv-
08885 (C.D. Cal., December 9, 2017).

Continental Service Group, Inc. doing business as ConServe
provides debt collection services to creditors. It specializes in
higher education receivables.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jonathan Aaron Stieglitz, Esq.
   Law Offices of Jonathan A Stieglitz
   11845 West Olympic Boulevard Suite 800
   Los Angeles, CA 90064
   Tel: (323) 979-2063
   Fax: (323) 488-6748
   Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com


CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: "Mazariegos" Suit Moved to E.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Al Mazariegos, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 612524/2017,
was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of NY, County of
Suffolk, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York (Central Islip) on Nov. 27, 2017. The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-06900-ADS-AKT to the proceeding.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Arthur D. Spatt.

Convergent Outsourcing offers business process outsourcing,
revenue cycle, and receivables management services. It also
provides receivables collection services to credit grantors in
retail, telecommunications, and utilities industries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq.
          775 Park Avenue, Ste. 255
          Huntington, NY 11743
          Telephone: (631) 629 7709
          E-mail: mpash@verizon.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          Matthew Brady Johnson, Esq.
          BROCK & SCOTT
          300 Cadman Plaza West
          One Pierrepont Plaza, 12th Fl
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (646) 710 3912
          Facsimile: (813) 438 2282
          E-mail: matt.johnson@brockandscott.com


CRAIG TOOLS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Menchaca Says
-------------------------------------------------------
JOSE ALFREDO MENCHACA, an individual, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CRAIG TOOLS, INC., a
California Corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, the Defendant,
Case No. BC684774 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 28, 2017), seeks to
recover unpaid wages and penalties under the California Labor
Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that, during the four years preceding the
filing of the Complaint and continuing to the present, Defendants
did (and do) business by supplying rotary cutting tools for the
aerospace industry, and employed Plaintiff and other similarly
situated non-exempt employees within Los Angeles County and the
State of California.  The Plaintiff routinely worked in excess of
eight hours per workday, and/or more than 40 hours per workweek,
but did not receive overtime compensation equal to one and one-
half times his regular rate of pay for working overtime hours.
Specifically, Defendants paid Plaintiff non-discretionary
incentive pay, including year-end bonuses based on company
performance and/or other forms of pay not excludable as a matter
of law when calculating an employee's regular rate. Despite
Defendants' payment of Incentive Pay to Plaintiff, Defendants have
failed to include all forms of Incentive Pay when calculating
Plaintiffs regular rate of pay, thereby causing Plaintiff to be
underpaid all of his required overtime wages. Rather, Plaintiff
was only paid one-and-a-half times (or two times in the case of
double-time hours) his base hourly rate, which is not equal to his
regular rate, as Defendants failed to include the various forms of
Incentive Pay earned by Plaintiff during corresponding time
periods that are required to be included in the regular rate, but
were not.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
          Andrew J. Rowbotham, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          2274 East Maple Avenue
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292 2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292 2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
                  fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com
                  arowbotham@haineslawgroup.com


CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Faces "Solano" Suit in N.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Management
L.P. The case is styled Allison Solano, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Credit Management
L.P., Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv-01329-BKS-ATB (N.D. N.Y.,
December 8, 2017).

Credit Management L.P. operates as a receivables management
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Daniel C. Cohen, Esq.
   Daniel Cohen PLLC
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (646) 645-8482
   Fax: (347) 665-1545
   Email: dan@dccohen.com


DITECH FINANCIAL: Court Dismisses "Scally" FDCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Judge William Q. Hayes of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California dismissed without prejudice the case styled
KENDALL SCALLY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. DITECH FINANCIAL, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
16cv1992-WQH-WVG (S.D. Cal.).

On Aug. 9, 2016, Scally initiated the action by filing a class
action complaint against the Defendant alleging causes of action
under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and the
Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("Rosenthal Act").
On Sept. 30, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint
alleging the same causes of action against the Defendant.

On Jan. 26, 2017, the Court issued an Order granting a motion to
dismiss and dismissing the first amended complaint without
prejudice.  The Court concluded that the Plaintiff's claims were
precluded by the Bankruptcy Code because they hinged on
allegations that the Defendant was attempting to collect a debt
previously discharged in bankruptcy.

On May 30, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a second amended class action
complaint against the Defendant.  The Plaintiff again alleges a
cause of action for violations of the FDCPA and a cause of action
for violations of the Rosenthal Act on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated.

On June 13, 2017, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim.  On June 30, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a
response in opposition.  On July 10, 2017, the Defendant filed a
reply.

The Defendant contends that the Plaintiff fails to state a claim
under the FDCPA or Rosenthal Act because the second amended
complaint lacks factual allegations to establish that the debt at
issue is a debt for personal, family, or household purposes.  It
contends that he Plaintiff's claims remain precluded by the
Bankruptcy Code because they are premised on a debt discharged in
bankruptcy.  It further contends that the Plaintiff's claims
should be dismissed with prejudice because they continue to depend
on the legal effect of the discharge of his debt in bankruptcy and
further litigation would be futile and prejudicial.

In the second amended complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that he is
a 'consumer' as the term is defined by 15 U.S.C. section 1692a(3)
and that the Defendant attempted to collect a 'consumer debt' as
the term is defined by the FDCPA and Rosenthal FDCPA.  Judge Hayes
says these statements are legal conclusions insufficient to
establish the nature of the debt.  He concludes that the Plaintiff
has failed to allege sufficient facts to establish that he has
been the object of collection activity arising from a consumer
debt covered by the FDCPA.  Because he fails to state a claim
under the FDCPA, the Plaintiff also fails to state a claim under
the Rosenthal Act.

Judge Hayes therefore granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss
and dismissed without prejudice the second amended complaint.  The
Plaintiff will have 30 days from the date the Order is issued to
file a motion for leave to file an amended complaint.  If the
Plaintiff fails to do so, the Clerk of Court will close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 21, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/NrqF6f from Leagle.com.

Kendall Scally, Plaintiff, represented by Asil A. Mashiri, Mashiri
Law Firm A Professional Corporation.

Kendall Scally, Plaintiff, represented by Babak Semnar --
Bob@SanDiegoConsumerAttorneys.com -- Semnar & Hartman, LLP & Jared
M. Hartman -- jared@sandiegoconsumerattorneys.com -- Semnar &
Hartman LLP.

Ditech Financial, LLC, Defendant, represented by Mathew McKenna
Wrenshall -- mwrenshall@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP & Perry
Anthony Napolitano -- pnapolitano@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP,
pro hac vice.


DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Faces "Morales" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Diversified
Consultants, Inc. The case is styled Karen Morales, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Diversified Consultants, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07173
(E.D. N.Y., December 8, 2017).

Diversified Consultants is a business specializing in accounts
receivable management functions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DYNAMIC LEDGER: GGCC Sues over Initial Coin Offering
----------------------------------------------------
GGCC, LLC, an Illinois Limited Liability Company, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
DYNAMIC LEDGER SOLUTIONS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, TEZOS
STIFTUNG, a Swiss Foundation, KATHLEEN BREITMAN, an Individual,
and ARTHUR BREITMAN, an Individual, the Defendants, Case No. (S.D.
Fla., Nov. 24, 2017), is a securities class action on behalf of
all U.S. investors that contributed the digital currencies bitcoin
and/or ethereum to the Tezos blockchain "Initial Coin Offering"
between July 1 and 14, 2017.

In violation of Sections 5, 12(a)(1) and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933, according to the complaint, the Defendants offered and
sold Tezos tokens without filing a registration statement with the
Securities and Exchange Commission. Tezos tokens are securities.
An ICO is a fundraising mechanism through which the founders of a
blockchain project sell crypto tokens in exchange for the
cryptocurrencies bitcoin and ethereum (aka ether). An ICO is
similar to an Initial Public Offering, but instead of purchasing
shares of a company, investors purchase crypto-tokens that can
later be traded for other tokens or for cash. Based on the
tremendous appreciation of bitcoin and ethereum, investors
generally invest in ICOs with an expectation that the tokens will
appreciate in value.

The Tezos ICO was so "hot" that investors contributed $109 million
worth of bitcoin and ethereum in the first 15 hours.  See
http://bitcoinist.com/drapers-uncapped-tezos-ico-raises-109m-15-
hours/. ICO was the largest in history. Defendants raised the
equivalent of $232 million in bitcoin and ethereum at July 2017
prices. Contributed bitcoin and ethereum have since exploded in
value, and are now worth more than $600 million at November 2017
prices.

The ICO was a boon for Defendants. Defendant Dynamic Ledger
Solutions, Inc. and its shareholders will be paid approximately
$20 million if the (not yet finished) Tezos platform is launched
and stable. The rest of the invested bitcoin and ethereum is owned
by Defendant Tezos Stiftung. The only purported "restriction"
regarding Tezos Shiftung's holding is that it use these monies to
"promote" Tezos. In addition, DLS will receive 10% of all tokens
issued. Tezos Stiftung will receive another 10% of tokens. Yet,
Defendants claim they have no obligation to provide Tezos tokens
to Plaintiff and the Class. Defendants even claim the right to
abandon the project at will and without recourse. It is situations
exactly like this that the federal securities laws are intended to
prevent. The ICO for the Tezos tokens was an illegal offer and
sale of securities for which no registration statement was filed
or then in effect, and as to which no exemption from registration
was available. The ICO was a generalized solicitation made using
statements posted on the Internet and distributed throughout the
world, including in the United States, and the securities were
offered and sold to the general public.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William R. Restis, Esq.
          THE RESTIS LAW FIRM, P.C.
          550 West C St., Suite 1760
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 270 8383
          E-mail: william@restislaw.com

               - and -

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


ELECTRONIC MERCHANT: "Winters" Suit Moved to D. New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled JEFFREY A. WINTERS and COLLECTION
SOLUTIONS, INC., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ELECTRONIC MERCHANT
SYSTEMS, an unincorporated entity; BMO HARRIS BANK, N.A.;
CHESAPEAKE BANK; MERRICK BANK CORPORATION; INDIGO SYSTEMS NJ, LLC;
and DEMETRI PAPAFAGOS, the Defendants, Case No. BER-L-07152-16,
was removed from the Bergen County Superior Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark) on Nov. 22,
2017.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-12003-
CCC-MF to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Claire C. Cecchi.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David M. Hoffman, Esq.
          28 Countryside Drive
          Basking Ridge, NJ 07920
          Telephone: (908) 608 0333
          E-mail: dhoffman@david-hoffman-esq.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christopher Charles Loeber, Esq.
          MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
          Four Gateway Center
          100 Mulberry Street
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 639 7942
          Facsimile: (973) 297 3949
          E-mail: cloeber@mccarter.com


EMERGENCY SERVICES RESTORATION: "Vigers" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage
----------------------------------------------------------------
VACQUES A. VIGERS, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. EMERGENCY SERVICES RESTORATION, INC.,
IMMEDIATE RESPONSE RESTORATION, INC., RESTORATION TRAINING &
TECHNOLOGY, INC., EMERGENCY SERVICE RESTORATION OF TEXAS,
INC., EMERGENCY CONSTRUCTION REPAIR SERVICES, INC., DOES NOS.
1 through 10, KASSON DANIEL HARTWELL, in his individual and
professional capacities, and SENDY HARTWELL, in her individual and
professional capacities, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-08482
(C.D. Cal., Nov. 21, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage
and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Vigers, on behalf of himself and all current and former
similarly situated Technicians and Helpers employed by Defendants
during the full statute of limitations period. The Defendants, who
refer to themselves as a "Full Service Restoration Company," are a
water damage restoration company that engages in a willful and
deliberate policy and practice of misclassifying the individuals
who perform the work that is at the very heart of their business,
known as Technicians and Helpers, as independent contractors.

The Defendants refer to these Technicians and Helpers as "ESR
Technicians" and require them to drive ESR trucks, wear ESR
specific uniforms, hand out ESR business cards, ESR pamphlets, and
ESR advertisements, and hold themselves out to the ESR customers
and clients that they service as ESR employees.  Indeed, the
customers that these Technicians and Helpers service are strictly
ESR's customers and ESR's clients. The Defendants do not pay their
Technicians any base compensation at all; rather, Technicians
receive only a commission on the jobs they complete for
Defendants' customers and for which Defendants are able to secure
payments from their own customers. Helpers, on the other hand,
receive even less -- they are paid only a flat rate of $500 per
week. However, the relationship between, on the one hand,
Defendants, and, on the other hand, Technicians and Helpers, is
obviously one between employer and employee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (424) 256 2884
          Facsimile: (424) 256 2885
          E-mail: bheikali@faruqilaw.com


EMPIRE INTERNATIONAL: "Paul" Suit Seeks OT Wages under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
YONALDO PAUL, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
9 Freeman Street West Orange, NJ 07052; MICHAEL MCDERMOTT, on
behalf of himself and those similarly situated, 469 River Styx
Road Hopatcong, NJ 07843; and FRED MITCHKO, on behalf of himself
and those similarly situated, 47 Split Rock Road Boonton, NJ
07005, the Plaintiffs, v. EMPIRE INTERNATIONAL, LTD d/b/a
EMPIRE CLS, 225 Meadowlands Pkwy Secaucus, NJ 07094; and
DAVID SEELINGER, c/o EMPIRE INTERNATIONAL, LTD d/b/a EMPIRE CLS,
225 Meadowlands Pkwy Secaucus, NJ 07094, the Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-12012 (D.N.J., Nov. 22, 2017), seeks to recover overtime
wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs seek redress from Defendants' violations of the
FLSA and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law. The Plaintiffs assert
that Defendants failed to pay proper overtime wages to them and
other similarly situated individuals in violation of the FLSA. The
Plaintiffs also assert that Defendants unlawfully diverted and/or
withheld wages from them and other similarly situated individuals.
As a result of Defendants' unlawful actions, Named Plaintiffs and
those similarly situated have suffered damages.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
          Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
          Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
          SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
          1101 Kings Highway N., Ste. 402
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Telephone: (856) 685 7420
          Facsimile: (856) 685 7417


EQUIFAX INC: Court Extends Time to Respond in "Young" FCRA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Fort Myers Division, issued an Order granting Defendant's
Motion for Extension to Time to Respond in the case captioned
KELLY E. YOUNG, Plaintiff, v. EQUIFAX INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-538-FtM-38CM (M.D. Fla.).

Plaintiff Kelly Young filed a complaint against Defendant alleging
negligence and violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Plaintiff's Complaint was one of over two-hundred putative class
action suits filed in the wake of Equifax's data security breach.

Defendant informs the Court that it has consulted with Plaintiff's
counsel, who indicated that Plaintiff does not oppose the motion
so long as the stay is without prejudice to Plaintiff's filing an
amended complaint. To date, Plaintiff has filed no response
opposing Defendant's motion, and the time to do so has now
expired.

Defendant's Motion to Stay or, in the Alternative, for an
Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint with Incorporated
Memorandum of Law is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 16, 2017 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9ydvp2m from Leagle.com.

Kelly E. Young, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Joseph
DeCosta, Holtz Mahshie DeCosta, PA. 1560 Matthew Drive, Suite E,
Fort Myers, FL, 33907

Equifax Inc., Defendant, represented by Melissa A. Campbell --
mcampbell@joneswalker.com -- Jones Walker, LLP.


EQUIFAX INC: "Cuevas" Suit Moved to Central Dist. of California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Maricela Cuevas, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Equifax Inc., a Georgia corporation, and Does 1 through 100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC675172, was removed from the
Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles) on
Nov. 28, 2017.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-
cv-08604-AB-JEM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Andre Birotte Jr.

Equifax Inc. is a consumer credit reporting agency. Equifax
collects and aggregates information on over 800 million individual
consumers and more than 88 million businesses worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas Vincent Girardi, Esq.
          Ashkahn Mohamadi, Esq.
          Christopher T. Aumais, Esq.
          GIRARDI KEESE
          1126 Wilshire Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 977 0211
          Facsimile: (213) 481 1554
          E-mail: tgirardi@girardikeese.com
                  amohamadi@girardikeese.com
                  caumais@girardikeese.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          John R Lawless, Jr., Esq.
          KING AND SPALDING LLP
          633 West Fifth Street Suite 1700
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 443 4355
          Facsimile: (213) 443 4310
          E-mail: jlawless@kslaw.com


EULEN AMERICA: "Pena" Suit Seeks OT & Minimum Wages under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
LISVANI PENA, RENE DIAZ GONZALEZ and all others similarly situated
under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), the Plaintiffs, v. EULEN AMERICA, INC.,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-24265-JEM (S.D. Fla., Nov. 24,
2017), seeks to recover overtime and/or minimum wages for work
performed in excess of 40 hours weekly from the filing of this
complaint back three years under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants willfully and
intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff's overtime wages as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act as Defendants knew of the
overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
recklessly failed to investigate whether Defendants' payroll
practices were in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Defendants remain owing Plaintiff these wages since the
commencement of Plaintiff's employment with Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EVOLUTION HOSPITALITY: Rizo Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------------
ENA MARIA RIZO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. EVOLUTION HOSPITALITY, LLC, a
California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100,
Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC686011 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Dec. 6, 2017), seeks to recover overtime and minimum wages under
the California Labor Code.

The case is a class action, pursuant to California Code of Civil
Procedure, on behalf of Plaintiffs and all other current and
former similarly situated employees employed by or formerly
employed by Evolution Hospitality, LLC and any subsidiaries or
affiliated companies.

According to the complaint, for at least four years prior to the
filing of this action and through to the present Defendants have
had a consistent policy of failing to pay wages, including
overtime wages, to Plaintiffs and other non-exempt employees in
the State of California in violation of California state wage and
hour laws as a result of, including but not limited to,
implementing a practice and/or procedure that unevenly rounds time
worked, thereby depriving employees of overtime and minimum wage
compensation.

Evolution Hospitality manages hotels and resort properties in
major metropolitan markets across the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Nourmand, Esq.
          James A. De Sario, Esq.
          THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
          8822 West Olympic Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 553 3600
          Facsimile: (310) 553 3603

               - and -

          Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq.
          BOKHOUR LAW GROUP, P.C.
          287 South Robertson Boulevard, Suite 303
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 975 1493


EXPEDIA INC: 7th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgments to OTAs
-------------------------------------------------------
In the cases captioned, VILLAGE OF BEDFORD PARK, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, and VILLAGE OF LOMBARD, Plaintiff-Cross-
Appellee, v. EXPEDIA, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees, Cross-
Appellants, Case Nos. 16-3932, 16-3944 (7th Cir.), Judge Sara Lynn
Darrow of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (i)
affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the
online travel agencies ("OTAs") against all but one municipality;
and (ii) reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment
to the Village of Lombard and entered summary judgment entered in
favor of the OTAs.

Thirteen Illinois municipalities assert that the Appellees-Cross-
Appellants, which are OTAs -- Expedia, Priceline, Travelocity, and
Orbitz -- have withheld money owed to them under their local hotel
tax ordinances.  Though each of the 13 ordinances has unique
aspects, all fall into one of three general categories: those that
place the duty to collect and remit the tax on owners, operators,
and managers of hotels or hotel rooms; those that apply to all
persons engaged in the business of renting hotel rooms; and those
that incorporate elements of both.

The municipalities argue that they have been shorted tax revenue
over the years because the OTAs do not remit taxes on the full
price that customers pay.  To illustrate, assume a 5% tax.  If a
customer books a room directly with a hotel for $100 a night, the
hotel collects $5 for taxes and remits that to the municipality.
But if a customer books a room through an OTA for $100 and the
hotel's room rental rate is only $60, the OTA pays the hotel $63
and the hotel remits $3 to the municipality.  The municipalities
seek to collect the additional $2 from the OTAs.  But none of the
municipal ordinances place a duty on the OTAs to collect or remit
the taxes, so the municipalities have no recourse against the
OTAs.

The municipalities filed a putative class action against the OTAs
in state court alleging that they had failed to remit taxes owed
to the named municipalities and others similarly situated in
Illinois.  It was removed to the Northern District of Illinois
under the removal provision of the Class Action Fairness Act of
2005.  The district court denied class certification, but retained
jurisdiction.  After discovery, both sets of parties moved for
summary judgment.  The district court granted the OTAs summary
judgment against all but one municipality.  In turn, the court
granted Lombard summary judgment against the OTAs.  Both the
municipalities and the OTAs appeal the grant of summary judgment
against them.

First, the municipalities ask the Court to certify, pursuant to
Circuit Rule 52(a), four questions to the Illinois Supreme Court:
(i) whether the OTAs are "operators" of hotels or hotel rooms;
(ii) whether the OTAs "own" hotel rooms; (iii) whether the OTAs
are "managers" of hotel rooms; and (iv) whether "gross rental
receipts" refers to the room rate negotiated between the OTA and
the hotel or the full amount the customer pays to the OTA.

Judge Darrow denied the motion to certify.  She says she will not
certify questions when what is required is the exercise of a
court's judgment.  The Judge recognizes that the Illinois Supreme
Court has not ruled on these issues yet, but finds that this is
not a proper case for certification.  The case involves routine
questions of statutory interpretation that the Court is well-
equipped to handle.  After interpreting the meaning of the 13
ordinances, the case merely requires the Court to exercise
judgment as to whether the undisputed facts show that the
ordinances apply to the OTAs.

Turning to the appeal, the Judge finds that seven of the
ordinances place on owners, operators, and managers of hotels or
hotel rooms the duty to collect the tax from a renter and remit it
to the municipality.  Thus, if the OTAs are not owners, operators,
or managers, they have no obligations under these ordinances.  She
agrees with the district court granting the OTAs summary judgment
against the municipalities with these ordinances -- Arlington
Heights, Bedford Park, Oak Lawn, Orland Hills, Orland Park,
Schaumburg, and Tinley Park -- because it found that the OTAs were
not owners, operators, or managers.  She says the district court
granted summary judgment to the OTAs against the municipalities
with this type of ordinance because the OTAs had no duty to
collect or remit hotel occupancy taxes.  That portion of the
decision is affirmed.

Judge Darrow also finds that three of the ordinances -- Rockford,
Willowbrook, and Lombard -- impose a tax squarely on those engaged
in renting hotel rooms or engaged in the business of renting hotel
rooms.  The OTAs are not engaged in the business of renting rooms
and are not subject to these three ordinances.  She affirmed the
grant of summary judgment to the OTAs against Rockford and
Willowbrook.  But as Lombard's ordinance did not specify that the
tax was only on gross rental receipts, the Judge reversed the
district court's grant of summary judgment to Lombard and granted
summary judgment to the OTAs.

Finally, she finds that the last three ordinances are slightly
more complicated, but the OTAs are not required to pay taxes to
the municipalities under any of them.  Des Plaines appears to tax
all persons engaged in the business of renting, leasing or letting
rooms in a hotel or motel.  Warrenville's ordinance similarly
imposes a tax on those engaged in the business of renting, but
places a duty to pay on owners.  Burr Ridge's ordinance includes
language about both engaging in the business of renting and
owners, operators, and managers.  But as the OTAs are neither
engaged in the business of renting nor owners or operators of
hotels, they have no obligations regardless of how these
ordinances are interpreted.  She therefore affirmed the grant of
summary judgment to the OTAs against Des Plaines, Warrenville, and
Burr Ridge.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 22, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/4Yuoa3 from Leagle.com.

William Q. Bird, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Albert L. Hogan, III -- al.hogan@skadden.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

Elizabeth Brooke Herrington -- beth.herrington@morganlewis.com --
for Defendant-Appellee.

Mark P. Rotatori -- mprotatori@jonesday.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

Allyson Newton Ho, for Defendant-Appellee.

Dominick L. Lanzito -- dlanzito@pjmlaw.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellant.

Mark Jacob Altschul, for Defendant-Appellee.

Paul O'Grady -- pogrady@pjmlaw.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Marcella Louise Lape -- marcella.lape@skadden.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Randolph K. Herndon -- randolph.herndon@skadden.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Brian S. Stagner -- brian.stagner@kellyhart.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

Judd Edward Stone, II -- judd.stone@morganlewis.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Kristen L. Beightol -- kristen@rl-law.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellant.

Robert K. Finnell, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

John W. Crongeyer, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Paul I. Hotchkiss, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Michael S. Kzrak -- MSK@CliffordLaw.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellant.

Jennifer J. McGahey -- jmcgahey@bradley.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

Alexandria Seay, for Plaintiff-Appellant.


EYM GROUP: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Johnson" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
SHAKIEMA JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. EYM Group, Inc. and
EYM Pizza of Illinois, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2017L012387
(in the Cir. Ct. Of Cook Cty., Ill., Dec. 6, 2017), seeks to
recover wages for all hours worked including overtime wages
pursuant to the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Wage
Payment and Collection Act.

The Defendants have further violated the Illinois Whistleblower
Act by terminating Plaintiff for "whistleblowing" on Defendants'
illegal activity. Lastly, Defendants have violated Illinois state
law by terminating Plaintiff's employment for filing a lawsuit
against Defendants.

The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class defined as follows: all
former and current, non-exempt EYM Group and EYM Pizza employees
in Illinois, who were compensated on an hourly basis, and who were
and continue to be denied wages for all hours worked, including
overtime wages, due to them under the IMWL and IWPCA at any time
within the applicable limitations period and continuing through
the present.

EYM Group was founded in 2008 and is a multi-brand franchisee
company of over 100 Denny's and Burger King restaurants in six
states.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Uche O. Asonye, Esq.
          Adrian Jonak, Esq.
          ASONYE & ASSOCIATES
          100 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2115
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 795 9110
          E-mail: uasonye@aa-law.com
                  ajonak@aa-law.com


FEDEX FREIGHT: "Pina" Suit Moved to Southern District of Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Guillermo Pina, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Fedex
Freight, Inc., Case No. 17-24807-CA, was removed from the 11th
Judicial Circuit Court in Miami Dade, Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami) on
Nov. 27, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-
24274-FAM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Federico A. Moreno.

FedEx Freight provides less-than-truckload transportation
services. FedEx Freight Inc. was formerly known as Fedex Freight
East, Inc. The company was founded in 1982 and is based in
Harrison, Arkansas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nathaly Lewis, Esq.
          Peter Michael Hoogerwoerd, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE PLLC
          44 West Flagler Street, SUITE 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416 5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416 5005
          E-mail: nl@rgpattorneys.com
                  pmh@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Meagan Leigh Martin, Esq.
          Joyce Ackerbaum Cox, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP
          200 South Orange Avenue, Suite 2300
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 649 4000
          Facsimile: (407) 841 0168
          E-mail: mmartin@bakerlaw.com
                  jacox@bakerlaw.com


FIRST CENTURY: Court Compel Arbitration in "Oliver"
---------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California issued an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Compel
Arbitration in the case captioned ANTHONY OLIVER, Plaintiff, v.
FIRST CENTURY BANK, N.A., and STORED VALUE CARDS, INC. (d/b/a NUMI
FINANCIAL), Defendants, Case No. 17cv620-MMA (KSC) (S.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff was once again detained at the county jail, forced to
deposit his cash into an ATM at the jail, and received a pre-paid
debit card upon release.  Plaintiff was charged similar
transaction/service fees for withdrawing funds, as well as a
weekly maintenance fee.  Based on these allegations, Plaintiff
brings individual and class claims against Defendants pursuant to
42 U.S.C. Section 1983, California Business and Professions Code
Section 17200 and common law.

The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) provides that a written
provision in a contract evidencing a transaction involving
commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising
out of such contract shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable,
save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the
revocation of any contract.

The key issue as framed by the parties is whether a valid
agreement exists between the parties to arbitrate disputes arising
out of Plaintiff's use of the release cards. However, a close
reading of the arbitration provision demonstrates that this is a
question delegated in the agreement to the arbitrator.

Here, the delegation clause clearly and unmistakably demonstrates
an intent to arbitrate arbitrability, and Plaintiff does not
contest the validity of the delegation provision in particular.
In fact, he does not mention it at all in his opposition to the
motion to compel.  As such, the Court "must treat it as valid
under Section 2 of the FAA, and must enforce it under Sections 3
and 4, leaving any challenge to the validity of the Agreement as a
whole for the arbitrator."

Accordingly, the Court grants Defendant's motion to compel
arbitration and stays the action.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 16, 2017 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7wgla3e from Leagle.com.

Anthony Oliver, Plaintiff, represented by James A. Tabb --
jimmy@zaveritabb.com -- Zaveri Tabb, APC.

Anthony Oliver, Plaintiff, represented by Yevgeniy Y. Turin --
eturin@mcgpc.com -- McGuire Law, P.C., pro hac vice.

First Century Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by John R.
Heisner, Sullivan Hill Lewin Rez and Engel. 550 West C Street15th
Floor San Diego, CA 92101

Stored Value Cards, Inc., Defendant, represented by George F.
Verschelden -- george.verschelden@stinson.com -- Stinson Leonard
Street LLP, pro hac vice, John R. Heisner, Sullivan Hill Lewin Rez
and Engel & Rafael Francisco Bonilla --
rbonilla@heisneralvarez.com -- Heisner Alvarez.


FRANKLIN COUNTY, PA: Cmmw. Court Ruling in Privacy Suit Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled JOHN DOE 1, JOHN DOE 2, JOHN DOE 3 AND JANE DOE
1, Appellees, v. FRANKLIN COUNTY, FRANKLIN COUNTY SHERIFF'S
OFFICE, FRANKLIN COUNTY SHERIFF DANE ANTHONY AND EMPLOYEE
JOHN/JANE DOES, Appellants, Case No. 120 MAP 2016 (Pa.), Judge
Kevin M. Dougherty of the U.S. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania for
the Middle District reversed the decision of the Commonwealth
Court and remanded for reinstatement of the trial court's order
sustaining the preliminary objection dismissing Count III of the
Complaint against Sheriff Anthony.

The Appellees are adult individuals residing in Franklin County,
Pennsylvania, who each applied for a license to carry a firearm
("LTCF") by submitting an application to the Franklin County
Sheriff's Department.  Subsequently, they filed the underlying
eight-count class action complaint against the Appellants,
claiming, inter alia, violations of the confidentiality provision
of Section 6111(i) and seeking damages.

The Appellees alleged they and several other applicants received
notification of the approval, renewal, denial or revocation of
their LTCF applications from the Appellants via postcards sent
through the United States Postal Service, and the postcards were
not sealed in an envelope.  They claimed the information visible
on the postcards included the applicant's name, address and a
statement of the approval, denial or revocation of the requested
license.  The Appellees alleged, inter alia, the Appellants' use
of postcards to notify LTCF applicants of the status of their
applications resulted in the notices being visible to all
individuals processing, mailing and serving the mail, as well as,
to any individual receiving the postcard at the address, who may
or may not be the applicant or license holder.  They claimed these
actions constituted "public disclosure" in violation of Section
6111(i).

Central to the appeal is Count III of the Complaint, in which the
Appellees specifically alleged Sheriff Anthony, in his management
and leadership of the Sheriff's Office, instituted and directed
the disclosure of confidential LTCF application information to the
public, employees of the County and Sheriff's Office not
authorized under the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act ("UFA"),
USPS employees and other third parties at the same address who use
the same mailbox as the LTCF applicant in violation of 18 Pa.C.S.
Section 6111(i).  The Appellants filed numerous preliminary
objections to the Complaint.  With regard to Count III, they
sought dismissal of all claims against Sheriff Anthony on the
basis that he is immune from suit as a high public official for
any actions he took in his official capacity as Sheriff of
Franklin County.

In reaching its conclusion, the trial court held it was not
prepared to deny Sheriff Anthony the absolute immunity the common
law of Pennsylvania affords to high public officials.  It further
opined that had the legislature intended to eliminate high public
official immunity in Section 6111(i), it could have done so "in
language that was clear, specific and unequivocal."  Accordingly,
the trial court sustained the demurrer to Count III against
Sheriff Anthony, ruling he was shielded from liability by high
public official immunity.

On appeal, the Commonwealth Court reversed in part, affirmed in
part and remanded the matter for further proceedings.  Relevant to
this appeal, the Commonwealth Court reversed the trial court's
dismissal of Count III of the complaint against Sheriff Anthony.
The Commonwealth Court first rejected the Appellees' argument that
the trial court should not have reached the issue of immunity
because immunity is a defense which is properly raised in new
matter, and not in preliminary objections.  It thus concluded
Sheriff Anthony was not entitled to high public official immunity
to shield him from suit in the event it is demonstrated his
actions violated Section 6111(i), and the trial court erred in
dismissing Count III of the Complaint on this basis.

The Appellants filed a petition for allowance of appeal and the
Court granted review, limited to the discrete issue of whether the
General Assembly intended to abrogate high public official
immunity when it enacted 18 Pa.C.S. Section 6111(i).  The
Appellants insist the Appellees have failed to demonstrate the
General Assembly intended to abrogate high public official
immunity with Section 6111(i), and the Appellees' argument the
application of immunity is contrary to the public interest would
end all governmental immunity if taken to its logical conclusion.

The Appellees argue the alleged violations of Section 6111(i)
involved here did not take place in furtherance of any important
social purpose, and instead were actually injurious to the public,
as demonstrated by the civil and criminal liability set forth in
the statute for breaches of confidentiality.

Judge Dougherty rejects the Commonwealth Court's expansion of its
reasoning in Gardner v. Jenkins to determine the General Assembly
implicitly abrogated Sheriff Anthony's immunity as a high public
official by including "local government agencies" as potential
defendants in civil suits arising out of violations of Section
6111(i).  The Commonwealth Court's error in applying Title 2's
definitions to the UFA is compounded by the fact the General
Assembly specifically defined the term "sheriff" in the UFA.  As
the General Assembly defined "sheriff" in the UFA, there is no
basis for importing Title 2's definition of "government agency" to
the UFA to determine whether the General Assembly intended to
include sheriffs as potential defendants under Section 6111(i).

Furthermore, the Commonwealth Court correctly determined the
General Assembly expressly waived immunity for lawsuits arising
out of improper tapping fees by providing the following language
in the Municipal Authorities Act that any person questioning the
reasonableness or uniformity of a rate fixed by an authority may
bring suit against the authority in the court of common pleas of
the county where the project is located.  The statute included
clear and unequivocal language waiving governmental immunity and
providing an explicit statutory basis for suit specifically
against the authority.  The General Assembly did not provide such
a clear and unequivocal basis for suit specifically against the
sheriff when it enacted Section 6111(i) of the UFA.

The Judge declines to hold the General Assembly implicitly
abrogated immunity for the sheriff through the use of general,
undefined terms.  He recognizes permitting such implicit
abrogation of high public official immunity would undermine the
purpose and goal of the doctrine, the value of which has been
consistently upheld and recognized by the Court.

Judge Dougherty therefore holds the General Assembly did not
specifically and intentionally abrogate high public official
immunity such that Sheriff Anthony may be held liable pursuant to
Section 6111(i).  He further holds the Commonwealth Court erred in
its decision to the contrary, which necessarily involved a finding
of implicit abrogation that is not supported in the law.
Accordingly, he reversed the decision of the Commonwealth Court
and remanded for reinstatement of the trial court's order
sustaining the preliminary objection dismissing Count III of the
Complaint against Sheriff Anthony.  Jurisdiction relinquished.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 22, 2017 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/P70rfV from Leagle.com.

Jessica Sydney Hosenpud -- jhosenpud@laverylaw.com -- Lavery
Faherty Patterson, P.C., for Franklin County, Franklin County
Sheriff's Office, and Franklin County Sheriff Dane Anthony,
Appellant.

Joshua M. Autry -- jautry@laverylaw.com -- Lavery Law, for
Franklin County, Franklin County Sheriff's Office, and Franklin
County Sheriff Dane Anthony, Appellant.

Frank J. Lavery, Jr. -- flavery@laverylaw.com -- Lavery Law, for
Franklin County, Franklin County Sheriff's Office, and Franklin
County Sheriff Dane Anthony, Appellant.

Joshua Garet Prince -- Joshua@PrinceLaw.com -- Prince Law Ofcs PC,
for Jane Doe 1, Appellee.

Joshua Garet Prince, Prince Law Ofcs PC, for John Doe 1, Appellee.

Joshua Garet Prince, Prince Law Ofcs PC, for John Doe 2, Appellee.

Joshua Garet Prince, Prince Law Ofcs PC, for John Doe 3, Appellee.

Bruce Richard Beemer, PA Office of Attorney General, for Attorney
General's Office of Pennsylvania, Amicus Curiae.

Ronald Troy Elliott -- relliott@dmkcg.com -- Dillon McCandless
King Coulter & Graham L.L.P., for The Pennsylvania Sheriffs'
Association, Amicus Curiae.

John Bartley Delone, Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General, for
Attorney General's Office of Pennsylvania, Amicus Curiae.

John G. Knorr, III, Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General, for
Attorney General's Office of Pennsylvania, Amicus Curiae.

Joshua D. Shapiro, Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General, for
Attorney General's Office of Pennsylvania, Amicus Curiae.


GALENA BIOPHARMA: $41K Attys' Fee Awarded in Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE GALENA BIOPHARMA, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION,
Case No.3:14-cv-00367-SI (D. Or.), Judge Michael H. Simon of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon awarded the Co-
Class Counsel 25% of the Gross Settlement Fund, or $41,250, as
attorneys' fee and $30,000 for its expenses and costs.

The Court has granted final approval to the Settlement.  The Co-
Class Counsel, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. and Pomerantz LLP,
appointed by the Court as the Co-Class Counsel for the purposes of
the Settlement, have petitioned the Court for the award of
attorneys' fees in compensation for the services provided to Class
Representatives and the Class along with reimbursement of expenses
incurred in connection with the prosecution of this action to be
paid out of the Gross Settlement Fund established pursuant to the
Settlement.

The Court has reviewed the fee application and the supporting
materials filed therewith, and has heard the presentation made by
the  Co-Class Counsel during the final approval hearing on Nov.
17, 2017, and due consideration having been had thereon.

Judge Simon awarded the Co-Class Counsel 25% of the Gross
Settlement Fund, or $41,250, as attorneys' fees, together with a
proportionate share of the interest earned on the fund, at the
same rate as earned by the balance of the fund, from the date of
the establishment of the fund to the date of payment.  He ordered
that the Co-Class Counsel will be reimbursed out of the Gross
Settlement Fund in the amount of $30,000 for its expenses and
costs.  Except as otherwise provided in the Order, the Judge says
the attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses will be paid in
the manner and procedure provided for in the Stipulation.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 21, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/JPVpCv from Leagle.com.

Michael E. Deering, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey S. Ratliff -
- RGMR1500@gmail.com -- Ransom Gilbertson Martin & Ratliff, LLP.

Michael E. Deering, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy A. Lieberman
-- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Laurence
Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., pro
hac vice, Leigh R. Handelman Smollar -- lsmollar@pomlaw.com --
Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice & Phillp Kim -- pkim@rosenlegal.com --
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., pro hac vice.

Saul Rosenthal, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey S. Ratliff,
Ransom Gilbertson Martin & Ratliff, LLP, Jeremy A. Lieberman,
Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Laurence Rosen, The Rosen Law Firm,
P.A., pro hac vice & Phillp Kim, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., pro hac
vice.

Kisuk Cho, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey S. Ratliff, Ransom
Gilbertson Martin & Ratliff, LLP, Jeremy A. Lieberman, Pomerantz
LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan Horne, The Rosen Law Firm, pro hac
vice, Laurence Rosen, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., pro hac vice,
Leigh R. Handelman Smollar, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Patrick
V. Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice & Phillp Kim, The Rosen
Law Firm, P.A., pro hac vice.

Anthony Kim, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey S. Ratliff, Ransom
Gilbertson Martin & Ratliff, LLP, Jeremy A. Lieberman, Pomerantz
LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan Horne, The Rosen Law Firm, pro hac
vice, Laurence Rosen, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., pro hac vice,
Leigh R. Handelman Smollar, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Patrick
V. Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice & Phillp Kim, The Rosen
Law Firm, P.A., pro hac vice.

Pantelis Lavidas, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey S. Ratliff,
Ransom Gilbertson Martin & Ratliff, LLP, Jeremy A. Lieberman,
Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan Horne, The Rosen Law Firm,
pro hac vice, Laurence Rosen, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., pro hac
vice, Leigh R. Handelman Smollar, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice,
Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice & Phillp Kim,
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., pro hac vice.

Joseph Buscema, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey S. Ratliff,
Ransom Gilbertson Martin & Ratliff, LLP, Jeremy A. Lieberman,
Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan Horne, The Rosen Law Firm,
pro hac vice, Laurence Rosen, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., pro hac
vice, Leigh R. Handelman Smollar, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice,
Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice & Phillp Kim,
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., pro hac vice.

Alan Theriault, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Horne, The
Rosen Law Firm, pro hac vice, Leigh R. Handelman Smollar,
Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice & Phillp Kim, The Rosen Law Firm,
P.A..

Galena Biopharma, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lois O.
Rosenbaum -- lois.rosenbaum@stoel.com -- Stoel Rives LLP & Paul R.
Bessette -- pbessette@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding LLP, pro hac
vice.

Mark J. Ahn, Defendant, represented by Ada Fernandez Johnson --
afjohnson@debevoise.com -- Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, pro hac vice,
Jonathan R. Tuttle -- jrtuttle@debevoise.com -- Debevoise &
Plimpton LLP, pro hac vice, Kristen L. Tranetzki --
kristen@angelilaw.com -- Angeli Law Group LLC & Scott N. Auby,
Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, pro hac vice.

Ryan M. Dunlap, Defendant, Pro Se.

Mark W. Schwartz, Defendant, Pro Se.

Michael McCarthy, Defendant, represented by Jacob S. Frenkel --
jfrenkel@dickinson-wright.com -- Dickinson Wright PLLC, pro hac
vice, James T. McDermott -- jmcdermott@balljanik.com -- Ball
Janik, LLP, Russell D. Duncan -- rduncan@shulmanrogers.com --
Shulman, Rogers, Gandal, Pordy & Ecker, P.A., pro hac vice &
Ciaran Patrick Ahern Connelly -- cconnelly@balljanik.com -- Ball
Janik, LLP.

Kamilla Bjorlin, Defendant, represented by Edward Gartenberg --
egartenberg@gghslaw.com -- Gartenberg Gelfand Hayton LLP, pro hac
vice.

Richard Chin, Defendant, represented by Robert L. Aldisert --
RAldisert@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie, LLP.

Rudolph Nisi, Defendant, represented by Robert L. Aldisert,
Perkins Coie, LLP.

Stephen Galliker, Defendant, represented by Robert L. Aldisert,
Perkins Coie, LLP.

Sanford Hillsberg, Defendant, represented by Robert L. Aldisert,
Perkins Coie, LLP.

The Cho Group, Movant, represented by Phillp Kim, The Rosen Law
Firm, P.A. & Jeffrey S. Ratliff, Ransom Gilbertson Martin &
Ratliff, LLP.

Galena Investor Group, Movant, represented by Daniel H. Skerritt -
- dan.skerritt@tonkon.com -- Tonkon Torp LLP.


GAP INC: "Coladonato" Suit Moved to New Jersey Federal Court
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled CARON COLADONATO, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE
GAP, INC., GAP (APPAREL) LLC, GAP INTERNATIONAL SALES, INC.,
BANANA REPUBLIC, LLC, and BANANA REPUBLIC (APPAREL) LLC, Case No.
CAM L 003932 17, was removed from the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Camden County, to the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey (Camden) on Nov. 22, 2017. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-11998-JHR-KMW to the proceeding. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Joseph H. Rodriguez.

Gap, Inc., commonly known as Gap Inc. or Gap, is an American
worldwide clothing and accessories retailer. It was founded in
1969 by Donald Fisher and Doris F. Fisher and is headquartered in
San Francisco, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen Patrick Denittis, Esq.
          DENITTIS OSEFCHEN, PC
          5 Greentree Centre
          525 Route 73 North, Suite 410
          Marlton, NJ 08053
          Telephone: (856) 797 9951
          Facsimile: (856) 797 9978
          E-mail: sdenittis@denittislaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kristin Mckeon Hadgis, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS BOCKIUS LLP
          1701 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 963 5563
          E-mail: kristin.hadgis@morganlewis.com


GEICO GENERAL: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment in Insurance Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida issued an Order granting Plaintiff's Motion for Summary
Judgment in the case captioned A&M GERBER CHIROPRACTIC LLC, a/a/o
Conor Carruthers, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-62610-BLOOM/Valle, (S.D. Fla.).  GEICO's
Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.  GEICO's Motion to
Disqualify Class Representative is denied.

This class action lawsuit seeks a declaration as to the meaning of
a single sentence contained within a GEICO insurance policy as
explained below. Plaintiff is a health care provider that rendered
health care services to Conor Carruthers (Carruthers) for injuries
he sustained in an automobile accident in March of 2015.
Carruthers was insured under a policy with GEICO that provided
personal injury protection ("PIP") motor vehicle insurance
benefits (Policy).

Plaintiff accepted an assignment of insurance benefits under the
Policy signed by Carruthers.  Pursuant to Carruthers's assignment
of benefits, Plaintiff submitted HCFA 1500 forms to GEICO showing
charges for the treatment rendered to Carruthers in the amount of
$60 for CPT code 97110 and $45 for CPT Code 97140.  Both charges
were less than the elected 2015 Medicare Part B Fee Schedule,
which provides the fee for CPT Code 97110 was $33.52 and the fee
for CPT Code 97140 was $30.72.  At 200% of the Medicare Fee
Schedule, this totals $67.04 and $61.44 respectively.

GEICO paid Plaintiff 80% of the billed amount, resulting in
payments of $48 and $36 respectively.  The code BA was listed on
the Explanation of Review and stands for Billed Amount.  This code
is an explanation code generated on Explanation of Review forms
after a particular claim line meeting certain criteria is
processed. In the case of FLPIP (01-13), for example, GEICO issues
a check representing 80% of the billed amount2 and then adds the
BA reason code for that particular line item charge on the
Explanation of Review.

In total, Plaintiff alleges that GEICO paid it $57.00 less than
the Policy required.

GEICO also raises other issues that do not render Plaintiff an
inadequate class representative, such as his purported failure to
inform the Court that he did not submit the assignment of benefits
with the claim. As explained in section III(A)(1) above, the class
definition does not contain such a requirement; therefore,
Plaintiff would not have such an obligation. Other arguments are
that Plaintiff does not maintain adequate medical records as
required by the Florida Administrative Code, that Plaintiff
concocted a scheme to have Harvey A. Frank D.C., P.A. intervene in
the action, and that Plaintiff failed to produce documents at his
deposition.

Addressing each of these in turn, GEICO does not explain how
sloppy record-keeping would disqualify a class representative nor
does it cite any law supporting such a proposition. With regard to
the Motion to Intervene, although Plaintiff did not prevail on
this issue, its position was not frivolous so as to warrant
disqualification. And finally, GEICO faults Plaintiff for not
producing records at the continuation of Dr. Gerber's deposition
on October 31, 2017.

However, the Court's recent Omnibus Order informed the parties
that the remaining discovery was limited to the completion of Dr.
Gerber's deposition.   Given the limited scope of discovery,
Plaintiff had no obligation to bring newly requested documents to
the continued deposition. As such, GEICO's request to disqualify
Plaintiff as a class representative is unavailing.

As the Court previously determined in its Class Certification
Order, Plaintiff's interests appear to be aligned with those of
the class in that GEICO's use of the BA code to adjust claims
applied across the board to Plaintiff and the putative class;
therefore, Plaintiff satisfies the adequacy test of Rule 23(a).

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 20, 2017 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yafk6884 from Leagle.com.

A&M Gerber Chiropractic LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Edward
Herbert Zebersky -- ezebersky@zpllp.com -- Zebersky Payne, LLP.
A&M Gerber Chiropractic LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Mark S.
Fistos -- mark@pathtojustice.com -- Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing,
Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L., Michael Trent Lewenz --
mlewenz@zpllp.com -- Zebersky Payne LLP, Steven R. Jaffe --
steve@pathtojustice.com -- Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos &
Lehrman PL & Todd S. Payne -- tpayne@zpllp.com -- Zebersky &
Payne, LLP.

GEICO General Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Omar
Andres Giraldo -- omar.giraldo@csklegal.com -- Cole, Scott &
Kissane, P.A., Thomas Lee Hunker -- thomas.hunker@csklegal.com --
Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A. & Peter David Weinstein --
peter.weinstein@csklegal.com -- Cole Scott Kissane PA.


GOSMITH INC: Faces "Hobbs" Suit over Spam Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------
KEITH HOBBS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. GOSMITH, INC., and DOES 1-10, and each
of them, the Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-06776 (N.D. Cal., Nov.
25, 2017), seeks to recover damages, injunctive relief, and any
other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the
illegal actions of Defendant, in negligently and knowingly or
willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone,
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby
invading Plaintiff's privacy.

According to the complaint, on September 15, 2017, the Plaintiff
began receiving text messages from Defendant on his cellular
telephone number ending in -7558. During this time, Defendant
began to use Plaintiff's cellular telephone for the purpose of
sending Plaintiff spam advertisements and/or promotional offers,
via text messages.  The Defendant sent Plaintiff text messages
from the shortcode 76484. The Defendant sent text messages to
Plaintiff's cellular telephone soliciting Defendant's services,
and after Plaintiff texted "Stop" to Defendant, it continued to
send text messages.[BN]

GoSmith, Inc. provides home improvement contracting services in
the United States. The company was founded in 2012 and is based in
Sunnyvale, California.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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


GREEN STAR: Faces "Bohlke" Suit over Spam Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT BOHLKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. GREEN STAR CAPITAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, the Defendant,
Case No. 2:17-cv-08546 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 26, 2017), seeks to
recover damages and any other available legal or equitable
remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant, in
negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on
Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, and related regulations, specifically the
National Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby invading Plaintiff's
privacy.

According to the complaint, beginning August of 2017, the
Defendant contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone
number ending in -9695, in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff to
purchase Defendant's services. The Defendant contacted or
attempted to contact Plaintiff from telephone numbers confirmed to
belong to Defendant, including without limitation (561) 479-
8449. In one of Defendant's initial calls to Plaintiff, Plaintiff
requested that Defendant stop calling him. However, Defendant
continued to call Plaintiff against Plaintiff's express request
that Defendant not do so. The Defendant used an "automatic
telephone dialing system" as defined by 47 U.S.C. section
227(a)(1) to place its call to Plaintiff seeking to solicit its
services. The Defendant's calls constituted calls that were not
for emergency purposes as defined by 47 U.S.C. section
227(b)(1)(A). The Defendant's calls were placed to telephone
number assigned to a cellular telephone service for which
Plaintiff incurs a charge for incoming calls pursuant to 47 U.S.C.
section 227(b)(1).

The Defendant did not possess Plaintiff's "prior express consent"
to receive calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or an
artificial or prerecorded voice on his cellular telephone pursuant
to 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A). Furthermore, Plaintiff's
cellular telephone number ending in -9695 was added to the
National Do-Not-Call Registry on or about July 27, 2003. The
Defendant placed multiple calls soliciting its business to
Plaintiff on his cellular telephone ending in -9695 in or around
August of 2017. Such calls constitute solicitation calls pursuant
to 47 C.F.R. section 64.1200(c)(2) as they were attempts to
promote or sell Defendant's services.

The Plaintiff received numerous solicitation calls from Defendant
within a 12-month period. Defendant continued to call Plaintiff in
an attempt to solicit its services and in violation of the
National Do-Not-Call provisions of the TCPA.

Green Star provides business financing to new and established
companies throughout the United States.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          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


GRETNA, LA: Nelson and Richardson Sue over Arrests & Fines
----------------------------------------------------------
TAMARA G. NELSON and TIMOTHEA RICHARDSON, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
BELINDA C. CONSTANT, in her official capacity as Mayor of the City
of Gretna, Louisiana, RAYMOND A. OSBORN, JR., in his official
capacity as Magistrate of the Gretna Mayor's Court, OLDEN C.
TOUPS, JR., in his official capacity as Magistrate of the Gretna
Mayor's Court, WALTER J. LEBLANC, in his official capacity as City
Prosecutor for the City of Gretna, ARTHUR
LAWSON, JR., in his official capacities as Chief of Police and
Marshal, TERRI BROSSETTE, in her official capacities as
Clerk of the Gretna Mayor's Court and Lieutenant of the Gretna
Police Department, and the CITY OF GRETNA, LOUISIANA, Defendants,
Case No. 2:17-cv-14581-ILRL-JVM (E.D. La., Dec. 5, 2017), seeks to
rectify the egregious Due Process and Equal Protection Rights
violations that occur daily in the Mayor's Court of the City of
Gretna, Louisiana.

The Defendant municipal officers of Gretna operate their Mayor's
Court not as a forum for the legitimate adjudication and
resolution of alleged violations of the Gretna Municipal Code but
instead as a major source of revenue for the municipality. The
Gretna Mayor's Court, as its name suggests, is completely under
the control of Gretna's Mayor. The defendants are prosecuted in
the Mayor's Court by a Gretna prosecutor who is appointed by the
Gretna City Council and serves at the pleasure of Gretna's Mayor.
The Magistrates who preside are likewise City of Gretna employees,
appointed by the City Council and serving as judges at the
pleasure of the Mayor. None of these officials are disinterested
and neutral. All of them are incentivized to maximize arrests, to
multiply prosecutions and have the defendants found guilty so that
the Magistrates can assess fines and fees against those
defendants. The fines and fees thus assessed fund the City of
Gretna. In fiscal year 2014-15, fees and fines from the Mayor's
Court accounted for over 13.5% of the total revenue in Gretna's
General Fund -- which in turn funds the operations of the Mayor's
Court and pays the salaries of police, prosecutors and judges.

As the docket of the Gretna Mayor's Court expands so does the
profitability of the Court's operations to the City of Gretna.
Unsurprisingly, there has been an explosion in the number of
misdemeanor arrests and citations by the Gretna Police Department.
A disproportionate number of those arrested are African American
citizens of Gretna. Defendants also operate a Deferred Prosecution
program offering arrestees accused of violating a municipal
ordinance the opportunity to have their charges dismissed in
exchange for an agreement to pay a set fine (typically lesser in
amount than the fine that would be imposed upon a finding of
guilt. There is no deferred prosecution option for those who are
unable to participate in the Deferred Prosecution Program because
they cannot afford to pay the Program's fees. As a consequence,
those found guilty in the Gretna Mayor's Court and sentenced to
pay larger fees and fines are disproportionately the poor and
those least able to pay the levied amounts. If a defendant is
unable to pay his fees and fines, the Clerk of Court relies on the
issuance of attachments, the threat of incarceration, and the
suspension of driver's licenses as a means of debt collection
against the poorest defendants in the system.

In its transformation from a court of law to a business
enterprise, the Gretna Mayor's Court, through the named
Defendants, has routinely violated the Due Process and Equal
Protection rights of those unfortunate enough to appear before
it.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric A. Foley, Esq.
          Katie M. Schwartzmann, Esq.
          RODERICK & SOLANGE
          MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER
          4400 S. Carrollton Ave.
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 620 2259
          Facsimile: (504) 208 3133
          E-mail: eric.foley@macarthurjustice.org
                  katie.schwartzmann@macarthurjustice.org


GUITAR CENTER: Website Inaccessible to Blind, "Andrews" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR ANDREWS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. GUITAR CENTER, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 522736/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nov. 22, 2017), contends that
Defendant is denying blind individuals equal access to the goods
and services Defendant provides to its non-disabled customers
through  http://www.guitarcenter.com/ Plaintiff is a blind
individual. The Website provides to the public a wide array of the
goods, services, price specials, and other programs offered by
Defendant. Yet, the Website contains extensive access barriers
that make it difficult, if not impossible for blind customers to
use the Website. In fact, the access barriers make it impossible
for blind users to even complete a transaction on the Website. The
Website thus excludes the blind from the full and equal
participation in the growing Internet economy that is increasingly
a fundamental part of the common marketplace and daily living. In
the wave of technological advances in recent years, assistive
computer technology is becoming an increasingly prominent part of
everyday life, allowing blind people to fully and independently
access a variety of services, including ordering gift cards
online.

Guitar Center is the largest chain of musical instrument retailers
in the world with 269 locations throughout the United States. Its
headquarters is in Westlake Village, California.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class

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


H MART INC: Faces "Matzura" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against H Mart, Inc. The
case is styled Steven Matzura and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. H Mart, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-09670 (S.D. N.Y., December 8, 2017).

H Mart is an American supermarket chain operated by the Hanahreum
Group headquartered in Lyndhurst, New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
   The Law Office of Justin A. Zeller, P.C.
   277 Broadway, Suite 408
   New York, NY 10007
   Tel: (212) 229-2249
   Fax: (212) 229-2246
   Email: Jazeller@zellerlegal.com


HAPPY CAB: Court Enters Default Judgment in "Knox" FLSA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GLENDA KNOX, on behalf of herself and those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. HAPPY CAB, LLC and STACEY R. DIXON,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-29 (S.D. Ga.), Judge Lisa Godbey Wood
of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia,
Brunswick Division, granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Default
Judgment.

According to the allegations of the Complaint, Knox was employed
by Happy Cab as a dispatcher in St. Marys, Georgia, in Camden
County.  Dixon is a corporate officer of Happy Cab, exercising
operational control over its activities.  As owner and acting
manager of Happy Cab, Dixon has the power to hire and fire Knox,
supervise and control her work schedule, determine her rate and
method of payment, and maintain employment records.  The
Defendants provide a mode of passenger transportation from portal
to portal for patrons for a fee.

The Defendants hired the Plaintiff, and she provided rapid
transportation response to customer requests within a designated
coverage area.  As part of her job, she was required to arrive at
the Defendants' place of business to perform services, including
assisting drivers with directions to customers' pick-up locations
and navigating them through traffic.  The Plaintiff alleges that
she typically worked over 60 hours per week and that she was not
paid minimum wage or overtime.  She worked as a dispatcher for
Happy Cab from May 2016 through November 2016, earning $88 per
day.  The Defendants never paid her at a rate of time and one-half
her regular rate for hours worked in excess of forty in a
workweek, she alleges.

In a putative class action, the Plaintiff brought claims for
violations of the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") against Happy Cab and Dixon under 29
U.S.C. Sections 206, 207.  Knox sued on March 6, 2017.  She issued
Summons to Happy Cab and Dixon on March 7 and 9, 2017,
respectively.

The server verified that he served Dixon on behalf of Happy Cab on
March 11, 2017, at 9:30 a.m. and that he served Dixon personally
at the same date and time.  Dixon is Happy Cab's registered agent
for service.  On May 31, 2017, Knox moved for an entry of default,
which the clerk entered. On July 12, 2017, Knox moved for a
default judgment against Happy Cab and Dixon.

Judge Wood is satisfied that FLSA applies to the Defendants in
their employment relationship with the Plaintiff.  The Plaintiff
has made sufficient allegations to satisfy the requirements.  The
Judge finds that the Complaint alleges that the Plaintiff was
individually engaged in commerce by accepting payments from
customers based on credit cards issued by out-of-state banks,
making and answering phone calls, and working with products from
out-of-state.  It alleges that the Defendants made gross earnings
of at least $500,000 annually.  Knox alleges that the Defendants
had at least two employees engaged in commerce by means of CB
radios and portable payment devices and that she herself was
engaged in commerce by accepting payments from customers based on
credit cards issued by out-of-state banks, making and answering
phone calls, and working with products from out-of-state.

The Judge is also satisfied that the Defendants violated the
minimum wage and overtime provisions of the FLSA by compensating
the Plaintiff at a rate of less than $7.25 and by failing to
compensate her at a rate of one and one-half times the regular
rate for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

For these reasons, Judge Wood granted the Plaintiff's Motion for
Default Judgment is GRANTED, and the amount of damages will be
determined at the Dec. 20, 2017 at 10:00 a.m.  She directed the
Clerk of Court to serve both the Defendants with notice of the
hearing.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 21, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/203hqD from Leagle.com.

Glenda Knox, Plaintiff, represented by C. Ryan Morgan, Morgan &
Morgan, PA.


HEALTH INSURANCE: Faces "Vigorito" Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL VIGORITO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. HEALTH INSURANCE
INNOVATIONS, INC., GAVIN SOUTHWELL, and MICHAEL D. HERSHBERGER,
the Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-02845-SDM-JSS (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 27,
2017), is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired Health Insurance Innovations securities between
August 2, 2017 and September 11, 2017, both dates inclusive.

Health Insurance Innovations operates as a developer, distributor,
and administrator of cloud-based individual health and family
insurance plans, and supplemental products in the
United States. The Company offers, inter alia, short-term medical
plans, hospital indemnity plans, and supplemental insurance
products. It designs and structures individual health and family
insurance plans, and supplemental products on behalf of insurance
carriers and discount benefit providers and market them to
individuals through a network of distributors.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) Health Insurance Innovations' application for a key insurance
license in its home state of Florida was rejected due to the
state's Office of Insurance Regulation's ("OIR") discovery of
undisclosed legal actions against Health Insurance Innovations
insiders; (ii) Health Insurance Innovations warned the OIR of the
anticipated "domino effect" that the rejection was likely to
cause, by which the Company would subsequently lose licenses in
additional states; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Health
Insurance Innovations' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On September 11, 2017, SeekingAlpha.com published an article
reporting on the OIR's June 2017 rejection of Health Insurance
Innovations' application for a "key insurance license in [its]
home state of Florida as [the OIR] uncovers undisclosed legal
actions against HIIQ insiders" and that "HIIQ privately warns of
disastrous domino effect" spreading to other states, causing
additional loss of licenses. HIIQ makes no disclosure to
investors."

On this news, Health Insurance Innovations' share price fell
$6.55, or 21.91%, to close at $23.35 on September 11, 2017.
7. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HF MANAGEMENT: Court Dismisses "Ortiz" Unpaid OT Pay Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lorna G. Schofield of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York dismissed the case captioned JUANA
ORTIZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly-situated,
Plaintiff, v. HF MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, d/b/a HEALTHFIRST,
Defendant, Case No. 17 Civ. 4560 (LGS) (S.D. N.Y.).

Ortiz, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, sues
the Defendant for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL").

Kanwarpreet Thind initiated the putative collective and class
action on Dec. 3, 2014.  He filed the First Amended Complaint on
Feb. 20, 2015 alleging that he worked for Healthfirst as a
Facilitated Enroller ("FE") from Aug. 24, 2009 to Jan. 24, 2012,
and as a Manager for Sales from Jan. 25, 2012 to Aug.  21, 2014.
The FAC alleged six causes of action based on violations of FLSA
and NYLL.  In an Opinion and Order dated July 29, 2015, the Court
dismissed the FAC's causes of action based on Healthfirst's
alleged failure to pay the minimum wage and to pay wages in
accordance with the agreed terms of employment under NYLL.

On July 31, 2015, the Court granted Thind's motion for conditional
certification of two FLSA collectives -- Collective A and
Collective B -- as to the FAC's FLSA overtime claim only.
Collective A included all current and former Healthfirst employees
who worked as managers in the Facilitated Enrollment Department in
the three years before the filing of the initial complaint and who
did not receive overtime pay.  Collective B included all current
and former Healthfirst employees who worked as FEs in the three
years before the filing of the initial complaint and who did not
receive overtime pay.

Ortiz and others joined the litigation in the fall of 2015, after
receiving notice of the Thind collective action.

On May 12, 2016, the Defendant moved to decertify Collective B.
Thind opposed the decertification motion, crossmoved for leave to
file what now is the operative pleading and for final
certification of a redefined Collective B consisting of Collective
B1 and Collective B2.  Proposed Collective B1 included all current
and former Healthfirst employees who worked as FEs, worked off-
the-clock with express instruction from managers and did not
receive overtime pay.  Proposed Collective B2 included all current
and former Healthfirst employees who worked as FEs, worked off-
the-clock without express instruction from managers and did not
receive overtime pay.

In an Opinion and Order dated Dec. 9, 2016, the Court decertified
Collective B.  It granted in part Thind's cross-motion for leave
to amend, allowing him to file an amended complaint replacing
Collective B with the described Collective B1 -- FEs who received
express instructions to work off-the-clock.  The Court denied
Thind's motion to amend with respect to Collective B2.

Since the December 9 Opinion, the claims on behalf of Collectives
A and B1 have proceeded as separate actions, with Thind continuing
to represent Collective A on behalf of managers in Thind v.
Healthfirst, Inc., et al.  After the claims on behalf of
Collective B1 were severed from the Thind action, Ortiz was named
the Lead Plaintiff in the new action on June 16, 2017.  The
Complaint, (i.e., the Second Amended Complaint) asserted claims on
behalf of Ortiz and a collective defined in relevant part as FEs
who worked off-the-clock hours to meet the Defendant's
productivity requirement with instruction from managers.  On July
14, 2017, the Defendant moved to dismiss the Complaint.

On July 28, 2017, Oritz attempted to file a third amended
complaint.  On Aug. 8, 2017, Ortiz filed an opposition to the
motion to dismiss, challenging the Defendant's arguments as
"hypertechnical," and in the alternative, requesting leave to file
an amended complaint.

Ortiz also filed with her opposition a proposed third amended
complaint, which adds new facts to correct the deficiencies that
the Defendant had identified -- the proposed complaint defines the
Collective, in relevant part, as FEs who worked off-the clock
hours to meet Defendant's productivity requirement with express
instruction from managers.

The Defendant moves to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint based
on the Named Plaintiff's alleged failure to comply with the
Court's Dec. 9, 2016, Order granting leave to amend the Amended
Complaint under specific conditions.  The Named Plaintiff opposes
the motion.

Judge Schofield dismissed the Complaint because it exceeds the
scope of the Court's leave, as it is premised on the theory of the
dismissed B2 Collective, and it alleges facts that are
inconsistent with what has been disclosed in discovery.  As the
Complaint's allegations sound in the Collective B2 theory that
Healthfirst implicitly instructed FEs, including Ortiz, to work in
excess of 40 hours per week -- a theory the December 9 Opinion
unequivocally rejected -- the Complaint exceeds the scope of the
Court's leave.

The Judge also dismissed the Complaint because it exceeds the
scope of the Court's leave by pleading facts that are inconsistent
with those disclosed in discovery.  The Complaint also fails to
allege that anyone told Ortiz to work off-the-clock, yet she
identified Mildres Ramos as having done so in her interrogatory
responses.

Because the Complaint is premised on the rejected theory of the B2
Collective and pleads facts that are inconsistent with those which
have been disclosed in discovery, it exceeds the scope of the
Court's leave and is dismissed.  To the extent that Ortiz's
belated, the amended responses to the Defendant's First Set of
Interrogatories cure some of the defects identified in his
Opinion, the Judge will resolve that issue in a separate opinion
and order regarding Ortiz's pending motion for leave to file the
proposed third amended complaint.  The Clerk of Court is directed
to close the motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 21, 2017 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/DLMu7G from Leagle.com.

Juana Ortiz, Plaintiff, represented by David Alan Roth, Roth &
Roth, LLP.

Juana Ortiz, Plaintiff, represented by Rebecca Solomon Predovan,
Hepworth Gershbaum & Roth PLLC & Charles Gershbaum, Hepworth,
Gershbaum & Roth, PLLC.

HF Management Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew Paul
Marks -- amarks@dorflaw.com -- Dorf & Nelson LLP, Seth L. Levine -
- slevine@levinelee.com -- Levine Lee LLP, Aaron Isaac Karp --
akarp@levinelee.com -- Levine Lee LLP & Scott B. Klugman --
sklugman@levinelee.com -- Levine Lee LLP.


HOME HEALTH: "Yusupova" Suit Seeks Wages under Labor Law
--------------------------------------------------------
MAVJUDA YUSUPOVA, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated who were employed by HOME HEALTH CARE SERVICES
OF NEW YORK INC., the Plaintiffs, v. HOME HEALTH CARE SERVICES OF
NEW YORK INC., the Defendant, Case No. 156350/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
Nov. 21, 2017), seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime
compensation, "spread of hours" compensation, and reimbursement
for business expenses borne for the benefit and convenience of the
Defendant, as well as damages arising from Defendant's breach of
contract, which they were deprived of, plus interest, attorneys'
fees, and costs which Plaintiffs were statutorily and
contractually entitled to receive pursuant to the New York Labor
Law.

According to the complaint, while employed by Defendant, the
Plaintiff provided services to homebound, disabled and/or ailing
elderly clients, including but not limited to, personal care
services, such as assistance with dressing, bathing and personal
grooming, lifting and transferring bedridden and/or immobile
clients from and to bed/wheelchair, basic cooking, serving food
and/or feeding, changing diapers and toileting, cleaning, such as
mopping, cleaning bathrooms, doing laundry and taking out garbage,
moving clients on wheelchair inside and outside of the client's
home, escorting clients to the doctor, and/or making
transportation arrangements. The Plaintiff maintained her own
residences, and did not "live in" the homes of Defendant's clients
or in the home of her employer. The Plaintiff was not an "exempt
companion" of the Defendant's clients. While employed by
Defendant, the Plaintiff generally worked more than 40 hours per
week.

Home Health provides quality and compassionate home care services
in an ethical manner to our patients and their families.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class

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

               - and -

          Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq.
          NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1517 Voohies Ave, 2nd Fl
          Brooklyn, NY 11235
          Telephone: (212) 808 2224
          Facsimile: (866) 261 5478
          E-mail: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com


HOMELAND SECURITY: Al Otro Suit Transferred to S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Al Otro Lado, Inc., a California
corporation, Abigail Doe, Beatrice Doe, Carolina Doe, Dinora Doe,
Ingrid Doe, and Jose Doe, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs. v. Elaine C. Duke, Acting
Secretary, US Department of Homeland Security; Kevin K. McAleenan,
Acting Commissioner, United States Customs and Border Protection,
in his official capacity; and Todd C. Owen, Executive Assistant
Commissioner, Office of Field Operations, United States Customs
and Border Protection, in his official capacity, the Respondents,
Case No. 2:17-cv-05111, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the for the Central District of California, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego)
on Nov. 22, 2017.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:17-cv-02366-W-KSC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Thomas J. Whelan.

The United States Department of Homeland Security is a cabinet
department of the United States federal government with
responsibilities in public security, roughly comparable to the
interior or home ministries of other countries.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robin A Kelley, Esq.
          Faraz Mohammadi, Esq.
          James H Moon, Esq.
          Kristin P Housh, Esq.
          Wayne S Flick, Esq.
          Manuel A Abascal, Esq.
          LATHAM AND WATKINS LLP
          355 South Grand Avenue Suite 100
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 891 7597
          Facsimile: (213) 891 8763
          E-mail: wayne.s.flick@lw.com

               - and -

          Angelo Guisado, Esq.
          Baher Azmy, Esq.
          Ghita Schwarz, Esq.
          CENTER FOR CONSTITUTION RIGHTS
          666 Broadway 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10012
          Telephone: (212) 614 6454
          Facsimile: (212) 614 6499

               - and -

          Karolina J Walters, Esq.
          Kathryn E Shepherd, Esq.
          Melissa E Crow, Esq.
          AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL
          1331 G Street NW Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 507 7520
          Facsimile: (202) 742 5619

The Respondents are represented by:

          Gisela A Westwater, Esq.
          Alexander James Halaska, Esq.
          Danielle K Schuessler, Esq.
          Genevieve M Kelly, Esq.
          Sairah Saeed, Esq.
          Sherease Rosalyn Pratt, Esq.
          US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          Office of Immigration Litigation - Civil Division
          PO Box 868 Ben Franklin Station
          Washington, DC 20044
          Telephone: (202) 532 4174
          Facsimile: (202) 616 8962
          E-mail: sherease.pratt@usdoj.gov


INTELLIPHARMACEUTICS INT'L: Lead Plaintiffs in "Shanawaz" Named
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases styled SHAWN SHANAWAZ, Plaintiff, v.
INTELLIPHARMACEUTICS INTERNATIONAL INC., et al., Defendants. GUY
BRAVERMAN, Plaintiff, v. INTELLIPHARMACEUTICS INTERNATIONAL INC.,
et al., Defendants. DAVID DUCHARME, Plaintiff, v.
INTELLIPHARMACEUTICS INTERNATIONAL INC., et al., Defendants, Case
Nos. 17-CV-5761 (JPO), 17-CV-6045 (JPO), 17-CV-6621 (JPO) (S.D.
N.Y.), Judge J. Paul Oetken of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York appointed Ducharme, Sam Snyder, and
Julia Ann Snyder as the lead plaintiffs, and Kahn Swick & Foti,
LLC, as the lead counsel for the class.

This is a putative shareholder class action against
Intellipharmaceutics and its executives.  The crux of the
Plaintiffs' allegations is that Intellipharmaceutics misled
investors on the efficacy of one of its drugs, and that their
stock value dropped as a result.

Three groups of the Plaintiffs are vying to represent the class:

     a. Shanawaz was the first plaintiff to file suit.  However,
he has not formally moved to be appointed the lead plaintiff, and
has not made a submission showing the total amount of losses he
allegedly suffered.

     b. The Braverman group: Braverman was second to file suit.
He now moves, along with Eric Ludwig, to consolidate the three
cases and be appointed the lead plaintiffs.  They also move to
appoint Pomerantz LLP and The Rosen Law Firm as the lead counsel
for the class.  Together, Braverman and Ludwig assert that they
lost $51,427 as a result of the alleged scheme.

     c. The Ducharme group: Ducharme was last to file suit.  He
now moves, along with Sam Snyder and Julia Ann Snyder, to
consolidate the three cases and be appointed the lead plaintiffs.
They also move to appoint Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, as the lead
counsel for the class.  Together, Ducharme and the Snyders assert
that they lost $101,484.97 as a result of the alleged scheme.

None of the contenders has filed an opposition to their
competitors' motions.  The Defendants do not object to
consolidation, and take no position with respect to the Court's
appointment of the lead plaintiff or the selection of the lead
plaintiff's counsel.

Judge Oetken holds that the only major distinction between the
three groups of Plaintiffs is the amount of loss:  The Ducharme
group lost $101,484.97; the Braverman group lost $51,427; and
Shanawaz has not filed a statement listing his total losses.
Since the competing groups of the Plaintiffs are nearly identical
in all other respects, the amount of loss is dispositive.

For these reasons, Judge Oetken granted Ducharme group's motion.
He denied Braverman group's motion.  The Judge consolidated the
three cases, and Ducharme, Sam Snyder, and Julia Ann Snyder are
appointed the lead plaintiffs.  The Court likewise approved Kahn
Swick & Foti, LLC, as the lead counsel for the class.  The Clerk
of Court is directed to close the motions at Docket Numbers 15 and
18.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 21, 2017 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/mJHZk7 from Leagle.com.

Shawn Shanawaz, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Apton --
aapton@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky LLP.

David Ducharme, Movant, represented by Kim Elaine Miller --
kim.miller@ksfcounsel.com -- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC.

Guy Braverman, Movant, represented by Jeremy Alan Lieberman --
jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP.

Eric Ludwig, Movant, represented by Jeremy Alan Lieberman,
Pomerantz LLP.

Intellipharmaceutics International Inc., Defendant, represented by
John J. Clarke, Jr. -- john.clarke@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper US
LLP.

Isa Odidi, Defendant, represented by John J. Clarke, Jr., DLA
Piper US LLP.

Domenic Della Penna, Defendant, represented by John J. Clarke,
Jr., DLA Piper US LLP.


INTERFAITH MEDICAL: Underpaid Per Diem Physicians, Okeke Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
THEOPHILUS OKEKE, individually and on Behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. INTERFAITH MEDICAL CENTER;
and JOHN DOES 1-5, the Defendant, Case No. 522746/2017 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., Nov. 22, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid and incorrectly paid
wages/benefits under New York Labor Law.

The Defendants employed Plaintiff Okeke and those similarly
situated as per diem physicians in Defendants' "Emergency
Medicine" department. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf
of himself and a class of all persons who are and were employed by
Defendants as per diem physicians during the past six years
through the final date of the disposition of this action, who were
denied additional incentive compensation of $96,00 per workday for
each day that they performed medical examinations upon Defendants'
psychiatric patients prior to those patients' admission. The
Plaintiff also brings this action, pursuant to CPLR Article 9, on
behalf of a class of all persons who are and were employed by
Defendants as per diem physicians during the past six years
through the final date of the disposition of this action, who were
denied paid time off for all legal holidays.

Interfaith Medical Center is a teaching health care system
providing medical, surgical, gynecological, dental, psychiatric,
pediatric and other services throughout Central Brooklyn, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew L. Berman, Esq.
          Robert J. Valli, Jr., Esq.
          VALLI KANE & VAGNINI LLP
          600 Old Country Road, Suite 519
          Garden City, NY 11530


INTERSTATE SAFETY: $80K Settlement in "Owens" Suit Gets Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MICHAEL OWENS, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. INTERSTATE SAFETY
SERVICE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:17-CV-0017 (M.D. Pa.), Judge
A. Richard Caputo of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania granted the Joint Motion Seeking Court
Approval of Collective Action Settlement.

The Plaintiff commenced the collective action pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, alleging that the Defendant violated the FLSA
by failing to pay overtime compensation for travel and wait time
hours to employees whose worked involved travel to remote job
locations.

On June 3, 2017, the parties jointly filed a motion for approval
of the collective action settlement.  The settlement agreement
provides for a total maximum payment of $80,000, inclusive of fees
and costs, in exchange for the release of claims as defined in the
agreement.  According to the parties, the settlement exceeds the
aggregate amount that could be owed to the Plaintiff and all
potential opt-ins based on their hours worked and rate of pay by
approximately $2,500.

The participating members of the Class are to receive a pro-rated
portion of the settlement after payment of attorney's fees and
costs.  Additionally, the settlement agreement states that the
Defendant would not oppose a request for attorney's fees and costs
not exceeding $32,000 and $1,000, respectively.  The settlement
agreement further sets forth, inter alia, the claims process, the
duties of the parties, the dispute resolution process, and
provides that the parties and their counsel will not issue any
press release or participate in any communication or contact with
the media regarding settlement or any other matter related to the
litigation.

On June 14, 2017, the Plaintiff submitted an unopposed motion for
attorney's fees and costs, seeking fees in the amount of $32,000
and costs totaling $1,000.  A hearing was held on the joint motion
for settlement approval and the request for fees and costs on Nov.
16, 2017.

Judge Caputo finds that in light of the risks of proceeding to
trial and the relative costs of continued litigation, approval of
the settlement is warranted.  He also finds the proposed
settlement as fair and reasonable.  With respect to the requested
fees and costs, the Judge says the evidence submitted by the
Plaintiff's counsel in support of his requested fee, and the
Gunter factors, all of which support granting the proposed fee, he
will approve the attorney's fee of $32,000 and award costs in the
amount of $1,000.

For the reasons he stated, Judge Caputo granted the joint motion
for approval of collective action settlement, and the consented
motion for approval and award of attorney's fees and costs.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 21, 2017 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/fo5J0C from Leagle.com.

Michael Owens, Plaintiff, represented by Stephen Franko --
steve@stevefranko.com.

Interstate Safety Service, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joseph
S. Sileo -- jsileo@mcneeslaw.com -- McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC.


INVENTURE FOODS: "Schoenfeld" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Utz Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
GLENN SCHOENFELD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. INVENTURE FOODS, INC., TERRY
E. MCDANIEL, MACON BRYCE EDMONSON, ASHTON D. ASENSIO, PAUL J.
LAPADAT, TIMOTHY A. COLE, and JOEL D. STEWART, the Defendants,
Case No. 2:17-cv-04273-JAT (D. Ariz., Nov. 21, 2017), seeks to
recover to enjoin a proposed merger transaction or, in the event
the proposed transaction is consummated, recover damages resulting
from the Individual Defendants' violations of these laws.

The Plaintiff, a stockholder of Inventure Foods, Inc., brings this
action against the members of Inventure's Board of Directors
collectively, for violations of the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission. Specifically, Defendants solicit the tendering of
stockholder shares in connection with the sale of the Company to
Utz Quality Foods, LLC through a recommendation statement that
omits material facts necessary to make the statements therein not
false or misleading. Stockholders need this material information
to decide whether to tender their shares or pursue their appraisal
rights.

On October 25, 2017, the Company and Utz entered into a definitive
agreement under which Utz will acquire all of the outstanding
common shares of Inventure in an all-cash tender offer.  If
consummated, Inventure stockholders will receive $4.00 in cash per
common share of Inventure. The Transaction has a value of
approximately $165 million.  On November 15, Utz filed a Form TO-T
Tender Offer Statement announcing the commencement of its tender
offer, set to expire at one minute after 11:59 P.M. New York City
Time on December 13. Also on November 15, Defendants issued
materially incomplete and misleading disclosures in the Schedule
14D-9 Solicitation/Recommendation Statement filed with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the
Proposed Transaction. The Recommendation Statement is deficient
and misleading in that it fails to provide adequate disclosure of
all material information related to the Proposed Transaction. The
failure to adequately disclose such material information
constitutes a violation of the Exchange Act as stockholders need
such information in order to make a fully-informed decision
regarding tendering their shares in connection with the Proposed
Transaction about whether to tender their shares.

Inventure Foods manufactures and markets healthy/natural and
indulgent specialty snack food products in the United States and
internationally. It operates in two segments, Frozen Products and
Snack Products.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Gerald Barrett, Esq.
          WARD, KEENAN & BARRETT, P.C.
          2141 E. Camelback Rd., Suite 100
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 279 1717
          Facsimile: (602) 279 8908
          E-mail: gbarrett@wardkeenanbarrett.com

               - and -

          Donald J. Enright, Esq.
          Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 524 4290
          Facsimile: (202) 337 1567
          E-mail: denright@zlk.com
                  etripodi@zlk.com


INVENTURE FOODS: "Shaoul" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Utz Merger
---------------------------------------------------------
Ralph Shaoul, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Inventure Foods, Inc., Terry McDaniel,
Timothy A. Cole, Ashton D. Asensio, Macon Bryce Edmonson, Paul J.
Lapadat, and Joel D. Stewart, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-
04261-DGC (D. Ariz., Nov. 21, 2017), seeks to enjoin Defendants
from taking any steps to consummate a proposed merger transaction
or, in the event the Proposed Transaction is consummated, to
recover damages resulting from the Defendants' wrongdoing.

This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on October
26, 2017, pursuant to which Inventure Foods, Inc. will be acquired
by Utz Quality Foods, LLC, through Utz's wholly owned subsidiary,
Heron Sub, Inc. On October 25, 2017, Inventure's Board of
Directors caused the Company to enter into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with Utz. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger
Agreement, Utz commenced a tender offer to purchase all of the
outstanding shares of Inventure common stock for $4.00 per share
in cash. The Tender Offer commenced on November 15, 2017 and is
set to expire at 12:00 p.m., New York City time, on December 13.
On November 15, Defendants filed a Solicitation/Recommendation
Statement on Form 14D-9 with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction.
The Solicitation Statement omits material information with respect
to the Proposed Transaction, which renders it false and
misleading, in violation of Sections 14(d), 14(e), and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Inventure Foods manufactures and markets healthy/natural and
indulgent specialty snack food products in the United States and
internationally. It operates in two segments, Frozen Products and
Snack Products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew S. Friedman (AZ 005425)
          BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT, PC
          2325 East Camelback Road, Suite 300
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 274-1100
          E-mail: afriedman@bffb.com

               - and -

          Carl L. Stine, Esq.
          Adam J. Blander, Esq.
          WOLF POPPER LLP
          845 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 759 4600
          E-mail: cstine@wolfpopper.com
                  ablander@wolfpopper.com


JUICY WINGZ: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Hernandez Says
------------------------------------------------------------
SALVADOR M. HERNANDEZ, an individual, on behalf of himself and
other current and former employees, the Plaintiff, v. JUICY WINGZ,
INC., a California corporation; ARAM AVAGYAN, an individual; ZACK
NERSISIAN, an individual; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. BC 684385 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 22, 2017),
seeks to recover minimum wage and overtime wage under the
California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees were routinely not
paid all wages due and were denied breaks. Wages were paid by
check that was often subjected to bank holds or were rejected
outright due to insufficient funds resulting in bank fees charged
to the employee. Finally, Defendants withheld all wages earned in
the employee's final pay period -- the pay period when their
employment terminated; these wages were essentially forfeited. The
Plaintiff and other employees brought these violations to the
attention of the two individual defendants on numerous occasions.
Rather than remedying any of the ongoing violations, whenever
anyone complained, Defendants would simply wean the employee off
the schedule until they lost hope of returning to a routine and
regular work schedule and stopped calling for shifts and for the
money they were owed. The violations were systemic and pervasive,
were so woven into Defendants' way of doing business that it could
fairly be described as Defendants' modus operandi well rooted in
Defendants' business model.

Juicy Wingz is a family-owned and operated restaurant that seeks
to provide the local community with fresh, made to order
meals.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elana R. Levine, Esq.
          Brian Levine, Esq.
          LEVINE LAW GROUP, APC
          15303 Ventura Blvd., Suite 900
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 990 3400
          Facsimile: (818) 855 8040


KAPDAS INCORPORATED: Leroy Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
GLORIA LEROY, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. KAPDAS INCORPORATED, KAPDAS HOLDINGS, LLC, and
KAPDAS TAX SERVICES d/b/a LIBERTY TAX SERVICE, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-04944-TWT (N.D. Ga., Dec. 6, 2017), seeks to
recover unpaid wages and overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, and attorney fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly force its
employees to work substantial amount of overtime without properly
paying all compensation due, thus depriving them of rightful
compensation for their work that LTS is legally obligated to pay.

The Plaintiff worked for LTS as a tax collector at LTS's
Stockbridge, Georgia location and was damaged by this illegal
policy or practice.

Kapdas is tax preparation company that provides its service in an
around Atlanta, Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert W. Cowan, Esq.
          BAILEY PEAVY BAILEY
          COWAN HECKAMAN PLLC
          Marathon Oil Tower, Ste 900
          5555 San Felipe St.,
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 425 7100
          Facsimile: (713) 425 7101

               - and -

          Michael A, Mille, Esq.
          1349 W. Peachtree St. NW, Suite 1995
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 815 9220
          Facsimile: (678) 317 0956
          E-mail: mike@millslegal.net


KEANE FRAC: "Tran" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
VU TRAN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. KEANE FRAC TX, LLC; KEANE
FRAC ND, LLC; KEANE FRAC GP, LLC; KEANE FRAC, LP; KEANE GROUP,
LLC; and KEANE GROUP HOLDINGS, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 4:17-
cv-03588 (S.D. Tex., Nov. 22, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

According to the complaint, Keane Group violated the FLSA by
employing Plaintiff and other similarly situated nonexempt
employees "for a workweek longer than forty hours [but refusing to
compensate them] for [their] employment in excess of 40 hours at a
rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at
which [they are or were] employed. Keane Group violated the FLSA
by failing to maintain accurate time and pay records for Plaintiff
and other similarly situated nonexempt employees.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melissa Moore, Esq.
          Curt Hesse, Esq.
          Bridget Davidson, Esq.
          MOORE & ASSOCIATES
          Lyric Center
          440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 222 6775
          Facsimile: (713) 222 6739


KOCH FOODS: Conspiracy Claims in Antitrust Suit Remains
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
granting in part and denying in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
the case captioned IN RE BROILER CHICKEN ANTITRUST LITIGATION, No.
16 C 8637 (N.D. Ill.).

Broilers constitute approximately 98% of all chicken meat sold in
the United States.  Defendants are industrial Broiler producers.
As of 2015, Defendants controlled 88.8% of Broiler production in
the United States.

Defendants purchase their breeder flocks (the chickens that lay
the eggs Defendants raise into Broilers) from three global
genetics conglomerates that account for 98% of Broilers raised in
the United States, and 80% of Broilers raised globally.  These
three genetic companies own a biological lock on their unique
Broiler lines, meaning they tightly control the purebred genetic
strain they develop.

Plaintiffs allege that prior to 2008, there was a historic pattern
of annual increases in Broiler production, of about 3%.  Industry
publications noted that 2008 was the "first time in decades [that]
total broiler production remained virtually unchanged from the
year before."

On May 21, 2008, the Wall Street Journal noted the production
cuts, and reported that prices had started to increase.  The paper
also noted that it is unusual for egg sets to decline at this time
of year, because demand is usually highest in August when chickens
hatched in May would be mature.  Nevertheless, despite these
production and capacity cuts, Tyson's CEO questioned whether they
would result in the sought-after price increase.  Pilgrim's CEO
also called for additional production cuts, because "there is
still too much breast meat available to drive market pricing
significantly higher."

By late 2010, the economy as a whole had begun to improve, and
some producers began to increase production to meet that demand,
resulting in falling prices. After the International Poultry Expo
held January 24-26, 2011, Defendants again began to take action to
restrict production. Seven defendants and two other producers cut
production, closed facilities, or delayed planned construction of
new facilities. These actions continued into 2012.

Plaintiffs contend they have plausibly alleged private
communications among Defendants indicating a conspiracy to cut
production with the intent to inflate prices. Moreover, Plaintiffs
allege that the nature of Broiler breeder flocks is that they
predict future Broiler supply, so by sharing such information in a
way that permits company-by-company identification, Defendants are
in fact sharing future anticipated production information with one
another, which clearly suggest high antitrust concern.

Plaintiffs are divided into three putative classes based on their
position in the supply and demand chain, and each class has filed
its own complaint: (1) direct purchasers (wholesalers and
retailers); (2) commercial and institutional indirect purchasers
who resell chicken (e.g., retailers and restaurants); and (3)
indirect purchasers who cook or eat the chicken (restaurants and
individuals);

All Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly
allege a conspiracy.

Conspiracy

First, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged
parallel conduct. The Court rejects Defendants' contention that
the alleged conduct is too varied in its timing and methods.
The Court also finds that the alleged factual circumstances
plausibly demonstrate that the parallel conduct was a product of a
conspiracy.

The Court finds plausible Plaintiffs' allegations that Defendants
conduct was unusual in comparison to the industry's history of
regular production increases and rejects Defendants' argument that
the conspiracy as alleged would not be in the interests of all
conspirators. Nothing about Plaintiffs' allegations indicates that
the increase in the market price was insufficient to cover the
various potential losses of market shares Defendants highlight.

The Court also finds that the alleged conspiracy strategy to take
actions to restrain production, and then allow production to
increase again to reap the benefits of the resulting price
increase is not implausible despite the large number of producers
in the industry and the lack of an enforcement mechanism
allegation.

Defendants' motions to dismiss Plaintiffs' conspiracy claims are
denied.

Defendants' motions to dismiss, R. 279; R. 292 are denied except
that Plaintiffs' claims under the laws of Wisconsin are dismissed,
so that Defendants' motion to dismiss the Indirect Plaintiffs'
claim is granted in part.  The Court has not addressed all of
Defendants' arguments seeking dismissal of Plaintiffs' state law
claims. But the Court's opinion explains that at least one claim
in each jurisdiction will proceed to discovery, with the exception
of Wisconsin. Any state law claim the Court has addressed and
dismissed, is dismissed without prejudice.

To the extent Plaintiffs believe they can cure the deficiencies
the Court has described with respect to their claims under
Wisconsin law, Plaintiffs may file a joint motion for leave to
amend by December 20, 2017, supported by a brief of no more than
five pages explaining how the amendments would cure Plaintiffs'
allegations. The proposed amended paragraphs of the complaints
(not the entire complaints) should also be attached as an exhibit.
No defendant should file a responding brief unless the Court so
orders.

To the extent it is necessary in order to streamline a trial or
assess damages for the Court to address the additional state law
claims not addressed in this opinion, or to reconsider dismissal
of state law claims under the laws of jurisdictions for which
other claims are proceeding, the Court will address those issues
when appropriate. For now, however, the parties know which
jurisdictions remain in play and which are out. That is a
sufficient basis to conduct discovery.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 20, 2017 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yb86y5zm from Leagle.com.

Maplevale Farms, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Brian D. Clark-
bdclark@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.l.l.p..

Maplevale Farms, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Warshaw -
dwarshaw@pswlaw.com -- Pearson, Simon & Warshaw & LLP. pro hac
vice, Dennis Allen Lienhardt, Jr. -- dal@miller.law -- The Miller
Law Firm, P.C., pro hac vice, Elizabeth R. Odette --
erodette@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Heidi M.
Silton  -- hmsilton@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal Nauen
P.L.L.P., Joseph C. Kohn -- jkohn@kohnswift.com -- Kohn, Swift &
Graf, P.C., pro hac vice, Robert John McLaughlin --
rmclaughlin@hmelegal.com -- Hart McLaughlin & Eldridge, LLC,
Steven Alan Hart -- shart@hmelegal.com -- Hart McLaughlin &
Eldridge, LLC, W. Joseph Bruckner - wjbruckner@locklaw.com --
Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., William Ernest Hoese --
whoese@kohnswift.com -- Kohn, Swift & Graf, pro hac vice, Adam J.
Pessin -- apessin@finekaplan.com -- Fine, Kaplan and Black, RPC,
pro hac vice, Benjamin Michael Shrader -- bshrader@hmelegal.com --
Hart McLaughlin & Eldridge, LLC, Bobby Pouya -- bpouya@pswlaw.com
-- PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP, pro hac vice,Brian H. Eldridge -
- beldridge@hmelegal.com -- Hart McLaughlin & Eldridge, LLC, Bruce
L. Simon -- bsimon@pswlaw.com -- Pearson Simon & Warshaw LLP, pro
hac vice, CLIFFORD HARRIS PEARSON - cpearson@pswlaw.com --
PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP, pro hac vice, Cadio Zirpoli --
zirpoli@saveri.com  -- Saveri & Saevri, Inc., pro hac vice,
Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr. - g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com --
Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield, pro hac vice, Goldich A. Marc --
mgoldich@axgolaw.com -- Axler Goldich Llc, Jeffrey J. Corrigan --
jcorrigan@srkw-law.com -- SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C., pro hac
vice, Jonathan M. Jagher --  jjagher@srkattorneys.com -- SPECTOR
ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C., pro hac vice, Kyle Pozan --
kpozan@hmelegal.com -- Hart McLaughlin & Eldridge, LLC, Linda P.
Nussbaum -- lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com -- Nussbaum Law Group, P.C.,
pro hac vice, Mark Reinhardt - m.reinhardt@rwblawfirm.com --
Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield, pro hac vice, Matthew Dickinson
Heaphy -- mheaphy@saveri.com.- Saveri & Saveri, Inc., pro hac
vice, Michael H. Pearson - mpearson@pswlawfirm.com -- Pearson,
Simon & Warshaw LLP, pro hac vice, Neil J. Swartzberg --
nswartzberg@pswlaw.com -- Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP, pro hac
vice, RACHEL ELLEN KOPP -- rkopp@srkattorneys.com -- SPECTOR
ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C., pro hac vice, Roberta D. Liebenberg --
rliebenberg@finekaplan.com -- Fine, Kaplan and Black, R.P.C., pro
hac vice, Sarah Jane Van Culin -- sarah@saveri.com --  Saveri &
Saveri, Inc., pro hac vice, Shana Scarlett -- shanas@hbsslaw.com -
- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Sharon S.
Almonrode -- ssa@miller.law -- The Miller Law Firm, P.C. & Simeon
Andrew Morbey samorbey@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal Nauen
P.L.L.P..

Koch Foods, Inc., Defendant, represented by Stephen Novack -
snovack@novackmacey.com -- Novack and Macey LLP, Christopher S.
Moore, Novack and Macey - cmoore@novackmacey.com -- LLP, Lally A.
Gartel, Novack and Macey LLP, Marie Velinda Lim --
mlim@novackmacey.com -- Novack and Macey LLP & Stephen J. Siegel -
- ssiegel@novackmacey.com -- Novack and Macey LLP.

JCG Foods of Alabama, LLC, Defendant, represented by Stephen
Novack, Novack and Macey LLP, Christopher S. Moore, Novack and
Macey, LLP, Lally A. Gartel, Novack and Macey LLP, Marie Velinda
Lim, Novack and Macey LLP & Stephen J. Siegel, Novack and Macey
LLP.

JCG Foods of Georgia, LLC, Defendant, represented by Stephen
Novack, Novack and Macey LLP, Christopher S. Moore, Novack and
Macey, LLP, Lally A. Gartel, Novack and Macey LLP, Marie Velinda
Lim, Novack and Macey LLP & Stephen J. Siegel, Novack and Macey
LLP.

Koch Meats Co., Inc., Defendant, represented by Stephen Novack,
Novack and Macey LLP, Christopher S. Moore, Novack and Macey, LLP,
Lally A. Gartel, Novack and Macey LLP, Marie Velinda Lim, Novack
and Macey LLP & Stephen J. Siegel, Novack and Macey LLP.
Tyson Foods, Inc., Defendant, represented by David H. Suggs --
dsuggs@whitecase.com -- White & Case LLP, pro hac vice, Jeremy K.
Ostrander -- jostrander@whitecase.com -- White & Case LLP, pro hac
vice, John Mark Gidley -- mgidley@whitecase.com  -- White & Case
LLP, pro hac vice, Amy Beth Manning -- amanning@mcguirewoods.com -
McGuireWoods LLP, Christina M. Egan -- cegan@mcguirewoods.com --
McGuire Woods LLP, Kristen J. Mcahren  -- kmcahren@whitecase.com -
- White & Case Llp, Peter J. Carney -- pcarney@whitecase.com --
White & Case LLP, pro hac vice & Robert A. Milne --
rmilne@whitecase.com -- White & Case, pro hac vice.

Tyson Chicken, Inc., Defendant, represented by David H. Suggs,
White & Case LLP, pro hac vice, Jeremy K. Ostrander, White & Case
LLP, pro hac vice, John Mark Gidley, White & Case LLP, pro hac
vice, Amy Beth Manning, McGuireWoods LLP, Christina M. Egan,
McGuire Woods LLP,Kristen J. Mcahren, White & Case Llp, Peter J.
Carney, White & Case LLP, pro hac vice & Robert A. Milne, White &
Case, pro hac vice.

Tyson Breeders, Inc., Defendant, represented by David H. Suggs,
White & Case LLP, pro hac vice, Jeremy K. Ostrander, White & Case
LLP, pro hac vice, John Mark Gidley, White & Case LLP, pro hac
vice, Amy Beth Manning, McGuireWoods LLP, Christina M. Egan,
McGuire Woods LLP, David H. Suggs, White & Case LLP, pro hac vice,
Kristen J. Mcahren, White & Case Llp, Peter J. Carney, White &
Case LLP, pro hac vice & Robert A. Milne, White & Case, pro hac
vice.
Tyson Poultry, Inc., Defendant, represented by David H. Suggs,
White & Case LLP, pro hac vice, Jeremy K. Ostrander, White & Case
LLP, pro hac vice, John Mark Gidley, White & Case LLP, pro hac
vice, Amy Beth Manning, McGuireWoods LLP, Christina M. Egan,
McGuire Woods LLP, Kristen J. Mcahren, White & Case Llp, Peter J.
Carney, White & Case LLP, pro hac vice & Robert A. Milne, White &
Case, pro hac vice.

Pilgrim's Pride Corporation, Defendant, represented by Carrie C.
Mahan - carrie.mahan@weil.com -- Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro
hac vice, Christopher J. Abbott  -- Christopher.abbott@weil.com --
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Clayton E. Bailey --
CBailey@BaileyBrauer.com -- Bailey Brauer PLLC, pro hac vice,
Daniel E. Antalics - daniel.antalics@weil.com -- Weil, Gotshal &
Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Kevin J. Arquit - Kevin.arquit@weil.com
-- Weil, Gotshall & Manges LLP & Michael Lee McCluggage --
mmccluggage@eimerstahl.com -- Eimer Stahl LLP.


L & JG STICKLEY: Faces "Young" Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against L. & J.G. Stickley
Incorporated. The case is styled Lawrence Young, Individually and
on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v L.
& J.G. Stickley Incorporated, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-09680
(S.D. N.Y., December 8, 2017).

L. & J. G. Stickley, Inc. designs and manufactures hardwood
furniture. It offers living room, bedroom, dining room,
entertainment, office, and upholstery furniture.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
   Bronson Lipsky LLP
   630 Third Avenue, 5th Floor
   New York, NY 10017
   Tel: (212) 392-4772
   Fax: (212) 444-1030
   Email: dlipsky@bronsonlipsky.com


L'OREAL USA: Faces "Spector" Suit over CeraVe Face Lotion
---------------------------------------------------------
DAVID SPECTOR, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. LOREAL USA, INC. and VALEANT
PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL, INC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-
cv-09123 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 21, 2017), alleges that testing conducted
by counsel for Plaintiff in accordance with FDA sunscreen testing
protocols revealed that the Defendant's CeraVe Body Lotion SPF 50,
CeraVe Face Lotion SPF 30, and CeraVe Body Lotion SPF 30 each fail
to meet those labelled SPFs. In the case of the Body Lotion SPF
50, Plaintiff's testing showed an SPF average value of 17.4.  In
the case of the Body Lotion SPF 30, Plaintiff's testing showed an
SPF average of 16.  The Plaintiff and putative class members have
been, and continue to be, injured by Defendants' pattern and
practice of placing into the stream of commerce sunscreen products
containing a false SPF number, and largely inflated UV protection
numbers, which Defendants manufacture or manufactured, distribute
or distributed, and sold or sell.

L'Oreal USA, Inc. manufactures and markets cosmetics for consumer
and professional markets. It provides skincare, haircare, makeup,
and perfume products. L'Oreal USA, Inc. was formerly known as
Cosmair, Inc. and changed its name to L'Oreal USA, Inc. in June
2000. The company was founded in 1953.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Janine Lee Pollack, Esq.
          Theodore B. Bell, Esq.
          Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545 4600
          Facsimile: (212) 686 0114
          E-mail: pollack@whafh.com
                  tbell@whafh.com
                  malmstrom@whafh.com

               - and -

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


LATIN CLUB BAR: "Roe" Suit Seeks Back Pay under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------
JANE ROE, on behalf of herself and all others Civil similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. JOSE TORRES L.D. LATIN CLUB BAR, INC.
and DOES 1-200, the Defendants, Case No. 17CIV05530 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Dec. 4, 2017), contends that the Defendant's classification
of Plaintiff and class members as independent contractors was not
due to any unique factor related to the exotic dancers' employment
by or relationship with Defendant. Rather, as a matter of its
uniform business policy, Defendant has routinely misclassified
exotic dancers as independent contractors as opposed to employees.
As a result of this practice, Plaintiff and the class members have
not been paid the minimum wages under the California Labor Code,
and have been deprived of other statutory rights and benefits.
Therefore, they have suffered harm, injury, and have incurred
financial loss.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven G. Tidrick, Esq.
          Joel B. Young, Esq.
          THE TIDRICK LAW FIRM
          SAMMTEE 2039 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 308 C09 IN'W
          Berkeley, CA 94704
          Telephone: (510) 788 5100
          Facsimile: (510) 291 3226
          E-mail: sgt@tidricklaw.com
                  jby@tidricklaw.com


MADER NEWS: "Molina" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE MOLINA, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MADER NEWS, INC., a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, the Defendant,
Case No. BC685960 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 6, 2017), seeks to
recover unpaid wages and penalties under Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Order and California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges, that during the four years preceding the
filing of the Complaint and continuing to the present, Defendants
did (and continue to do) business by being a wholesale distributor
of time sensitive business, trade, news, and entertainment
publications in Southern California

The Plaintiff performed various duties including, without
limitation, driving to and from customers of Defendants to collect
unsold newspapers and magazines, as well as picking up money from
stores and purchasing money orders. During his employment with
Defendants, Plaintiff worked various weekly shifts, including
shifts where he worked seven days in a row. The Plaintiff would
often work in excess of 8 hours in a work day and/or often work in
excess of 40 hours in a week, and also on occasion in excess of 10
hours in a work day. Plaintiff was not required to and did not
actually clock in or out on an actual timekeeping system to track
his hours, instead merely tracking his general schedule on written
sheets. However, his written time sheets were not always accurate
because he was often directed by Defendants to falsify such
written timesheets to reflect less hours than he actually
worked.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          Tuvia Korobkin, Esq.
          Daniel J. Brown, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          2274 East Maple Avenue
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292 2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292 2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
                  tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com
                  dbrown@haineslawgroup.com


MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: Prelim Approval of Class Deal Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order denying Plaintiffs' unopposed renewed
motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement in
the case captioned KEITH THOMAS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MAGNACHIP
SEMICONDUCTOR CORP., et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-cv-01160-JST
(N.D. Cal.).

Before the Court is Plaintiffs' unopposed renewed motion for
preliminary approval of a class action settlement with Defendant
Avenue Capital Management II, L.P.

According to the Court, Plaintiffs still fail to satisfy the
Court's concerns about the adequacy of the settlement.

In Plaintiffs' renewed motion, counsel repeatedly state what they
believe to be a reasonable expected recovery at trial, but provide
no declaration or other evidence in support of those beliefs, even
though counsel apparently consulted with expert witnesses before
reaching their conclusions.  Without such evidence, the Court
continues to lack a sufficient basis for evaluating whether the
amount offered in settlement is adequate.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs' renewed motion for preliminary approval
of class action settlement is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 16, 2017 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y964xt3k from Leagle.com.

Richard Hayes, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy A. Lieberman --
jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice.

Richard Hayes, Plaintiff, represented by Lionel Z. Glancy --
lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Joshua B.
Silverman -- jbsilverman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac
vice, Laurence M. Rosen, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Lesley F.
Portnoy -- lfportnoy@pomlaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP,
Louis C. Ludwig -- lcludwig@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac
vice, Marc Ian Gross -- migross@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro
hac vice, Michael J. Wernke -- mjwernke@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz
LLP, pro hac vice, Omar Jafri ojafri@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP,
pro hac vice, Patrick V. Dahlstrom -- pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com --
Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Phillip C. Kim - pkim@rosenlegal.com
-- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Robert Vincent Prongay --
rprongay@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Sunny S.
Sarkis -- ssarkis@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
& Yu Shi - yshi@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm PA, pro hac
vice.

Keith Thomas, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy A. Lieberman,
Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Lionel Z. Glancy, Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP, Robert Vincent Prongay, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP,
Jonathan Stern, Rosen Law Firm, pro hac vice, Joshua B. Silverman,
Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Laurence M. Rosen, The Rosen Law
Firm, P.A., Lesley F. Portnoy, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Louis
C. Ludwig, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Marc Ian Gross, Pomerantz
LLP, pro hac vice, Michael J. Wernke, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice,
Omar Jafri, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Patrick V. Dahlstrom,
Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Phillip C. Kim, The Rosen Law Firm,
P.A., Sunny S. Sarkis, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Yu Shi,
The Rosen Law Firm PA, pro hac vice.
Herb Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy A. Lieberman,
Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Lionel Z. Glancy, Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP, Marc Ian Gross, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Joshua B.
Silverman, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Laurence M. Rosen, The
Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Louis C. Ludwig, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac
vice, Michael J. Wernke, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Omar Jafri,
Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP,
pro hac vice, Robert Vincent Prongay, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP,
Sunny S. Sarkis, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Yu Shi, The
Rosen Law Firm PA, pro hac vice.

Magnachip Semiconductor Corp., Defendant, represented by Daniel J.
Kramer -- dkramer@paulweiss.com -- Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton &
Garrison LLP, pro hac vice, Robert N. Kravitz --
rkravitz@paulweiss.com -- Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison
LLP, pro hac vice, Alex Young K. Oh -- aoh@paulweiss.com -- Paul
Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, pro hac vice, Jacqueline P.
Rubin -- jrubin@paulweiss.com -- Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton &
Garrison LLP, pro hac vice, John C. Tang -- jctang@jonesday.com --
Jones Day, Kelsey Israel-Trummel -- kitrummel@jonesday.com --
Jones Day & Matthew D. Stachel -- mstachel@paulweiss.com -- Paul
Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, pro hac vice.

Margaret Sakai, Defendant, represented by Kimberly Perrotta Cole -
- kimberly.cole@kobrekim.com -- Kobre & Kim LLP, pro hac vice,
Michael Sangyun Kim - micahel.kim@kobrekim.com -- Kobre & Kim LLP,
pro hac vice & Michael Fang Peng -- Michael.peng@kobrekim.com --
Kobre & Kim LLP.

R. Douglas Norby, Defendant, represented by Daniel J. Kramer, Paul
Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, Jacqueline P. Rubin, Paul
Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, Robert N. Kravitz, Paul
Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, Alex Young K. Oh, Paul Weiss
Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP & Matthew D. Stachel, Paul Weiss
Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP.

Ilbok Lee, Defendant, represented by Daniel J. Kramer, Paul Weiss
Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, Jacqueline P. Rubin, Paul Weiss
Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, Robert N. Kravitz, Paul Weiss
Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, Alex Young K. Oh, Paul Weiss
Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP & Matthew D. Stachel, Paul Weiss
Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP.

Nader Tavakoli, Defendant, represented by Daniel J. Fetterman --
dfetterman@kasowitz.com -- Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman
LLP, pro hac vice, Jason Takenouchi -- jtakenouchi@kasowitz.com --
Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman LLP, Brian Choi, Kasowitz
Benson Torres & Friedman LLP, pro hac vice & Trevor Joseph Welch -
- twelch@kasowitz.com -- Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedman LLP,
pro hac vice.

Randal Klein, Defendant, represented by Ali R. Rabbani --
arabbani@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP,
Andrew S. Jick -- ajick@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer &
Feld LLP, Douglas Maynard -- dmaynard@akingump.com -- Akin Gump
Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, pro hac vice, John C. Murphy --
jmurphy@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer Feld LLP, pro hac
vice, Michael Asaro -- masaro@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss
Hauer & Feld LLP, pro hac vice, Neal Ross Marder --
nmarder@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Peter
Ian Altman -- paltman@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer &
Feld LLP, Stephen Michael Baldini -- sbaldini@akingump.com -- Akin
Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, pro hac vice & Sydney Spector --
sspector@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, pro
hac vice.

Michael Elkins, Defendant, represented by Ali R. Rabbani, Akin
Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Andrew S. Jick, Akin Gump Strauss
Hauer & Feld LLP, Douglas Maynard, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld
LLP, pro hac vice, John C. Murphy, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer Feld
LLP, pro hac vice, Michael Asaro, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld
LLP, pro hac vice, Neal Ross Marder, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer &
Feld LLP, Peter Ian Altman, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP,
Stephen Michael Baldini, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, pro
hac vice & Sydney Spector, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, pro
hac vice.

Avenue Capital Management II, L.P., Defendant, represented by Ali
R. Rabbani, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Andrew S. Jick,
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Douglas Maynard, Akin Gump
Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, pro hac vice, John C. Murphy, Akin Gump
Strauss Hauer Feld LLP, pro hac vice, Michael Asaro, Akin Gump
Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, pro hac vice, Neal Ross Marder, Akin
Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Peter Ian Altman, Akin Gump Strauss
Hauer & Feld LLP, Stephen Michael Baldini, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer
& Feld LLP, pro hac vice & Sydney Spector, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer
& Feld LLP, pro hac vice.

Barclays Capital Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew Rawlinson
-- matt.rawlinson@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, James E. Brandt
-- james.brandt@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, pro hac vice &
Jason C. Hegt -- jason.hegt@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, pro
hac vice.

Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew
Rawlinson, Latham & Watkins LLP, James E. Brandt, Latham & Watkins
LLP, pro hac vice & Jason C. Hegt, Latham & Watkins LLP, pro hac
vice.

Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew
Rawlinson, Latham & Watkins LLP, James E. Brandt, Latham & Watkins
LLP, pro hac vice & Jason C. Hegt, Latham & Watkins LLP, pro hac
vice.

UBS Securities LLC, Defendant, represented by Matthew Rawlinson,
Latham & Watkins LLP, James E. Brandt, Latham & Watkins LLP, pro
hac vice & Jason C. Hegt, Latham & Watkins LLP, pro hac vice.
Needham & Company, LLC, Defendant, represented by Matthew
Rawlinson, Latham & Watkins LLP, James E. Brandt, Latham & Watkins
LLP, pro hac vice & Jason C. Hegt, Latham & Watkins LLP, pro hac
vice.

Oklahoma Police Pension & Retirement System, Interested Party,
represented by Danielle Suzanne Myers - denim@rgrdlaw.com --
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Marc Ian Gross, Pomerantz LLP,
Dennis J. Herman  -- donnish@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP, Joshua B. Silverman, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice,
Laurence M. Rosen, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Louis C. Ludwig,
Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Mary K. Blasy -- mblasy@rgrdlaw.com -
- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Michael J. Wernke, Pomerantz
LLP, Omar Jafri, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Patrick V.
Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Samuel H. Rudman, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Shawn A. Williams, Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP & Sunny S. Sarkis, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.


MARVIN ENGINEERING: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Iniguez Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GABRIEL INIGUEZ, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MARVIN ENGINEERING CO.,
INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
the Defendant, Case No. BC684670 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 22, 2017),
seeks to recover minimum and straight time Wages, overtime
compensation, and timely pay final wages under the California
Labor Code.

The Plaintiff brings this action against Marvin Engineering Co.
for California Labor Code violations and unfair business practices
stemming from Defendants' failure to provide meal periods, failure
to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to pay minimum and
straight time wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to
maintain accurate records of hours worked, failure to timely pay
all wages to terminated employees, and failure to furnish accurate
wage statements. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and
as a class action on behalf of himself and certain current and
former employees of Defendants. The Class consists of Plaintiff
and all other persons who have been employed by any Defendant in
California in a non-exempt, hourly-paid position during the
statute of limitations period.

Marvin Engineering manufactures and supplies aerospace and defense
equipment. The company offers missile launchers, ejector racks,
test equipment, and military hardware. It manufactures missile
launchers, such as missile rail, sidewinder, maverick single rail,
and hellfire; and tube launched optically tracked wire.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kane Moon, Esq.
          Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
          MOON & YANG, APC
          1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 232 3128
          Facsimile: (213) 232 3125
          E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
                  justin.marquez@moonyanglaw.com


MDL 2741: "Schroeder" Suit v. Monsanto Moved to N.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled MILDRED SCHROEDER, Individually
and as Personal Representative of the Estate of EDWARD SCHROEDER,
Deceased, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case
No. 2:17-cv-08197, was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Nov. 24, 2017,.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-06773-VC to the
proceeding.

The Schroeder case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re:
Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by
Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation on October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual
questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup
herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Plaintiffs each allege that they or their
decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup
over the course of several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege
that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients,
in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA),
renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues
concerning general causation, the background science, and
regulatory history will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741-
VC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Karen H. Beyea-Schroeder, Esq.
          BURNETT LAW FIRM
          3737 Buffalo Speedway
          Suite 1850
          Houston, TX 77098
          Telephone: (832) 413 4410
          Facsimile: (832) 900 2120
          E-mail: Karen.Schroeder@RBurnettLaw.com

               - and -

          Rachal G. Rojas, Esq.
          JOHNSON LAW GROUP
          2925 Richmond Ave., Suite 1700
          Houston, Texas 77098
          Telephone: (713) 626 9336
          Facsimile: (713) 583 9460
          E-mail: rrojas@johnsonlawgroup.com


MDL 2800: "Pantaze" Data Breach Suit Moved to N.D. Georgia
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Nikolaos C. Pantaze, an
individual, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Equifax Information Services LLC, a
foreign limited liability company, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-
cv-01530, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta), MDL No. 2800, on Dec. 7,
2017.  The Georgia Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:17-cv-04986-TWT to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. The lead case is case No. 1:17-
md-02800-TWT. 1:17-cv-04986-TWT

Equifax Information collects and reports consumer information to
financial institutions. The company was formerly known as Equifax
Credit Information Services Inc. and changed its name to Equifax
Information Services LLC in June 2004. The company was
incorporated in 1937 and is based in Atlanta, Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Gusty Yearout, Esq.
          YEAROUT MYERS & TRAYLOR
          800 Shades Creek Parkway, Suite 500
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Telephone: (205) 414 8163
          Facsimile: (205) 414 8199

               - and -

          M. Stan Herring, Esq.
          WATTS & HERRING,LLC
          301 19th Street North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 879 2447
          E-mail: stan@wattsherring.com


MDL 2800: "Morris" Suit Moved to N.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jason Morris, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Equifax
Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02178, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) on
Dec. 7, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-
04990-TWT to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. The case is consolidated with MDL
2800. The lead case is Case No. 1:17-md-02800-TWT.

Equifax Inc. is a consumer credit reporting agency. Equifax
collects and aggregates information on over 800 million individual
consumers and more than 88 million businesses worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian Caplan, Esq.
          REITLER KAILAS & ROSENBLATT LLC
          885 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 209 3050
          E-mail: bcaplan@reitlerlaw.com


MDL 2800: "Ostoya" Suit Moved to N.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Paul Ostoya, an individual and
Samuel Stephenson, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Equifax Inc.
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01550, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) on
Dec. 7, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-
04990-TWT to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. The case is consolidated with MDL
2800. The lead case is Case No. 1:17-md-02800-TWT.

Equifax Inc. is a consumer credit reporting agency. Equifax
collects and aggregates information on over 800 million individual
consumers and more than 88 million businesses worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan T. Rosemore, Esq.
          Francois M. Blaudeau, Esq.
          Odeh J. Issis, Esq.
          SOUTHERN INSTITUTE FOR
          MEDICAL & LEGAL AFFAIRS, LLC
          2224 1st Avenue N.
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 326 3336
          Facsimile: (205) 380 0145


MDL 2800: "Highfield" Suit Moved to N.D. Georgia
------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Christopher Highfield,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Equifax Inc. and Equifax Information Solutions, LLC,
the Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-01567, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta)
on Dec. 7, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-
cv-04990-TWT to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. The case is consolidated with MDL
2800. The lead case is Case No. 1:17-md-02800-TWT.

Equifax Inc. is a consumer credit reporting agency. Equifax
collects and aggregates information on over 800 million individual
consumers and more than 88 million businesses worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chris T. Hellums, Esq.
          Jonathan S. Mann, Esq.
          PITTMAN HOOKS DUTTON & HOLLIS
          2001 Park Place North
          Park Place Tower, Suite 1100
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 322 8880
          Facsimile: (205) 328 2711
          E-mail: chrish@pittmandutton.com
                  jonm@pittmandutton.com

               - and -

          N. Kirkland Pope, Esq.
          POPE MCGLAMRY, P.C.
          P.O. Box 191625, Suite 300
          3391 Peachtree Road, N.E.
          Atlanta, GA 31119-1625
          Telephone: (404) 523 7706
          Facsimile: (404) 524 1648
          E-mail: efile@pmkm.com


MEMORIAL HEALTHCARE: "Verma" Suit Moved to E.D. Missouri
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Rajesh Verma, an individual, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Memorial Healthcare Group, Inc., doing business as:
Memorial Hospital Jacksonville, a Florida corporation; NPAS, Inc.;
Medicredit, Inc., a Missouri Corporation; and HOVG, LLC, doing
business as: Bay Area Credit Service, LLC, a Nevada limited
liability company, Case No. 3:16-cv-00427, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of the Florida, to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (St.
Louis) on Dec. 4, 2017.  The Missouri Eastern District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 4:17-cv-02809-RWS to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. District Judge Rodney W. Sippel.

Memorial Healthcare operates an acute care medical facility that
provides healthcare services to patients in Northeast Florida. The
company offers advanced technology, ambulatory surgery, atrial
fibrillation, bariatric surgery, bariatrics, and behavioral
health.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric Kem, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF ERIC W. KEM, P.A.
          2233 NW 41st Street, Suite 700-H
          Gainesville, FL 32606
          Telephone: (352) 318 2771
          E-mail: ekem@kemlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Robert W. Murphy, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT W. MURPHY
          1212 SE 2nd Ave
          Ft Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: (954) 763 8660
          Facsimile: (954) 763 8607
          E-mail: rphyu@aol.com

               - and -

          Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
          KEOGH LAW, LTD.
          55 West Monroe St., Suite 3390
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 726 1092
          Facsimile: (312) 726 1093
          E-mail: keith@keoghlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Ashley Bruce Trehan, Esq.
          Edward Martin Waller, Jr., Esq.
          BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY, PC
          401 E Jackson St Ste 2400
          Tampa, FL 33602-5236
          Telephone: (813) 222 2083
          Facsimile: (813) 384 2814
          E-mail: ashley.trehan@bipc.com
                  edward.waller@bipc.com

               - and -

          Jamie N. Cotter, Esq.
          SPENCER FANE BRITT & BROWNE, LLP-DENVER
          1700 Lincoln Street
          Wells Fargo Center, Suite 2000
          Denver, CO 80203
          Telephone: (303) 839 3800
          Facsimile: (303) 839 3838
          E-mail: jcotter@spencerfane.com

               - and -

          John David Emmanuel, Esq.
          Scott A. Richards, Esq.
          BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY, PC
          401 E Jackson St Ste 2400
          Tampa, FL 33602-5236
          Telephone: (813) 222 8180
          Facsimile: (813) 222 8189
          E-mail: John.emmanuel@bipc.com
                  scott.richards@bipc.com

               - and -

          Martin B. Goldberg, Esq.
          Michael L. Ehren, Esq.
          LASH & GOLDBERG, LLP
          100 SE 2nd St., Suite 1200
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 347 4040
          Facsimile: (305) 347 4050
          E-mail: mgoldberg@lashgoldberg.com
                  mehren@lashgoldberg.com

               - and -

          Megan D. Meadows, Esq.
          Scott James Dickenson, Esq.
          SPENCER FANE LLP
          1 N. Brentwood Blvd., Suite 1000
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 863 7733
          Facsimile: (314) 862 4656
          E-mail: mmeadows@spencerfane.com
                  sdickenson@spencerfane.com

               - and -

          Jacob W. Stahl, Esq.
          Maura K. Monaghan, Esq.
          DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON, LLP
          919 Third Ave
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 909 6000
          Facsimile: (212) 909 6386
          E-mail: jwstahl@debevoise.com
                  mkmonaghan@debevoise.com


MICHIGAN: Court Certifies Class of Jewish Inmates
-------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, issued an Opinion and Order granting
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned
MICHAEL ARNOLD, Plaintiff, v. HEIDI WASHINGTON, Defendant, Civil
Case No. 13-14137 (E.D. Mich.).

Plaintiff Michael Arnold brings this action against Michigan
Department of Corrections (MDOC) Director Heidi Washington,
claiming that Jewish inmates requiring a kosher diet are receiving
food not prepared or served in a kosher manner.  Arnold alleges
that this conduct violates the putative class members' First
Amendment rights and their rights under the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).

Arnold proposes the following class definition:

     Jewish prisoners who are designated to receive religious
meals and have been served Vegan meals prepared in a non-Kosher
manner, including, but not limited to, where the utensils used in
the preparation of the Vegan meals are not certified as being
Kosher; where all the area where the Vegan meals are prepared is
not Kosher; and where all the equipment used to clean the utensils
is not Kosher are included within this class.

Arnold believes that there are at least 50 to 100 MDOC inmates who
are similarly situated to him that is, they are Jewish individuals
incarcerated in an MDOC facility and are designated to receive a
kosher diet.  Arnold contends that their joinder is impractical.
The Court agrees, particularly because these individuals are
prisoners housed at various MDOC facilities throughout the State
of Michigan.  As such, the Court finds that Arnold meets the
numerosity requirement.

The common question for all members of the proposed class is the
same: Does MDOC provide meals that in fact are kosher to Jewish
prisoners designated to receive kosher meals? Arnold alleges that
MDOC uses non-kosher items in preparing kosher meals and uses non-
kosher equipment, utensils, and areas to prepare and serve the
meals. Arnold's RLUIPA and First Amendment claims are typical of
the claims he seeks to assert on behalf of the putative class.
Therefore, Rule 23(a)'s second and third elements are satisfied.

To satisfy the fourth, and final, class-action prerequisite, the
Court must find that the representative parties will fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the class. This is a two-
pronged inquiry: (1) the representative must have common interests
with unnamed members of the class, and (2) it must appear that the
representatives will vigorously prosecute interests of the class
through qualified counsel.

The Court finds that Arnold has common interests with the members
of the proposed class. With respect to the second criteria,
Defendant has not challenged the competency or desire of Arnold or
his counsel to prosecute the interests of the class, nor does the
Court believe that it would have any basis to do so.

In short, Rule 23(a)'s four requirements for class certification
are satisfied.

Arnold alleges that Defendant fails to provide kosher-certified
meals to Jewish prisoners throughout MDOC's facilities, resulting
in the systemic violation of their religious rights pursuant to
RLUIPA and the First Amendment. He seeks injunctive relief against
any such future violations. This is a prime example of a case
properly certified as a class under Rule 23(b)(2). The Court
concludes that the proposed class meets the standard imposed by
Rule 23(b)(2).

The Court holds that Arnold satisfies all of the prerequisites for
class certification under Rule 23(a) and (b)(2). Accordingly, the
Court grants Arnold's motion for class certification.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 16, 2017 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybuyqdrr from
Leagle.com.

Michael Arnold, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel E. Manville --
daniel.manville@law.msu.edu -- Civil Rights Clinic.

Michael Arnold, Plaintiff, represented by Michael J. Steinberg --
msteinberg@aclumich.org -- American Civil Liberties Union Fund of
Michigan.

Michael Martin, Defendant, represented by John L. Thurber, MI Dept
of Atty Gen Corrections Division.

Brad Purves, Defendant, represented by John L. Thurber, MI Dept of
Atty Gen Corrections Division.

Heidi Washington, Defendant, represented by Allan J. Soros,
Michigan Department of Attorney General Corrections Division &
John L. Thurber, MI Dept of Atty Gen Corrections Division.


MILLER STARK: Deadline to File Judgment for Default Set in "Wade"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Louisiana, Shreveport Division, issued a Memorandum Order setting
deadline for filing Motion in the case captioned DENISE WADE, v.
MILLER STARK KLEIN & ASSOCIATES, ET AL., Civil Action No. 16-cv-
1290 (W.D. La.).

Denise Wade filed this putative class action against defendants
who she alleged violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Defendants are
Miller Stark Klein & Associates (MSK), Darryl Miller, and Ronald
Hough.

The November 10, 2017 deadline has passed, and neither MSK nor Mr.
Miller have enrolled new counsel, requested an extension of time,
or taken any other action of record. Accordingly, the answer (Doc.
13) filed by MSK and Mr. Miller is stricken, and the Clerk of
Court is directed to enter a default against those two defendants.

The entry of those defaults will result in all named defendants
being defaulted. Plaintiff, if she wishes to pursue a judgment, is
directed to file a motion for default judgment no later than
January 13, 2018.

If plaintiff fails to take the steps required by this order, the
complaint may be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 16, 2017
Memorandum Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7ob6v2m from
Leagle.com.

Denise Wade, Plaintiff, represented by Philip Bohrer --
phil@bohrerbrady.com -- Bohrer Law Firm.

Denise Wade, Plaintiff, represented by Lesa G. Pascal, Charles
Pascal Cohen, pro hac vice & Scott Earl Brady --
scott@bohrerbrady.com -- Bohrer Law Firm.

Miller Stark Klein & Associates, Defendant, Pro Se.
Darryl Miller, Defendant, Pro Se. pro hac vice.
Ronald Hough, Defendant, Pro Se.


MONSANTO COMPANY: Joffe Sues Over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY F. JOFFE and LAURIE RODETSKY JOFFE, Husband and Wife, the
Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-
00667-SPC-MRM (M.D. Fla., Dec. 6, 2017), seeks compensatory
damages as a result of Plaintiffs' use of, and exposure to,
Roundup, which caused or was a substantial contributing factor in
causing Plaintiffs to suffer from cancer, physical pain and mental
anguish, including diminished enjoyment of life.

This case arises out of Monsanto's wrongful conduct in connection
with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and
sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient
glyphosate. Glyphosate has been found to be carcinogenic, linked
to causing various forms of cancer, and in particular non-Hodgkins
Lymphoma. As such, Roundup is dangerous to human health and unfit
to be marketed and sold in commerce, particularly without proper
warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use.
Plaintiffs, who used Roundup extensively, now suffer from non-
Hodgkins Lymphoma and bring this action for the harm they have
incurred.

According to the complaint, Monsanto provided failed to contain
adequate warnings and precautions that would have enabled
Plaintiff, and similarly situated individuals, to utilize the
product safely and with adequate protection. Instead, Monsanto
disseminated information that was inaccurate, false, and
misleading and that failed to communicate accurately or adequately
the comparative severity, duration, and extent of the risk of
injuries associated with use of and/or exposure to Roundup and
glyphosate; continued to promote the efficacy of Roundup, even
after it knew or should have known of the unreasonable risks from
use or exposure; and concealed, downplayed, or otherwise
suppressed, through aggressive marketing and promotion, any
information or research about the risks and dangers of exposure to
Roundup and glyphosate.

Monsanto Company is a publicly traded American multinational
agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation. It is
headquartered in Creve Coeur, Greater St. Louis, Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     George T. Williamson, Esq.
     FARR, FARR, EMERICH, HACKETT, CARR & HOLMES, P.A.
     99 Nesbit Street
     Punta Gorda, FL 33950
     Telephone: (941) 639 1158
     Facsimile: (941) 639 0028
     E-mail: gwilliamson@farr.com


MOTORINO EAST: "Morales" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
ARTURO MORALES, DOMINGO ANDRES FRANCISCO and RUFINO MARCELO
FLORES, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. MOTORINO EAST VILLAGE INC. (d/b/a PIZZERIA
MOTORINO), MOTORINO 3 INC. (d/b/a PIZZERIA MOTORINO), DIMITRI
VLAHAKIS and MATHIEU PALOMBINO, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
09236 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum
wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New
York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs were ostensibly
employed by Defendants as delivery workers. However, they were
required to spend a considerable part of their work day performing
non-tipped duties including but not limited to, various restaurant
duties such as dishwashing, mopping, sweeping, carrying wood up
from the basement, cleaning containers, putting together boxes,
sweeping the sidewalk, carrying, unpacking, and stocking
deliveries, transporting supplies such as food and soda from the
basement to the kitchen and from the kitchen back to the basement,
taking out the garbage and twisting and tying up cardboard
boxes/cartons for recycling, and hosing the special filter fan
behind the kitchen.

The Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendants. The Defendants
own, operate, or control two Italian restaurants one of which is
located at Pizzeria Motorino East Village and the second one is
located at 510 Columbus Avenue, New York, NY 10024. The Plaintiffs
worked for Defendants without appropriate minimum wages for the
hours that they worked each week. Rather, Defendants failed to
maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to
pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked at the straight
rate of pay. The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff Flores the
required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work
over 10 hours a day.

The Defendants employed and accounted for Plaintiffs as delivery
workers in their payroll, but in actuality their duties required a
significant amount of time spent in non-tipped, nondelivery
duties. Regardless, at all times Defendants paid these plaintiffs
at a rate that was lower than the required tip-credit rate.

Under state law, Defendants were not entitled to take a tip credit
because Plaintiff's non-tipped duties exceeded 20% of each
workday. The Defendants employed the policy and practice of
disguising Plaintiffs' actual duties in payroll records to avoid
paying Plaintiffs at the minimum wage rate and to enable them to
pay Plaintiffs at the lower tip-credited rate (which they still
failed to do), by designating them as delivery workers instead of
non-tipped employees. The Defendants' conduct extended beyond
Plaintiffs to all other similarly situated employees.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

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


MRS BPO: Court Denies Summary Judgment Bid in "Dinaples"
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DONNA DINAPLES, Plaintiff, v. MRS BPO, LLC,
Defendant, C.A. No. 2:15-cv-01435-MAP (W.D. Pa.), Judge Michael A.
Ponsor of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania denied the Defendant's motion for summary judgment on
liability, and granted the both the Plaintiff's motions for
summary judgment and for class certification.

On Nov. 4, 2014, the Defendant mailed the Plaintiff a collection
letter that displayed a Quick Response Code ("QR Code") on the
outside of the envelope.  It is undisputed that a QR Code may be
scanned by a widely available QR Code reader downloadable to a
cell phone.  It is further undisputed that, through the use of
such a reader, the Plaintiff's unencrypted account number -- the
number used by the Defendant to identify the Plaintiff for its own
purposes -- would be displayed.  The Plaintiff contends that this
disclosure of her account number through the QR Code constituted a
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").

The Plaintiff brings suit under the FDCPA against MRS.  The
Plaintiff and the Defendant both move for summary judgment on
liability.  The Plaintiff also moves for class certification.  The
Plaintiff seeks certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 of
the Class of all consumers with an address in Westmoreland County
who, beginning Nov. 2, 2014 through and including the final
resolution of the case, were sent one or more letters from the
Defendant attempting to collect a consumer debt allegedly owed to
Chase Bank, which displayed on the outside of the mailing a QR
Code containing the account number associated by the Defendant
with that consumer's account.

The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff has not established that
she suffered a concrete injury, insofar as she does not allege
that she or any members of the proposed class were harmed by the
QR Code, or that anyone has, in fact, ever scanned the code.
Judge Ponsor finds this argument unpersuasive.  He says the injury
suffered by the Plaintiff is the disclosure of confidential
information.  To invoke the FDCPA, she does not have to identify
harm quantifiable in dollars and cents.  The Defendant's
disclosure of confidential information protected under the FDCPA
is per se sufficient to sustain a finding of a violation of the
statute.  The degree of harm, of course, may factor into any
assessment of damages, but liability is clear.

In a further effort to fend off summary judgment, the Defendant
invokes the "benign or harmless language" exception under the
FDCPA.  The Judge finds that by contrast, disclosures implicating
a core concern animating the FDCPA -- the invasion of privacy
would not fall under the benign language exemption.  The simple
fact is that disclosure of an account number is not "benign" under
the statute, and this exception does not apply.

The Defendant's final argument is that the disclosure occurred as
a result of bona fide error and despite its own maintenance of
procedures reasonably adapted to avoid such error.  Judge Ponsor
this appeal to the bona fide error defense must also be rejected.
The Defendant has not alleged that the barcode was stamped in
error upon the envelope by an errant employee or the like.  In
fact, it admits it was company and indeed, industry policy to do
so.  Given that the Defendant's conduct was intentional, the bona
fide error defense offers the Defendant no protection.  Based on
the foregoing, the Judge will allow the Plaintiff's motion for
summary judgment on liability, and deny the Defendant's motion.

The Judge will also allow the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.  He says a review of the record confirms that the
Plaintiff has met all the four threshold requirements of
numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of
representation.  First, as to numerosity, similar letters were
mailed to approximately 264 consumers in Westmoreland County;
second, the putative class shares common questions of fact and
law; third, class members can be easily identified through a
review of the Defendant's records; fourth, their claims are
typical of other putative class members; fifth, Plaintiff is a
competent class representative; and, finally, the Plaintiff has
retained counsel experienced in prosecuting FDCPA matters and
consumer class actions.

The prerequisites of predominance and superiority have also been
met.  The likely interest of class members in prosecuting claims
against the Defendant individually is small, even in the case of a
clear statutory violation, because statutory damages are capped
under the FDCPA.  Even if individual litigation were practical,
the class action treatment is more efficient than the management
of myriad individual actions by consumers standing alone.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Ponsor granted the Plaintiff's
motion for summary judgment as to liability, and denied the
Defendant's motion for summary judgment.  He also granted the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification.  He has allowed the
Plaintiff's proposed Order Certifying Class, with the agreed
modification permitting their counsel to submit a proposed form of
Class Notification for review by the court within 45 (not 20) days
and allowing the Defendant to produce the Class List within 45
days as well.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 21, 2017 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/WBtZAe from Leagle.com.

DONNA DINAPLES, Plaintiff, represented by Ari H. Marcus --
Ari@MarcusZelman.com -- Marcus & Zelman, LLC, pro hac vice.

DONNA DINAPLES, Plaintiff, represented by Mark G. Moynihan --
mark@moynihanlaw.net -- Moynihan Law, P.C. & Yitzchak Zelman --
yzelman@marcuszelman.com -- Marcus & Zelman, LLC, pro hac vice.

MRS BPO, LLC, Defendant, represented by Bryan C. Shartle --
bshartle@sessions.legal -- Sessions, Fishman, Nathan, LLP, pro hac
vice, Michael D. Alltmont -- malltmont@sessions.legal -- Sessions,
Fishman, Nathan & Israel, pro hac vice & Ross S. Enders --
renders@sessions.legal -- Sessions, Fishman, Nathan & Israel, LLC.


MUSICIAN'S FRIEND: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Andrews Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR ANDREWS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. MUSICIAN'S FRIEND, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 522740/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nov. 22, 2017),
contends that the Defendant is denying blind individuals
throughout the United States equal access to the goods and
services Defendant provides to its non-disabled customers through
http://www.musiciansfriend.com/ The Website provides to the
public a wide array of the goods services, price specials, and
other programs offered by Defendant. Yet, the Website contains
extensive access barriers that make it difficult, if not
impossible, for blind customers to use the Website. In fact, the
access barriers make it impossible for blind users to even
complete a transaction on the Website. Defendant thus excludes the
blind from the full and equal participation in the growing
Internet economy that is increasingly a fundamental part of the
common marketplace and daily living. In the wave of technological
advances in recent years, assistive computer technology is
becoming an increasingly prominent part of everyday life, allowing
blind people to fully and independently access a variety of
services, including purchasing products online.

The Plaintiff is a blind individual.  The Plaintiff browsed and
intended to purchase monitors, power cables, and microphone clips
on the Website. However, unless Defendant remedies the numerous
access barriers on the Website, Plaintiff and Class members will
continue to be unable to independently navigate, browse, use, and
complete a transaction on the Website.[BN]

The 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
          Telephone: (212) 465 1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465 1181


NEIMAN MARCUS: Fails to Pay Compensation, "Roces" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
ONDREA ROCES and SOPHIA AHMED, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. The Neiman Marcus
Group, LTD, LLC; and the Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. CGC-17-562858 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 5, 2017), alleges
that Neiman Marcus has systematically failed to pay Plaintiffs and
all other Sales Associates for the full amount of time they have
worked at Neiman Marcus.  Sales Associates are paid on a
commission basis.  Neiman Marcus fails to pay Sales Associates for
time performing non-commission-generating duties assigned by the
Company. This practice deprives Sales Associates of the wages to
which they are rightfully entitled under the law and constitutes a
violation of state law.

The Plaintiffs are Sales Associates employed by Neiman Marcus,
classified as exempt from the overtime requirements of state law.
Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated Sales Associates who were paid on commission,
and who work or worked for Neiman Marcus in the United States at
any time during the applicable liability period.

Although Plaintiffs and Sales Associates were paid exclusively by
commission, they were routinely required to perform work that did
not allow them to earn commission, and were not paid on an hourly
basis for this work.  Specifically, Plaintiffs and Sales
Associates spent these non-sales-commission-generating work
periods performing administrative or operational work duties
unrelated to the direct earning of sales. These Non-Sell Periods
regularly amounted to multiple hours of work each week. Because
the store was not open, or because Plaintiffs and Sales Associates
were unable to interact with clients or potential clients on the
sales floor during Non-Sell Periods, Plaintiffs and other Sales
Associates by definition could not have earned commission during
Non-Sell Periods.

Neiman Marcus has unlawfully failed to pay Plaintiffs and Sales
Associates hourly wage for work performed during Non-Sell Periods.
Plaintiffs and Sales Associates performed unpaid hourly work, as
defined by the applicable state laws, and are and have been
entitled to hourly compensation at the appropriate rate for all
hourly work performed.  Neiman Marcus has willfully refused to pay
Plaintiffs and other Sales Associates the required hourly
compensation for hourly work performed, and has failed to keep
proper time records as required by the law.

Neiman Marcus operates dozens of luxury department stores across
the country. Neiman Marcus has employed Sales Associates at its
retail locations nationwide. By the conduct described herein,
Neiman Marcus has willfully violated state law by failing to pay
Sales Associates, including Plaintiffs, proper hourly wages as
required by law.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq.
          Relic Sun, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 638 8800
          Facsimile: (415) 638 8810
          E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com
                  rsun@outtengolden.com


NORMANDIN'S: Court Grants Prelim Approval of "Brinker" Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, issued an Order granting
Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the
parties' class action settlement in the case captioned ALAN
BRINKER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NORMANDIN'S, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 5:14-cv-03007-EJD (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs allege that Normandin's and OneCommand violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by placing automated calls to
Plaintiffs' phones.  Plaintiff Alan Brinker received one call,
which went to voicemail; he listened to the message, called to
confirm that Normandin's left the message, and hung up.
Plaintiffs Austin Rugg and Ana Sanders each received approximately
five or six calls; it is unclear whether they answered the calls
or listened to voicemail messages.

Here, the parties state that the class consists of 8,313 members.
This size far exceeds the forty-person class size generally deemed
sufficient for numerosity purposes.  Thus, the court finds that
Plaintiffs have made an adequate showing of numerosity.

The Plaintiffs contend that the commonality requirement is met
because the claims of class members raise the following common
questions: (1) whether OneCommand used an automated telephone
dialing system to call potential consumers' cell phones; (2)
whether Normandin's obtained valid prior express consent from
consumers; and (3) whether Normandin's is vicariously liable for
calls placed by OneCommand.

Plaintiffs' claims are based on Defendants' practice of placing
automated calls. The injuries they allege are substantially
identical to the injuries suffered by all class members. As such,
the Court finds that Plaintiffs have met the typicality
requirement of Rule 23(a)(3).

Rule 23(a)(4) requires a showing that "the representative parties
will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. To
determine whether a class representative fairly and adequate
protects the interests of the class, the court must answer two
questions: (1) do the named plaintiffs and their counsel have any
conflicts of interest with other class members, and (2) will the
named plaintiffs and their counsel prosecute the action vigorously
on behalf of the class?

The Court finds, based on the information presented, that
Plaintiffs and their counsel do not have conflicts of interest
with other class members. The Court also finds that Plaintiffs'
counsel has and will continue to pursue this action vigorously on
behalf of the class in light of counsel's reputation,
qualifications, and experience representing clients in consumer
protection class actions.

Under Rule 23(b)(3), the court must find "that questions of law or
fact common to class members predominate over any questions
affecting only individual members, and that a class action is
superior to other available means for fairly and efficiently
adjudicating the controversy.

With respect to predominance, the question of law and fact common
to all class members is whether Defendants violated the TCPA by
placing autodialed calls to cell phones without the recipients'
consent. In light of this common question, the Court finds that
the predominance requirement set forth in Rule 23(b)(3) is
satisfied.

With respect to superiority, each class member's potential
recovery is $500 in statutory damages for each TCPA violation (or
$1500 per violation if the violation was willful). These amounts
are substantially less than the amount it would cost each class
member to pursue an independent legal action. Most class members
would be deterred from filing suits and seeking recovery. As such,
Plaintiffs have shown that a class action is the most efficient
and effective means of resolving this controversy.

The settlement agreement contains the following major components:


   * Each of the 8,313 class members may submit a claim for either
(1) a certificate in the amount of $90 for one-time purchase of
goods and/or services, or (2) $40 in cash.

   * Plaintiff Brinker will receive a service award of $10,000.
Plaintiffs Rugg and Sanders will receive $1,000 each.

   * Defendants will be enjoined from committing further TCPA
violations and will train and instruct their employees regarding
the requirements of the TCPA.

   * Plaintiffs' counsel seeks, and Defendants do not oppose, an
award of $150,000 in attorneys' fees and costs. Approval of the
settlement is not contingent on approval of the fees and costs
award, and fees and costs are to be paid by Defendants separately
from the relief to the settlement class.

The Court finds that the terms of settlement fair, reasonable, and
adequate under Rule23(e). The motion for preliminary approval of
settlement is granted.

The law firm of Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC is appointed as
class counsel under Rule 23(g).

Plaintiffs Alan Brinker, Austin Rugg, and Ana Sanders are approved
to act as class representatives for settlement purposes only.

Kurtzman Carson Consultants is appointed as Settlement
Administrator.

A hearing on the final approval of class action settlement will be
held before this court on March 29, 2018, at 10:00 a.m.  Class
counsel must file brief(s) requesting final approval of the
settlement agreement, attorneys' fees award, and incentive award
no later than 35 calendar days before the final approval hearing.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 16, 2017 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8ab67ja from Leagle.com.

Alan Brinker, Plaintiff, represented by Beth E. Terrell --
bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC.
Alan Brinker, Plaintiff, represented by Adrienne McEntee --
amcentee@terrellmarshall.com -- Terrell Marshall Daudt and Willie
PLLC, Allyson Janay Ferguson -- jferguson@terrellmarshall.com --
Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, pro hac vice, Kathryn A. Williams
-- roblin@williamslaw.com -- Williamson & Williams, Mary Bondy
Reiten -- mreiten@terrellmarshall.com -- Terrell Marshall Law
Group PLLC &Roblin John Williamson -- kim@williamslaw.com --
Williamson & Williams.

Austin Rugg, Plaintiff, represented by Adrienne McEntee, Terrell
Marshall Daudt and Willie PLLC & Beth E. Terrell, Terrell Marshall
Law Group PLLC.

Ana Sanders, Plaintiff, represented by Adrienne McEntee, Terrell
Marshall Daudt and Willie PLLC & Beth E. Terrell, Terrell Marshall
Law Group PLLC.

Normandin's, Defendant, represented by Andrew Stearns --
AStearns@RobardsStearns.com -- Robards & Stearns.

Onecommand, Inc., Defendant, represented by Sean P. Flynn -
sflynn@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees, LLP, Steven Charles Coffaro --
steve.coffaro@kmklaw.com -- Keating Muething and Klekamp PLL &
Daniel Scott Kubasak -- dkubasak@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees.
Normandin's, Cross-claimant, represented by Andrew Stearns,
Robards & Stearns.


NORTH DAKOTA: "Hansen" Suit Moved from E.D. Pa. to Local Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Angela Hansen and B.D. BY MOTHER
AND NEXT FRIEND ANGELA HANSEN, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. State of North Dakota, et
al., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-05246, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
to the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota
(Western) on Dec. 4, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:17-cv-00260-CSM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Magistrate Judge Charles S. Miller, Jr.

North Dakota is a Midwestern U.S. state dominated by the Great
Plains. Its eastern city of Fargo showcases Native American and
modern art at the Plains Art Museum.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


NOVAN INC: Cisneros Sues over Steep Share Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------
ROBERTO CISNEROS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. NOVAN, INC., NATHAN STASKO,
RICHARD D. PETERSON, ROBERT A. INGRAM, W. KENT GEER, ROBERT J.
KEEGAN, G. KELLY MARTIN, SEAN MURPHY, and JOHN W. PALMOUR, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01066 (M.D.N.C., Nov. 24, 2017),
seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired Novan's stock, pursuant and/or traceable to
Novan's false and misleading Registration Statement and
Prospectus, issued in connection with the Company's initial public
offering on or about September 26, 2016 and/or on the open market
between September 26, 2016 and August 1, 2017, both dates
inclusive.

Novan is a clinical-stage drug development company that focuses on
the development and commercialization of nitric oxide-based
therapies in dermatology. Novan was incorporated in January 2006
under the laws of Delaware and its subsidiaries were organized in
May 2015 under the laws of North Carolina. Founded in 2006, the
Company is headquartered in Morrisville, North Carolina and its
stock trades on the NASDAQ Global Select Market under the ticker
symbol "NOVN."

Leading up to and during the Class Period, Defendants represented
that Novan had commenced two identically designed Phase 3 clinical
trials of SB204, a once-daily, topical gel for the treatment of
acne vulgaris. SB204 was the Company's lead product candidate, and
information regarding its development and commercialization was
important to investors. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and outlook, specifically regarding SB204.
Specifically, Defendants repeatedly stated that Novan had
commenced and performed two identically designed Phase 3 clinical
trials of SB204; Defendants falsely stated that the two Phase 3
clinical trials were identical and omitted specific facts as to
why the two critical trials were, in fact, not identical; and as a
result for the foregoing, the Company's outlook and expected
financial performance were not accurately represented to the
market at all relevant times.

During the Class Period, the price of Novan stock climbed
significantly above the IPO price of $11.00 per share, reaching as
high as $29.09 on December 7, 2016. Before the market opened on
January 27, 2017, Novan announced the top-line results of its two
"identical" Phase 3 clinical trials of SB204. Although the drug
reached all of its goals in one of the trials, dubbed NI-AC302, it
failed to beat a placebo in the other separate Phase 3 study,
called NI-AC301. On news of these discordant results in what were
described to be two identical studies, the price of Novan stock
fell sharply. After closing at $18.70 on January 26, 2017, the
stock opened at $4.50 per share on January 27, 2017, fell to a low
of $3.52, and ultimately closed at $4.86, a decline of 74%, on
abnormally high trading volume of more than eight million shares.

Subsequent disclosures regarding SB204 demonstrated that the two
Phase 3 clinical trials of SB204 were not "identical." Following
these disclosures, several executives left the Company. On March
22, 2017, Novan announced that its Chief Financial Officer
("CFO"), Defendant Richard Peterson, was leaving and would be
replaced, "effective immediately," by interim CFO William L.
Hodges. On May 5, 2017, Novan disclosed that the Company's Chief
Medical Officer ("CMO"), M. Joyce Rico, had resigned. Then, on
June 5, 2017, Novan announced that it was replacing its Chief
Executive Officer ("CEO") and co-founder, Defendant Nathan Stasko,
with G. Kelly Martin, a member of the Company's Board of
Directors, who would become interim CEO. Novan also announced that
it was laying off 20% of its workforce and that despite previously
assuring investors that it was committed to SB204, Novan was
executing a plan to turn its focus to earlier-stage compounds.
Following the Company's June 5, 2017 disclosures, the price of
Novan stock fell 5% to close at $4.64 that day. The stock extended
its losses on June 6, 2017, falling 4% to close at $4.45.

Additional company disclosures on August 2, 2017, informed the
market that Novan would be retreating further from SB204, stating
that Novan's "[p]rimary clinical focus over the next 24 months"
would be "antiviral clinical work in EGW and Molluscum" and that
the "[a] cne indication and path forward [would] be largely driven
by regulatory clarity." On this news, the price of Novan stock
declined from $5.48 on August 1, 2017, to $4.54 on August 2, 2017,
a drop of more than 17%. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts
and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of
the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have
suffered significant losses and damages.

Novan, Inc. is a late-stage pharmaceutical company focused on
redefining the standard of care in dermatology through the
development and commercialization of innovative therapies using
the Company's nitric oxide platform.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David G. Schiller, Esq.
          SCHILLER & SCHILLER, PLLC
          304 East Jones Street
          Raleigh, NC 27601
          Telephone: (919) 789 4677
          Facsimile: (919) 789 4469
          E-mail: david@schillerfirm.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


NUCO2 MANAGEMENT: "Hernandez" Suit Moved to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Alejandro Hernandez, individually,
and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Nuco2 Management, LLC, a Delaware
Company, the Defendant, Case No. BCV-17-102571, was removed from
the Kern County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California - (Fresno) on Dec. 7, 2017. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-01645-LJO-JLT to
the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Chief Judge
Lawrence J. O'Neill.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Han, Esq.
          JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
          411 North Central Avenue, Suite 500
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 230 7502
          Facsimile: (818) 230 7259
          E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Elizabeth Chau Buu Nguyen, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON
          2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2709
          Telephone: (310) 553 0308
          Facsimile: (310) 553 5583
          E-mail: enguyen@littler.com


NYU LANGONE: Underpays Nurse Aides, "Pruitt" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
REBECCA PRUITT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. NYU LANGONE HEALTH SYSTEM d/b/a NYU
LUTHERAN MEDICAL CENTER, the Defendant, Case No. 522945/2017 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., Nov. 28, 2017), seeks to recover amount of underpayments
based on the Defendant's failure to pay straight or agreed upon
wages for all hours worked as provided by the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated non-exempt hourly paid nurse's aides
employed by Lutheran Medical Center, now known as NYU Langone
Health System in the State of New York at any time during the
period commencing six years prior to the filing of this action and
continuing until such further date as the practices complained of
are discontinued. The Defendant, by virtue of its management and
control over the wages and work of its Aides, is classified as an
"employer" under New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has engaged and
continues to engage in illegal and improper wage practices. These
practices include: requiring Aides to perform work without
compensation during meal breaks; requiring Aides to perform work
without compensation before the start of their scheduled shift;
requiring Aides to perform work without compensation after the end
of their scheduled shift; and failing to pay Aides at their
straight or agreed upon rate for all hours worked under 40 hours
in a week.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Louis Ginsberg, Esq.

          THE LAW FIRM OF LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C.
          1613 Northern Boulevard
          Roslyn, NY 11576
          Telephone: (516) 625 0105


OCEAN DRIVE: "Esquenazi" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
ABRAHAM ESQUENAZI, the Plaintiff, v. OCEAN DRIVE LIMOUSINES, INC.,
OCEAN DRIVE LIMOUSINES, INC. SO. FLA., RICHARD BENNETTI and
MELISSA BENNETTI, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-24267-UU (S.D.
Fla., Nov. 25, 2017), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid
overtime and minimum wages under the laws of the United States and
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff routinely worked in
excess of 40 hours per week without being compensated at a rate of
not less than one and one half times the regular rate at which he
was employed. The Plaintiff was employed as a driver, performing
the same or similar duties as that of those other similarly
situated drivers who Plaintiff observed worked in excess of 40
hours per week without overtime compensation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
          SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
          20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 503 5131
          Facsimile: (888) 270 5549
          E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


OCWEN LOAN: Court Grants Amendment in "Henry" WVCCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia, Huntington Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and
Order granting Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint in the case
captioned KIMBERLY HENRY, Plaintiff, v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:17-1789 (S.D.W.V.).

Plaintiff alleges that her house was totally destroyed by a fire
in May of 2014.  Despite the house being a complete loss with no
change in equity, Plaintiff states that Defendant refused to give
her insurance company a payoff quote until Defendant received a
property appraisal.  In August 2014, Plaintiff's insurer sent
Defendant a check for the total amount due on Plaintiff's monthly
statements.  Defendant acknowledged receipt of the funds on August
23, 2014.  Nevertheless, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant did not
apply the insurance proceeds to the loan balance, and it began
collection efforts against Plaintiff.

Soon after discovery commenced, Defendant produced a Payoff Quote
dated September 4, 2014.  This document provides, in part, for a
Satisfaction Cost, and that, if the account is past due,
collection expenses and legal fees may be accruing.  Plaintiff
asserts this language is an unlawful threat under the West
Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act (WVCCPA).  Therefore,
Plaintiff filed the current motion to bring a claim for additional
violations of the WVCCPA on her own behalf and on behalf of a
class.

Defendant argues the proposed amendment is futile because it is
permitted to charge the costs set forth in the Payoff Quote it
sent.

Upon consideration, the Court finds it premature at this initial
stage of the proceedings to determine what Defendant actually
intended when it referenced legal fees and Satisfaction Cost and
whether the language applied to Plaintiff and violates the WVCCPA.
Moreover, as indicated by Plaintiff, Defendant has made no attempt
to argue that collection expenses as contained in the Payoff Quote
are permissible under the WVCCPA.

Plaintiff argues they are plainly not allowed under West Virginia
Code Section 46A-2-128(c) and (d), and her claim could stand on
that ground alone. Given Plaintiff's new claim is at least
plausible, the Court rejects Defendant's futility argument and
GRANTS Plaintiff's motion.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 16, 2017
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y7d25hsv from Leagle.com.

Kimberly Henry, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher B. Frost,
HAMILTON BURGESS YOUNG & POLLARD.

Kimberly Henry, Plaintiff, represented by Jed Robert Nolan,
HAMILTON BURGESS YOUNG & POLLARD, Jonathan R. Marshall, BAILEY &
GLASSER, Patricia M. Kipnis, BAILEY & GLASSER, Ralph C. Young,
HAMILTON BURGESS YOUNG & POLLARD & Steven R. Broadwater, Jr.,
HAMILTON BURGESS YOUNG & POLLARD, 1031 Quarrier St Ste 200,
Charleston, WV, 25301-2314

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jason E.
Manning -- jason.manning@troutman.com -- TROUTMAN SANDERS, Massie
Payne Cooper -- massie.cooper@troutman.com  -- TROUTMAN SANDERS &
Michael Christopher Litman -- mike.litman@troutman.com  --
TROUTMAN SANDERS.


OPUS PLATINUM: Faces "Terrell" Wage-and-Hour Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
JAKE D. TERRELL, an individual, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. OPUS PLATINUM, INC.; and
DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC684564 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Nov. 27, 2017), seeks to recover meal and rest period
penalties, penalties for accurate itemized wage statements, other
penalties, injunctive and other equitable relief, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs, injunctive relief, restitution, and
disgorgement of all benefits Defendant enjoyed under the
California Labor Code.

This case is a Class Action, pursuant to the Code of Civil
Procedure, on behalf of Plaintiff and all individuals who hold or
held the position of hourly employee currently employed by or
formerly employed by Defendant and any subsidiaries or affiliated
companies.  According to complaint, the Defendant has had a
consistent policy of failing to inform Proposed Class Members of
their right to take meal periods by way of a lawful policy and
requiring Proposed Class Members within the State of California,
including Plaintiff, to work at least five hours before receiving
a meal period and failing to pay such employees one hour of pay at
the employees' regular rate of compensation for each workday that
the meal period was provided after 5 hours, as required by
California state wage and hour laws.

Opus Platinum is a restaurant located in Burbank, California.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

          Darren M. Cohen, Esq.
          KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
          16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 990 8300
          Facsimile: (818) 990-2903
          E-mail: dcohen@kingsleykingsley.com


PACIFIC COAST SIGHTSEEING: "Nava" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
JOSE NAVA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. PACIFIC COAST SIGHTSEEING TOURS &
CHARTERS, INC., a Florida corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, the
Defendants, Case No. BC685681 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 4, 2017),
seeks to recover damages for unpaid compensation for failing to
provide timely and uninterrupted meal periods and/or rest periods;
prejudgment interest; and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
under the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants employed Plaintiff and the
rest of the Class as non-exempt employees. The Defendants adopted
and maintained uniform policies, practices and procedures
governing the working conditions of, and payment of wages to
Plaintiff and the rest of the Class. These uniform policies,
practices and procedures violated California's labor laws and
constituted unfair, fraudulent or illegal business practices under
Business and Professions Code.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron C. Gundzik, Esq.
          Rebecca G. Gundzik, Esq.
          GARTENBERG GELFAND HAYTON LLP
          15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1920
          Sherman Oaks, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 542 2100
          Facsimile: (213) 542 2101

               - and -

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


PEACHY DEVELOPMENTS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Velasquez Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JORGE H. VELASQUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. PEACHY DEVELOPMENTS CALIFORNIA SOUTH,
LLC, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
the Defendant, Case No. BC685778 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 5, 2017),
seeks to recover overtime wages under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees routinely working over eight hours per day or 40 hours
per week without being properly compensated for hours worked in
excess of eight hours per day or 40 hours per week, routinely
working 12 or more hours per day and or more than eight hours per
day on the seventh consecutive work day in a work week, thereby
depriving them of overtime wages. Moreover, Defendants routinely
did not include Plaintiff or other similarly situated employees'
commissions, nondiscretionary bonuses, or other non-hourly
compensation in determining overtime pay in violation of Labor
Code section 200 which resulted in the failure to compensate at
the proper overtime rates of pay, to the detriment of Plaintiff
and other similarly situated employees.

Peachy Development is a top and body repair and paint shop located
in Orange, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
          Diego Aviles, Esq.
          BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1801 Century Park East, Suite 2600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 438 5555
          Facsimile: (310) 300 1705
          E-mail: david@tomorrowlaw.com
                  diego@tomorrowlaw.com


PEI WEI ASIAN: "Davis" Suit Moved to Southern District of Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Ron Davis, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Pei Wei Asian
Diner, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 17-12013-CA, was removed from
the 15th Judicial Circuit Court Palm Beach, Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida (West Palm
Beach) on Nov. 28, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 9:17-cv-81294-RLR to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Robin L. Rosenberg.

Pei Wei Asian Diner is an American restaurant chain serving Pan
Asian fare, operating in more than 200 locations in the U.S. and
six international locations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP
          1515 S Federal Highway, Suite 404
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 447 8888
          Facsimile: (561) 447 8831
          E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kelly Marie Pena, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1600
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 374 0506
          Facsimile: (305) 374 0456
          E-mail: kelly.pena@ogletreedeakins.com


PETERSEN-DEAN: Fails to Pay Wages, "Colmenero" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------
MARCO A. PULIDO COLMENERO, VICTOR PULIDO and JUAN PULIDO NUNES,
each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
and the California general public, the Plaintiff, v. JAMES PATRICK
PETERSEN; PETERSEN-DEAN, INC., a California corporation; DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC685878 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Dec. 5, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages under the
California Labor Code.

The Defendants are in the construction industry in the business of
installing roofing tiles and solar panels. The Plaintiffs' job
title was cargador (also called loader). The Plaintiffs and other
similarly situated employees, which included other cargadores
(loaders) and installadores (also called installers or roofers)
laid black paper on roofs which they marked with chalk to indicate
where the roof tiles or solar panels were to installed, for which
they were paid a piece rate.

The Plaintiffs and other Loaders/Roofers also loaded roof tiles or
solar panels onto a conveyor which they used to lift the tiles and
panels to the customer's roof, which they then unloaded, for which
they were paid a piece rate. The Plaintiffs and other
Loaders/Roofers worked overtime (i.e., 8 hours per workday or 40
hours per workweek) but were only paid piece rate compensation by
Defendants that did not compensate them for the overtime hours
they worked.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephen Glick, Esq.
          M. Anthony Jenkins, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN GLICK
          1055 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1480
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 387 3400
          Facsimile: (213) 387 7872


PHILLIPS 66: Fails to Timely Pay Final Wages, Robbins Says
----------------------------------------------------------
DEAN A. ROBBINS, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY, a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case
No. CGC-17-562672 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 27, 2017), seeks to
recover unpaid premium wages, interest and costs of suit under the
California Labor Code.

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

Phillips 66 is an American multinational energy company
headquartered in Westchase, Houston, Texas. It debuted as an
independent energy company when ConocoPhillips executed a spin-off
of its downstream and midstream assets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: 2d Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Aikens"
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the
District Court's dismissal of the case captioned SHARON AIKENS,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC,
Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 17-1132 -cv (2d Cir.) for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.

Aikens appeals from the dismissal of her putative class action
against PRA for alleged violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer
Act ("EFTA").  The EFTA provides that a preauthorized electronic
fund transfer from a consumer's account may be authorized by the
consumer only in writing, and a copy of such authorization will be
provided to the consumer when made.  The District Court dismissed
the action for lack of standing.

Aikens' complaint alleges that on March 11, 2015, a PRA associate
telephoned her to discuss an outstanding credit card debt.  During
the call, Aikens agreed to a repayment plan under which PRA would
make monthly withdrawals from her bank account.  PRA debited
Aikens' account for the first time in April 2015 without obtaining
her written authorization, and continued making monthly
withdrawals thereafter.

In March 2016, Aikens filed suit against PRA under the EFTA.  She
sought to represent the class of individuals who had entered into
automated payment plans with PRA over the telephone and without a
contemporaneous writing.

PRA moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) to
dismiss the complaint for lack of standing.  The District Court
concluded that, under Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, Aikens failed to
show a concrete injury and therefore lacked constitutional
standing to pursue the asserted claim.  The court dismissed the
action with prejudice.

On appeal, Aikens contends that the District Court erred in its
standing determination, and also that its dismissal for want of
standing should have been entered without prejudice.

The Appellate Court holds that Aikens' filings in the District
Court articulated no theory at all to justify her hypothesis that
PRA created an increased risk of fraud by obtaining her consent
over the phone and mailing her a confirmation letter rather than
obtaining her contemporaneous written authorization.  It
concludes, therefore, that she has not met her burden of showing
that PRA's conduct amounted to anything more than a "bare
procedural violation," and so she has failed to establish that she
has constitutional standing to assert her EFTA claim.

It has considered the remainder of Aikens' arguments and finds
them to be without merit.  Accordingly, the Appellate Court
affirmed the District Court's conclusion that the case must be
dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  It remanded
the case, however, with the instruction that the District Court
enter an amended judgment dismissing the action without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 21, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/HQRMzm from Leagle.com.

DAVID N. McDEVITT -- dmcdevitt@consumerlawinfo.com -- Thompson
Consumer Law Group, PLLC, Mesa, AZ., for Appellant.

DAVID L. HARTSELL -- dhartsell@mcguirewoods.com -- ( Sarah A.
Zielinski -- szielinski@mcguirewoods.com -- on the brief),
McGuireWoods LLP, Chicago, IL., for Appellee.


PURDUE PHARMA: Teamsters Local 404 Sues over Opioid Effect
----------------------------------------------------------
TEAMSTERS HEALTH SERVICES AND INSURANCE PLAN LOCAL 404, on behalf
of itself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
PURDUE PHARMA, LP, PURDUE PHARMA, INC., THE PURDUE FREDERICK
COMPANY, INC., ABBOTT LABORATORIES, ABBOTT LABORATORIES, INC.,
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., CEPHALON, INC., JOHNSON & JOHNSON,
JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ORTHO-MCNEIL-JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA, INC. n/k/a JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, ENDO
HEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC., ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ALLERGAN
PLC, ACTIVIS PLC, ACAVIS, INC., ACTAVIS LLC, ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC.,
WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., WATSON LABORATORIES, INC., WATSON S
PHARMA, INC., MCKESSON CORPORATION, CARDINAL HEALTH INC., and
AMERISOURCE BERGEN CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
12342 (D. Mass., Nov. 28, 2017), seeks to recover compensatory
damages in an amount sufficient to fairly and completely
compensate Plaintiff and the class for all damages; punitive
damages as provided by law; pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest as provided by law, and that such interest be awarded at
the highest legal rate.

The Plaintiff on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, brings this class action complaint against Defendants.
The Plaintiff is a health and welfare benefit fund. The Plaintiff
has paid and/or provided reimbursement for some or the entire
purchase price on behalf of its members for prescription opioid's
which are manufactured, marketed, promoted, sold, and/or
distributed by the Defendants during the Class Period. Plaintiff
has sustained injury as a result of Defendants' alleged illegal
and wrongful conduct.

Opioids include brand-name drugs like OxyContin and Percocet and
generics like oxycodone and hydrocodone. They are derived from or
possess properties similar to opium and heroin, and, as such, they
are highly addictive and dangerous and therefore are regulated by
the United States Food and Drug Administration as controlled
substances. Opioids provide effective treatment for short-term
post-surgical and trauma-related pain, and for palliative end-of-
life care. They are approved by the FDA for use in the management
of moderate to severe pain where use of an opioid analgesic is
appropriate for more than a few days. The Defendants, however,
have manufactured, promoted, and marketed opioids for the
management of pain by misleading consumers and medical providers
through misrepresentations or omissions regarding the appropriate
uses, risks, and safety of opioids.

Addiction is a spectrum of substance use disorders that range from
misuse and abuse of drugs to addiction. Throughout this Complaint,
"addiction" refers to the entire range of substance abuse
disorders. Individuals suffer negative consequences wherever they
fall on the substance use disorder continuum.
Defendants knew that, barring exceptional circumstances, opioids
are too addictive and too debilitating for long-term use for
chronic non-cancer pain lasting three months or longer ("chronic
pain").

The Defendants knew that, with prolonged use, the effectiveness of
opioids wanes, requiring increases in doses to achieve pain relief
and markedly increasing the risk of significant side effects and
addiction. Defendants knew that controlled studies of the safety
and efficacy of opioids were limited to short-term use in managed
settings where the risk of addiction and other adverse outcomes
was significantly minimized. To date, there have been no long-term
studies demonstrating the safety and efficacy of opioids for long-
term use. The Defendants accomplished that false perception
through a coordinated, sophisticated, and highly deceptive
marketing campaign that began in the late 1990s, became more
aggressive in or about 2006, and continues to the present.

The Defendants accomplished their marketing campaign goal by
convincing doctors, patients, and others that the benefits of
using opioids to treat chronic pain outweighed the risks, and that
opioids could be safely used by most patients. Defendants,
individually and collectively, knowing that long-term opioid use
causes addiction, misrepresented the dangers of long-term opioid
use to physicians, pharmacists, and patients by engaging in a
campaign to minimize the risks of, and to encourage, long-term
opioid use.

As a direct and foreseeable consequence of Defendants' wrongful
conduct, Plaintiff has incurred and continue to incur costs for
opioid prescriptions in excess of those they would have otherwise
incurred, payments for their insureds' treatment for opioid
addiction, and payments for emergency hospital visits for their
insureds' including payments for Naloxone Hydrochloride (Narcan)
resulting from opioid abuse and overdose. Defendants'
misrepresentations regarding the safety and efficacy of long-term
opioid use proximately caused injury to Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David R. Cheverie, Esq.
          HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE LLP
          112 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 213 8311
          Facsimile: (212) 79 0028
          E-mail: Dcheverie@hrsclaw.com


R.T.R. FINANCIAL: Faces "Chein" Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against R.T.R. Financial
Services Inc. The case is styled Menachem Chein, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v
R.T.R. Financial Services Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07183
(E.D. N.Y., December 9, 2017).

R.T.R. Financial Services Inc. is engaged in the Financial
institution in Staten Island, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Maxim Maximov, Esq.
   Maxim Maximov, LLP
   1701 Avenue P
   Brooklyn, NY 11229
   Tel: (718) 395-3459
   Fax: (718) 408-9570
   Email: m@maximovlaw.com


RASIER LLC: Heller et al. Sue over Theft of Rider & Driver Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
BENJAMIN HELLER, DAVID FLUSS, ANNA LUNA, MARCY LOKIETZ, AKASH
SHETH, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. RASIER, LLC, RASIER-CA, LLC, and UBER
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-08545-CBM-KS
(C.D. Cal., Nov. 24, 2017), seeks to recover seek injunctive
relief designed to ensure against the recurrence of a data breach
by adopting and implementing reasonable data security practices to
safeguard Ubers' riders' and drivers' personal information.

The Plaintiffs bring this class action case against the Defendants
for their failure to secure and safeguard riders' and drivers'
personally identifiable information ("PII") which Uber collected
in connection with the operation of its business. On November 21,
2017, Uber disclosed that in October 2016 hackers had stolen 57
million driver and rider accounts and that Defendants had kept the
data breach secret for more than a year after paying a $100,000
ransom. Uber has acknowledged that a cybersecurity incident
occurred, resulting in the theft of its riders' and drivers' PII,
consisting of names, addresses, email addresses, credit card
numbers and other information. PII for Plaintiffs and the class of
riders and drivers they seek to represent was compromised due to
Uber's acts and omissions and their failure to properly protect
PII. Uber could have prevented this Data Breach. Uber disregarded
the rights of Plaintiffs and Class members by intentionally,
willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take adequate and
reasonable measures to ensure its data systems were protected,
failing to disclose to its riders and drivers the material fact
that it did not have adequate security practices to safeguard PII,
failing to take available steps to prevent and stop the breach
from ever happening, and failing to monitor and detect the breach
on a timely basis. As a result of the Data Breach, PII of the
Plaintiffs and Class members has been exposed, in all likelihood,
to criminals for misuse. The injuries suffered by Plaintiffs and
Class members, or likely to be suffered as a direct result of the
Data Breach.

Uber Technologies is a global transportation technology company
headquartered in San Francisco, California, United States,
operating in 633 cities worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Patrice L. Bishop, Esq.
          Howard Longman, Esq.
          Melissa R. Emert, Esq.
          STULL, STULL & BRODY
          9430 West Olympic Blvd., Suite 400
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 209 2468
          Facsimile: (310) 209 2087
          E-mail: service@ssbla.com
                  hlongman@ssbny.com
                  memert@ssbny.com


REPRODUCTIVE PARTNERS: Schrimsher Seeks OT Wages under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE L. SCHRIMSHER, an individual, and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. REPRODUCTIVE PARTNERS
MEDICAL GROUP, INC., a California corporation; REPRODUCTIVE
PARTNERS, INC., a corporation; REPRODUCTIVE PARTNERS MEDICAL GROUP
- LA JOLLA, a California corporation; INSPERITY PEO SERVICES,
L.P., a limited partnership conducting business in California as
ADMINISTAFF COMPANIES, II, L.P.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
the Defendant, Case No. BC684448 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 21, 2017),
seeks to recover overtime wages, minimum wages, and all wages due
to discharged and quitting employees under the California Labor
Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and class members were
employed by Defendants under employment agreements that were
partly written, partly oral, and partly implied. In perpetrating
the acts and omissions alleged herein, Defendants, and each of
them, acted pursuant to, and in furtherance of, their policies and
practices of not paying Plaintiff and Class Members all wages
earned and due, through methods and schemes which include, but are
not limited to, failing to pay overtime premiums; failing to
provide rest and meal periods; failing to properly maintain
records; failing to provide accurate itemized statements for each
pay period; failing to properly compensate Plaintiff and Class
Members for necessary expenditures; and requiring, permitting or
suffering the employees to work off the clock, in violation of the
California Labor Code and the applicable Welfare Commission IWC
Orders.

Reproductive Partners is a premiere San Diego fertility center,
recognized worldwide for top In vitro fertilization success
rates.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Matem, Esq.
          Tagore 0. Subramaniam, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531 1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531 1901
          E-mail: mmatem@matemlawgroup.com
                  tagore@matemlawgroup.com


RYB EDUCATION: Faces "Wang" Suit over Drop in ADR Price
-------------------------------------------------------
TONGYAN WANG and YUYAN JIA, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. RYB EDUCATION, INC.,
YANLAI SHI and WEI PING, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-09320
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 28, 2017), seeks to recover damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired RYB's American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs"):
(1) pursuant and/or traceable to RYB's false and misleading
Registration Statement and Prospectus, issued in connection with
the Company's initial public offering on or about September 27,
2017; and/or (2) on the open market between September 27, 2017 and
November 22, 2017, both dates inclusive.

RYB Education, Inc. offers educational services. The Company
operates kindergarten and pre-schools. RYB Education provides
training in a variety of subjects and languages, teacher
recruitment, guidance, innovative learning, development of
children, rating systems, parents consulting, and other services.
Founded in 1998, the Company is headquartered in Beijing, People's
Republic of China, and its stock trades on the New York Stock
Exchange under the ticker symbol "RYB."  On September 27, 2017,
the Company completed its IPO, issuing 7,800,000 shares and
raising net proceeds of approximately $144,300,000. Throughout the
Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies.

Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) RYB failed to establish safety
policies to prevent sexual abuse from occurring at its schools;
(ii) RYB's failure to remedy problems within its system exposed
children to harm and unreasonable risk of harm while in the
Company's care; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, RYB
securities traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class
Period, and class members suffered significant losses
and damages.

On November 24, 2017, various news outlets reported that police
have opened an investigation into RYB after numerous parents
accused a RYB nursery of drugging and molesting their children.
Beijing's education authority confirmed the police investigation
in a statement. According to China's leading newspaper Xinhua News
Agency, RYB has suspended multiple teachers at RYB Education New
World after kindergarten students were "reportedly sexually
molested, pierced by needles, given unidentified pills," and
forced to undress and locked in a dark room. Parents reported that
at least eight children have been abused at the school
and that the children had given similar accounts with respect to
their abuse.

On this news, RYB's ADR price fell $10.28 per share, or over 38%
from its previous closing price, to close at $16.45 per share on
November 24, 2017. On the following day, several news outlets
reported that Chinese police had detained teachers in connection
with its RYB's child abuse inquiry. According to police reports,
one of the teachers was arrested after needle wounds were found on
at least eight children aged 2-6 years at the kindergarten. In a
statement issued later that day, RYB announced it had fired
the detained teachers, as well as the head of one of its
kindergartens. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and
omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the
Company's securities, Plaintiffs and other Class members have
suffered significant losses and damages.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

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


SABER HEALTHCARE: "Travis" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
LILIE TRAVIS on her own behalf and others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. SABER HEALTHCARE GROUP, LLC, d/b/a "The Crossings of
Riverview", the Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-02851-MSS-TGW (M.D.
Fla., Nov. 28, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated,
attorney fees/costs and other relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked as an hourly
worker for Defendant performing work as a resident aide. The
Defendant is an assisted living service provider. The Defendant
failed to pay Plaintiff for all the hours worked during her
employment.

Saber Healthcare owns and operates skilled nursing and
rehabilitation facilities for residents and their families. It
also offers long term care, assisted living, memory care, personal
care, and home health services. The company was founded in 2001
and is based in Bedford Heights, Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kyle J. Lee, Esq.
          1971 West Lumsden Road, Suite 303
          Brandon, FL 33511
          Telephone: (813) 343 2813
          E-mail: wig@mazgadd.com


SAFETY-KLEEN: Brown & Diop Seek Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
-------------------------------------------------------------
N1ARCUS BROWN and ABDOU DIOP, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated current and former employees, the Plaintiff, v.
GLEAN HARBORS INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, dba Benicia Industrial
Services, SAFETY-KLEEN SYSTEMS INC., SAFETY-KLEEN ENVIROSYSTEMS
CO., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No.
RG17884810 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 5, 2017), seeks to recover
relief under California law for Defendants' breach of their legal
obligations to authorize and permit rest periods and to furnish
timely and accurate wage statements, pursuant to California Labor
Code and California Industrial Welfare.

The Defendants have employed Plaintiffs and putative class members
as operators, loaders, industrial and specialty services requires
constant monitoring, Plaintiffs work a continuous rotating shift
during which time, they are never fully relieved from duty. The
Plaintiffs and the other operators, loaders, technicians, and
other employees are scheduled for and work 12-hour shifts, during
which Defendants uniformly require them to remain on duty the
entire. Throughout their shifts, Defendants require Plaintiffs and
the other operators, loaders, technicians, and other employees to
monitor equipment, respond to their radios (which they were
required to carry at all times, including on breaks) and critical
events, and maintain the safe and stable operation of their units.
To do so, Plaintiffs and the other operators, loaders,
technicians, and other employees are required to remain attentive,
carry radios, and be reachable at all times during their shifts.
As a result, Plaintiffs never receive off-duty breaks because they
are constantly and continuously responsible for their units.

Because operators are responsible for their units throughout their
shifts, with no designated rest breaks or relief, Defendants do
not authorize or permit Plaintiffs to take off-duty rest breaks
for every 40-hour work period or major fraction thereof, as
required by law. The Defendants do not have a policy or system for
providing relief to Plaintiffs to allow them to\take off-duty rest
breaks. The Defendants do not pay Plaintiffs an extra hour of
wages for each work day during which they are not provided the
off-duty rest breaks to which they are entitled under California
law. The Defendants also routinely fail to maintain complete and
accurate payroll records for Plaintiffs showing, inter alia, the
gross and net wages earned, including wages for missed rest
breaks.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joshua F. Young, Esq.
          Pamela Chandran, Esq.
          GILBERT & SACKMAN
          3699 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (323) 938 3000
          Facsimile: (323) 937 9139
          E-mail: jyoung@gslaw.org
                  pchandran@gslaw.org


SANOFI US: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Velasquez" Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
KAREN LEVINE, the Plaintiff, v. SANOFI US SERVICES INC. f/k/a
SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. INC.; SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC; SANDOZ, INC.,
ACCORD HEALTHCARE, INC.; MCKESSON CORPORATION d/b/a MCKESSON
PACKAGING; HOSPIRA WORLDWIDE, LLC f/k/a HOSPIRA WORLDWIDE,
INC.; HOSPIRA INC.; SUN PHARMA GLOBAL FZE, SUN PHARMACEUTICAL
INDUSTRIES, INC. f/k/a CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL LABORATORIES LTD.;
PFIZER INC.; ACTAVIS LLC f/k/a ACTAVIS INC.; and ACTAVIS PHARMA,
INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-14638 (E.D. La., Dec. 5,
2017), alleges that the Defendants expressly warranted to
Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' healthcare providers that Taxotere,
Docefrez, Docetaxel Injection, and Docetaxel Injection Concentrate
were safe and fit for use for the purposes intended, that they did
not produce any dangerous side effects in excess of those risks
associated with other forms of treatment for cancer, that the side
effects they did produce were accurately reflected in the
warnings, and that they were adequately tested.

Taxotere, Docefrez, Docetaxel Injection, and Docetaxel Injection
Concentrate do not conform to Defendants' express warranties,
because is the drugs are not safe, were not adequately tested, and
have numerous serious side effects, which are in excess of those
risks associated with other forms of treatment and which were not
accurately warned about by Defendants. The Defendants' sales
representatives met with Plaintiffs' healthcare provider(s),
including but not limited to in-person meetings, "window calls,"
phone calls, office meetings, lunches, dinners, conferences, and
presentations to discuss Taxotere prior to Plaintiffs' first
Taxotere treatment. During Defendants' sales representatives and
marketing agents communications with healthcare providers, they
made statements, comments, and express suggestions that the risk
of permanent hair loss associated with Taxotere use was no higher
than its competitor's alternatives.
Defendants' sales representatives expressly warranted to
Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' healthcare providers that once patients
who are administered Taxotere complete treatment, their hair would
grow back.

The Defendants published and disseminated Taxotere safety labels
and Patient Information leaflets, which expressly stated that
"[o]nce you have completed all your treatments, hair generally
grows back." Defendants' Patient Information leaflets contained
this statement until at least 2010. The Defendants' statements
were false. Defendants knew or should have known that, in fact,
their representations and warranties were false, misleading, and
untrue. Defendants' misrepresentations were made to potential
prescribers and/or purchasers or users as members of the public at
large.

The Plaintiffs' physicians and others similarly situated relied
upon these representations before prescribing Taxotere. As a
direct and proximate result of the foregoing breaches of warranty,
Defendants caused Plaintiffs to suffer injuries.[BN]


SEED YOUR OWN: "Sou" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
-------------------------------------------------------------
FRANKIE SOU, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. SEED YOUR OWN LLC, a California limited
liability company; ENDLESS PURSUIT CORPORATION, a California
corporation; L.A. JUNKIES, INC., a California corporation; and
DOES 1 to 100, inclusive the Defendant, Case No. BC685476 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Dec. 4, 2017), alleges that the Defendants failed to
pay employees for all hours worked at the minimum wage and/or
applicable overtime rates of pay; failed to include all
remuneration when calculating the applicable overtime rate of pay;
failed to provide legally complaint meal periods and/or pay meal
period premium wages; failed to provide legally complaint rest
breaks and/or pay rest break premium wages; and failed to
indemnify employees for employment-related expenditures.

Seed Your Own is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and
trucking company running freight hauling business from Concord,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: "Anderson" Suit Moved to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Brent Anderson, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. The
Sherwin-Williams Company, an Ohio corporation, the Defendant, v.
Does 1 to 100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. CIVDS1722065,
was removed from the San Bernardino Superior Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California (Eastern
Division - Riverside) on Dec. 7, 2017. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 5:17-cv-02459-FMO-SHK to the proceeding. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Fernando M. Olguin.

The Sherwin-Williams Company is an American Fortune 500 company in
the general building materials industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin T Barnes, Esq.
          Gregg Lander, Esq.
          Kevin T Barnes Law Offices
          5670 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1460
          Los Angeles, CA 90036-5664
          Telephone: (323) 549 9100
          Facsimile: (323) 549 0101
          E-mail: barnes@kbarnes.com
                  lander@kbarnes.com

               - and -

          Raphael Albert Katri, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RAPHAEL A KATRI
          8549 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3104
          Telephone: (310) 940 2034
          Facsimile: (310) 733 5644
          E-mail: RKatri@socallaborlawyers.com

The Defendant is represented by:

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


SHILLINGTON SCHOOL: Faces "Matzura" Suit in S.D. of New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shillington School
of Graphic Design LLC. The case is styled Steven Matzura and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Shillington School of Graphic Design LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-09694 (S.D. N.Y., December 10, 2017).

Shillington's innovative approach to design education means
students achieve amazing results in a seriously short amount of
time.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
   The Law Office of Justin A. Zeller, P.C.
   277 Broadway, Suite 408
   New York, NY 10007
   Tel: (212) 229-2249
   Fax: (212) 229-2246
   Email: Jazeller@zellerlegal.com


SLING MEDIA: 2d Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Heskiaoff" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the
district court's dismissal of the case, MICHAEL HESKIAOFF,
Individually & on behalf of all others similarly situated, MARC
LANGENOHL, Individually & on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, RAFAEL MANN, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Consolidated Plaintiff-
Appellant, v. SLING MEDIA, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 17-
1094-cv (2d Cir.).

The Plaintiffs are purchasers of Slingbox Media Players and
licensees of related software, which allow users to view
television programming from one device (e.g., their primary
television at home) on additional devices in other locations
(e.g., cell phones or computers).  They allege that Sling violated
their statutory and contractual rights by disseminating -- without
advance warning -- various advertisements.

The Plaintiffs-Appellants appeal from a March 22, 2017 judgment of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
granting Sling motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Consolidated
Class Action Complaint ("CAC") and denying as futile the
Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a proposed Second
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint ("SCAC").

The Appellate Court begins by determining whether the Plaintiffs'
non-contractual statutory claims are governed by New York or
California substantive law.  It agrees with the district court
that these non-contractual statutory claims are governed by New
York law.  The Plaintiffs bought their Slingboxes in New York and
were New York residents at the time of their purchases, indicating
that New York substantive law governs under New York's choice-of-
law principles.  Accordingly, the district court properly
determined that New York law applied to the Plaintiffs' non-
contractual statutory claims under New York's choice-of-law
principles.

Moving on to the decision granting Sling's motion to dismiss the
CAC, the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs failed plausibly to
allege a violation of New York General Business Law Section 349.
The CAC does not plausibly allege a deceptive act or practice.
Indeed, the Plaintiffs point to no affirmative statement made by
Sling pertaining to advertising, much less a deceptive statement.
And they did not plea an actionable omission because nothing in
the CAC alleges why a reasonable consumer would have been led to
believe that Slingbox would always be an ad-free product.

Turning to the district court's order denying as futile the
Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend, the Appellate Court
concludes that the additional information included in the proposed
SCAC still fails to allege a deceptive act or practice under
Section 349.  In particular, Sling's purported misrepresentations
or omissions were not deceptive acts or practices under Section
349 because they would not have caused a reasonable consumer
acting reasonably under the circumstances to believe that the
Slingbox was, and always would be, an ad-free product.

Similarly, the district court did not err in rejecting as futile
the Plaintiffs' proposed claim based on an alleged breach of the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied in the EULA.  The
Plaintiffs do not and cannot pinpoint anything in the EULA related
to advertising, and nothing in the EULA suggests that barring
Sling from disseminating advertisements is necessary so that they
can receive the benefit of their bargain.  Accordingly, the
district court properly denied as futile the Plaintiffs' motion
for leave to amend, the Court concludes.

It has considered all of the Plaintiffs' remaining arguments and
finds them to be without merit.  Accordingly, the Appellate Court
affirmed the judgment of the district court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 22, 2017 Summary Order is
available at https://is.gd/ZbUbS5 from Leagle.com.

ROBERT I. LAX -- rlax@lax-law.com -- Lax LLP, New York, New York
(Adam Gonnelli, The Sultzer Law Group, P.C., Red Bank, New Jersey;
Innessa Melamed Huot -- ihuot@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi & Faruqi,
LLP, New York, New York, on the brief). for Plaintiffs-Appellants
and Consolidated Plaintiff-Appellant.

RICHARD R. PATCH -- rrp@coblentzlaw.com -- (Susan K. Jamison --
skj@coblentzlaw.com -- Katharine T. Van Dusen --
kvandusen@coblentzlaw.com -- Mark L. Hejinian --
mhejinian@coblentzlaw.com -- Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass LLP, San
Francisco, California; Leigh R. Lasky -- lasky@laskyrifkind.com --
Lasky, LLC, Chicago, Illinois, on the brief), for Defendant-
Appellee.


SLIDING DOOR CO: Faces "Matzura" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Sliding Door
Company. The case is styled Steven Matzura and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v The Sliding Door
Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-09672 (S.D. N.Y., December 8,
2017).

The Sliding Door Company is the leading manufacturer of
innovative, high-quality, yet cost-effective interior sliding and
swing door solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


SPRINT SOLUTIONS: Trzupek Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------------
WHITNEY TRZUPEK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SPRINT SOLUTIONS, INC., a
Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02844 (D.
Colo., Nov. 28, 2017), asks the Court to require Defendant to
cease all unsolicited solicitation text messaging activities and
an award of statutory damages to the members of the Class under
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, together with costs and
reasonable attorneys' fees.

The Defendant is an American telecommunications company that
provides wireless and internet services to consumers and
businesses. To promote its products and services, Defendant
conducted a wide-scale solicitation campaign that features the
sending of unsolicited text messages to consumers' cellular
telephones -- and even to those on the National Do Not Call
Registry -- without consent, in violation of the TCPA. Text
messages, like the ones sent in the instant action, are considered
calls under the TCPA.

According to the complaint, the Defendant fails to obtain express
written consent before sending text messages to consumers'
cellular telephone numbers. Furthermore, telemarketers such as
Defendant can easily avoid calling numbers listed on the National
Do Not Call Registry by inexpensively "scrubbing" their call lists
against the National Do Not Call Registry database. The scrubbing
process identifies those numbers on the National Do Not Call
Registry, allowing telemarketers to remove those numbers and
ensure that no calls are placed to consumers who opt-out of
telemarketing calls. To avoid violating the TCPA by calling
registered numbers, telemarketers must scrub their call lists
against the Registry at least once every 31 days. The Defendant,
however, makes no effort to scrub its call lists or avoid calling
telephone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Stefan Coleman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN P.A.
          201 S. Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor
          Miami, Florida 333131
          Telephone: (888) 333 9427
          Facsimile: (888) 498 8946


ST. FRANCIS COUNTY: Womack Seeks Minimum Wages & OT under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
JEFF WOMACK, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ST. FRANCIS COUNTY, ARKANSAS, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00205-BRW (E.D. Ark., Nov. 28, 2017),
seeks to recover declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs, and reasonable
attorney's fee, as a result of Defendant's policy and practice of
failing to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals
proper minimum wages and overtime compensation under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

According to the complaint, Defendant participated in the
management of Plaintiff's work, including setting and enforcing
the amount of hours worked and the amount and manner of
compensation paid. The Defendant dictated, controlled and
ratified, both implicitly and explicitly, the wage and hour
practices and all related employee compensation policies that are
at issue in this case.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from November 2013 until
October 2017, as a sheriff's deputy. The Defendant did not
establish a "work period" for the sheriff's department pursuant to
the FLSA. The Plaintiff was routinely required to work in excess
of 40 hours per week and was not paid for all hours worked, nor
was he paid properly for overtime. Even if Defendant did establish
a work period for the sheriff's department, Plaintiff was
routinely required to work in excess of 171 hours in a 28-day
period and was not paid for all hours worked, including overtime.
The Plaintiff was instructed to phone in his hours each day, but
no matter how many hours he verbally reported, his paycheck never
reflected more than 40 hours
worked each week. The Defendant knew that Plaintiff worked in
excess of 40 hours per week and also over 171 hours in a 28-day
period, and Defendant required him to do so. The Defendant did not
pay Plaintiff any overtime compensation because Defendant shorted
Plaintiff's reported work hours.

The Defendant operates the St. Francis County Sheriff's Department
where Plaintiff was employed within the three years prior to the
filing of this Complaint as a sheriff's deputy.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stacy Gibson, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
          Utile Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221 0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787 2040
          E-mail: stacy@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


STARBUCKS CORP: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Carrington" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Dana M. Sabraw of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss
the case styled KILEIGH CARRINGTON, individually and on behalf of
members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
STARBUCKS CORPORATION, a Washington Corporation; and DOES 1-10,
inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 16cv3074 DMS (KSC) (S.D. Cal.).

In June 2014, Plaintiff Carrington filed a claim against Defendant
Starbucks in state court under the Private Attorneys General Act
challenging Starbucks's meal break practice ("Carrington I").  The
Defendant removed that case to this Court, but the case was
remanded to state court.  On Oct. 24, 2016, the trial commenced in
Carrington I, and the court found in favor of Carrington on
liability.  The trial court awarded penalties on Dec. 19, 2016,
and entered judgment in favor of Carrington on July 20, 2017.

While Carrington I was pending, the Plaintiff commenced this
lawsuit, which also challenges the Defendant's meal break policy.
Although Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) required the
Plaintiff to serve the summons on the Defendant with 90 days of
filing the Complaint, or by March 21, 2017, the Plaintiff did not
do so.  Thus, on Aug. 25, 2017, the Court issued a notice of a
hearing under Rule 4(m) regarding dismissal of the case for want
of prosecution.  The Plaintiff thereafter served the Defendant on
Aug. 31, 2017.

On Sept. 12, 2017, the Plaintiff's counsel submitted a declaration
explaining the reasons for the delay in service.  On the same day,
the Court vacated the Rule 4(m) hearing.  The Defendant now moves
to dismiss the case for insufficient service of process pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5).  It argues that the
Plaintiff cannot demonstrate good cause for her failure to timely
serve the Complaint because the failure was intentional.

In light of the broad discretion that is provided by Rule 4(m),
Judge Sabraw declined to dismiss the Plaintiff's case pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(5).  She says the delay in the present case is 163
days, which is not insignificant, but also not so long as to
warrant dismissal.  The Defendant has not lost any evidence or
witnesses relevant to the case, and it is disputed whether the
Defendant had actual knowledge about the case prior to being
served.  In light of the facts presented, dismissal is not
warranted.  For these reasons, Judge Sabraw denied the Defendant's
motion to dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 21, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/v74Nzm from Leagle.com.

Kileigh Carrington, Plaintiff, represented by Clint S. Engleson --
cengleson@sullivanlawgroupapc.com -- Sullivan Law Group, LLP.

Kileigh Carrington, Plaintiff, represented by Eric K. Yaeckel --
yaeckel@sullivanlawgroupapc.com -- Sullivan Law Group LLP.

Starbucks Corporation, Defendant, represented by Gregory W. Knopp
-- gknopp@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer and Feld LLP.


STARR RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Dembele Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
MOUSSA DEMBELE, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. STARR RESTAURANT ORGANIZATION,
L.P., the Defendant, Case No. 171200223 (Phily. Cty. Ct. of Common
Pleas, Dec. 4, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime
wages; reasonable attorney's fees, expenses, and court costs;
prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and such other relief as
the Court deems just and proper under the Pennsylvania Minimum
Wage Act.

The Defendant owns and operates the Pare Restaurant ("Pare") on
Rittenhouse Square. During the three-year period relevant to this
lawsuit, the Defendant has employed at least 35 individuals at
Pare in the position of food runner. The Plaintiff was employed by
Defendant at Pare as a food runner until approximately October
2017. The Defendant has required Plaintiff and other Pare food
runners to spend a substantial portion of their working hours
performing non-tipped work. The Defendant pays Plaintiff and other
food runners an hourly wage of $4.50 plus tips. This $4.50 hourly
wage is paid for all work hours, including those hours dedicated
to non-tipped work.

Starr Restaurants, stylized as STARR Restaurants, is a group of 35
restaurants in Philadelphia, New York City, Atlantic City,
Washington D.C. and South Florida. The organization is headed by
founder Stephen Starr.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Peter Winebrake, Esq.
          R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
          Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twining Road, Suite 211
          Dresher, PA 19025


STERLING JEWELERS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Hudson Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
LARRY HUDSON, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, the
Plaintiff, v. STERLING JEWELERS INC., an Ohio corporation, SIGNET
JEWELERS LIMITED, a foreign corporation, and DOES 1 through 30,
inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC685084 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov.
28, 2017), seeks to recover minimum wages and overtime wages
pursuant to the California Labor Code.

This lawsuit arises out of the following wrongful acts that
occurred, are occurring, and will occur, at least in part, within
four years preceding the filing of this action and up to and
through the time of trial of this matter. As a result of
Defendants' company-wide policies and practices, Defendants
engaged in the following unlawful conduct: Defendants did not
properly calculate the regular rate of pay when paying overtime
wages to Plaintiff and similarly-situated employees; Defendants
did not properly calculate the regular rate when paying premium
wages for meal periods that were not provided to PLAINTIFF and
similarly-situated employees; and Defendants did not provide meal
periods to Plaintiff and similarly situated employees.

Sterling Jewelers is an American specialty jewelry company
headquartered in Akron, Ohio. The company was founded in 1910 by
Henry Shaw, from LeRoy's Jewelers in Lorain, Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SURVEILLANCE SECURITY: Fails to Pay Wages, "Hughes" Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
JEROME HUGHES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. SURVEILLANCE SECURITY, INC. an Arizona
corporation; DOES 1 through 25, the Defendant, Case No. BC685544
(Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 4, 2017), seeks to recover minimum wage and
overtime pay under the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff and the Class were required to work off the clock.
The Defendants required Plaintiff and members of the Class to
arrive at work before the start of their shifts, but did not pay
them for time worked prior to the beginning of their shifts. In
addition, Plaintiff and members of the Class were required to
remain at their posts after clocking out and after the end of
their shifts in order to accommodate the needs of Defendants'
customers. The Plaintiff and members of the Class were also docked
30 minutes of pay for each day they worked, to account for their
unpaid meal periods. Such deductions were made even though
Plaintiff and the Class members were prevented by Defendants from
taking a meal period that was off-duty and free of interruption.
The Plaintiff and the members of the Class were never paid for the
times when they worked off the clock.

Accordingly to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the rest of the
Class are entitled to recover from Defendants unpaid wages for any
time they worked and were not paid agreed upon wages at any time
within the four years prior to the initiation of this action until
the date that the Class is certified.

Surveillance Security provides security service.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron C. Gundzik, Esq.
          Rebecca G. Gundzik, Esq.
          GARTENBERG GELFAND HAYTON LLP
          15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1920
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (213) 542 2100
          Facsimile: (213) 542 2101
          E-mail: Agundzik@gghslaw.com
                  Rgundzik@gghslaw.com

               - and -

          Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq.
          LEBE LAW, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
          5723 Melrose Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90038
          Telephone: (310) 921 7056
          Facsimile: (310) 820 1258
          E-mail: Jon@lebelaw.com


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Peck" Suit Remanded to Calif. State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California issued an Order granting in part and denying in part
Plaintiff's Motion to Remand the case captioned Lawrence J. Peck,
Plaintiff, v. Swift Transportation Co. Arizona, LLC, Defendant,
No. ED 17-cv-01695 VAP (KKx) (C.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff alleges that he worked for Defendant as a non-exempt
hourly truck driver. Plaintiff asserted a single PAGA claim based
on various alleged Labor Code violations, including failure to
furnish written, accurate and/or incomplete wage statements,
failure to pay all wages due within the pay period, failure to pay
all wages due at the time of separation, and failure to pay,
reimburse or indemnify for work-related expenses.

Plaintiff seeks penalties under Labor Code Sections 2698 and 2699,
as well as for unpaid wages under Labor Code Section 558 on behalf
of all persons presently and formerly employed by Defendant in
California as non-exempt hourly truck drivers who performed any
services in California during the covered period and was paid on a
per mile basis.

Defendant removed the action to the District Court based on the
Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).

The District Court holds that remand is required since the holding
in Baumann v. Chase Inv. Servs. Corp., 747 F.3d 1117, 1120 (9th
Cir. 2014), remains undisturbed.  Defendant's removal was
improper, since CAFA is not applicable to a PAGA suit that does
not also seek class certification.

The Court declines to award attorney's fees, since Plaintiff has
not demonstrated that Defendant lacked an objectively reasonable
basis for removal.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 16, 2017 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8byketk from Leagle.com.

Lawrence J. Peck, Plaintiff, represented by Neal J. Fialkow, Law
offices of Neal J Fialkow Inc, 215 N Marengo Ave Fl 3, Pasadena,
CA 91101-1504

Lawrence J. Peck, Plaintiff, represented by James S. Cahill -
jscahilllaw@aol.com -- Law Offices of Neal Fialkow Inc.

Swift Transportation Co. Arizona, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Hilary Ann Habib -- hhabib@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin
Richter and Hampton LLP, Paul S. Cowie --
pcowie@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton
LLP &Robert E. Mussig, Jr. -- rmussig@sheppardmullin.com --
Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton LLP.


T-MOBILE USA: Ct. Grants Telephonic Appearance in Mngt Conference
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order granting Plaintiff's Administrative
Request for Telephonic Appearance at Case Management Conference in
the case captioned JESSE BLACK, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. T-MOBILE USA, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-CV-04151-HSG (N.D. Cal.).

The Court has considered Plaintiff's Administrative Request for
Telephonic Appearance and finds that Plaintiff's counsel, Arnab
Banerjee of Capstone Law APC, is permitted to appear
telephonically at the Case Management Conference.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 16, 2017 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybubtx5h from Leagle.com.

Jesse Black, Plaintiff, represented by Arnab Banerjee --
Arnab.Banerjee@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC.

T-Mobile USA, Inc, Defendant, represented by Gregory G. Iskander -
- giskander@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Keith Adam
Jacoby -- kjacoby@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, Sophia Behnia
-- sbehnia@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Perry Kim
Miska -- pmiska@littler.com Jr. -- Littler Mendelson, P.C.


TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Dismissal of "Santana" Affirmed in Part
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HADIT SANTANA, Plaintiff, VANESSA VIGIL, RICARDO
VIGIL, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE,
INC., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 17-303 (2d Cir.), the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed in part the final
judgment of the district court dismissing the Plaintiffs' second
amended complaint with prejudice, entered on Jan. 30, 2017,
insofar as it held that the Plaintiffs lack Article III standing,
but vacated it in part insofar as it held that the Plaintiffs lack
a statutory cause of action as "aggrieved" parties.

The Defendant-Appellee is a publisher, developer, and distributor
of video games, including "NBA 2K15" and "NBA 2K16.  Ricardo Vigil
purchased NBA 2K15 and his sister, Vanessa Vigil, played his copy
of the game.  Both the Plaintiffs used the MyPlayer feature and
followed described procedure to create their MyPlayer avatars.

On Oct. 19, 2015, they brought claims against Take-Two in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging five
violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act
("BIPA").  The Plaintiffs allege that Take-Two: (i) collected
their biometric data without their informed consent; (ii)
disseminated their biometric data to others during game play
without their informed consent; (iii) failed to inform them in
writing of the specific purpose and length of term for which their
biometric data would be stored; (iv) failed to make publicly
available a retention schedule and guidelines for permanently
destroying the Plaintiffs' biometric data; and (v) failed to
store, transmit, or protect from disclosure their biometric data
by using a reasonable standard of care or in a manner that is at
least as protective as the manner in which it stores, transmits,
and protects other confidential and sensitive information.

Take-Two moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims for lack of
Article III standing and for failure to state a cause of action
under the statute (i.e., lack of "statutory standing").  The
district court granted the motion on both grounds and dismissed
the action with prejudice on Jan. 30, 2017, and the clerk entered
final judgment the same day.  The Plaintiffs timely appealed.

The Court concludes that none of the alleged procedural violations
raise a material risk of harm to this interest.  Although the
Plaintiffs allege that Take-Two collected and disclosed their
biometric data without their authorization, there is no dispute
that Take-Two informed them that the MyPlayer feature required a
"face scan" that would be visible to other players during online
gameplay.  This terminology is sufficient to meet BIPA's mandates
under the circumstances.  Thus, to the extent that Take-Two
departed from BIPA's requirements, it only did so insofar as it
omitted the term, "geometry."

Take-Two's alleged violations of BIPA's notice provisions fail to
raise a material risk of harm.  The Plaintiffs have not shown that
this violation, if true, presents a material risk that their
biometric data will be misused or disclosed.  Take-Two's alleged
violations of BIPA's data security provisions raise a somewhat
thornier issue.  Although Take-Two asserts that violations of such
prophylactic measures confer standing only where there has been a
data breach, the Appellate Court does not need to make such a
wide-sweeping conclusion.  Despite multiple opportunities to amend
their pleadings, the Plaintiffs have failed to allege that Take-
Two's alleged violations have raised a material risk that their
biometric data will be improperly accessed by third parties.  They
therefore have failed to show a "risk of real harm" sufficient to
confer an injury-in-fact.

Lastly, the Court finds unpersuasive the Plaintiffs' attempt to
manufacture an injury.  While it is true that BIPA's legislative
findings identify consumers' withdrawal from biometric-facilitated
transactions as a problem, they clarify that this issue arises
only where a consumer's biometric data has been "compromised,"
i.e., collected or disclosed without his or her authorization.
Because the Plaintiffs have failed to establish that Take-Two's
procedural violations have created a material risk that this will
occur, they cannot now leapfrog this obligation by imposing an
injury upon themselves.

Although it finds for the foregoing reasons that the district
court properly held that the Plaintiffs lack Article III standing,
the Appellate Court nonetheless must remand with the instruction
that the district court will amend its judgment and enter
dismissal without prejudice.  A complaint dismissed for lack of
Article III standing should be without prejudice because the court
is without subject matter jurisdiction.

Since the statutory standing arguments are based on differing
constructions of the term "aggrieved party" as used in BIPA, the
Appellate Court says the district court's resolution of the issue
was a judgment on the merits that could not be properly addressed
absent subject matter jurisdiction.  The district court was
therefore without power to dismiss the complaint with prejudice
for failure to state a cause of action under the statute.

It has considered all of the Plaintiffs' contentions on appeal and
has found in them no basis for reversal.  For the reasons stated,
the judgment of the district court, the Appellate Court affirmed
in part insofar as it held that the Plaintiffs lack Article III
standing, but is vacated in part insofar as it held that the
Plaintiffs lack a statutory cause of action as "aggrieved"
parties.  It remanded the case with the instruction that the
district court will amend its judgment and enter dismissal without
prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 21, 2017 Summary Order is
available at https://is.gd/4kql5e from Leagle.com.

FRANK HEDIN -- fhedin@careyrodriguez.com -- (John C. Carey --
jcarey@careyrodriguez.com -- on the brief), Carey, Rodriguez,
Milian, Gonya, LLP, Miami, FL., for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

VICTOR JIH -- VJih@irell.com -- (Robert M. Schwartz --
rschwartz@irell.com -- Nathaniel Lipanovich --
nlipanovich@irell.com -- Molly Russell -- mrussell@irell.com --
Derek R. Flores -- dflores@irell.com -- on the brief), Irell &
Manella LLP, Los Angeles, CA., for Defendant-Appellee.


TIMEX GROUP: Faces "Matzura" Suit in S.D. of New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Timex Group USA,
Inc. The case is styled Steven Matzura and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v Timex Group USA, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-09693 (S.D. N.Y., December 10, 2017).

Timex Group USA, Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets
timepieces and jewelry to customers worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
   The Law Office of Justin A. Zeller, P.C.
   277 Broadway, Suite 408
   New York, NY 10007
   Tel: (212) 229-2249
   Fax: (212) 229-2246
   Email: Jazeller@zellerlegal.com


TOYOTA MOTOR: "Roscoe" Suit Moved to District of Massachusetts
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Ray Roscoe, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Toyota
Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1779CV00750, was
removed from the Hampden County Superior Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Springfield) on
Nov. 27, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-
12332-KAR to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson.

Toyota Motor Sales is the North American Toyota sales, marketing,
and distribution subsidiary devoted to the U.S. market. Founded in
1957 in California, TMS currently employs more than 6,500
people.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey S. Morneau, Esq.
          CONNOR MORNEAU & OLIN, LLP
          273 State Street, 2nd Floor
          Springfield, MA 01103
          Telephone: (413) 455 1730
          Facsimile: (413) 455 1594
          E-mail: jmorneau@cmolawyers.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Holly M. Polglase, Esq.
          Matthew E. Bown, Esq.
          HERMES, NETBURN, O'CONNOR & SPEARING, P.C.
          265 Franklin Street
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 728 0050
          Facsimile: (617) 728 0052
          E-mail: hpolglase@hermesnetburn.com
                  mbown@hermesnetburn.com


U.S. BANK: "Duncan" Suit Moved to District of Maryland
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Wyatt J. Duncan and Tykecia
McCormick-Duncan, Individually on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. U.S. Bank National
Association, on behalf of Ajax Mortgage Loan Trust 2016-C,
Mortgage-Backed Notes, Series 2016-C as Trustee; BWW Law Group,
LLC; Fawn Way Builders, LLC; John Does 1-100; and Jane Does 1-100,
Case No. CAE17-28245, was removed from the Circuit Court of
Maryland for PG County, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland (Greenbelt) on Nov. 27, 2017. The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:17-cv-03506-PWG to the proceeding.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Paul W. Grimm.

U.S. Bank National Association provides commercial banking
services for individuals, businesses, and institutions. It offers
personal banking services, including checking and savings
accounts, and certificates of deposits; and personal loans and
credit.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Douglas Neil Gottron, Esq.
          Terry Morris, Esq.
          MORRIS PALERM LLC
          751 Rockville Pike, No. 2A
          Rockville, MD 20852
          Telephone: (301) 424 6290
          Facsimile: (301) 424 6294
          E-mail: dgottron@morrispalerm.com
                  tmorris@morrispalerm.com

Attorneys for U.S. Bank National Association:

          Matthew D Cohen, Esq.
          BWW LAW GROUP, LLC
          6003 Executive Boulevard, Suite 101
          Rockville, MD 20852
          Telephone: (240) 482 0794
          Facsimile: (301) 961 6473
          E-mail: matt.cohen@bww-law.com


U.S. HEALTHWORKS: "Rodriguez" Suit Moved to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled CATRINA R. RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of
herself, all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. U.S.
HEALTHWORKS, INC., a Delaware corporation; U.S. HEALTHWORKS
MEDICAL GROUP, PROF. CORP., A Delaware corporation; US HEALTHWORKS
HOLDING COMPANY, INC., a business entity form unknown; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. RG17879760, was removed from the
County of Alameda Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California (Oakland) on Dec. 4, 2017. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:17-cv-06924-KAW to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Magistrate Judge
Kandis A. Westmore.

U.S. HealthWorks is an American health care provider network
headquartered in Valencia, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se:

The Defendants are represented by:

          Hazel Uy Poei, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          725 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 689 0404
          Facsimile: (213) 689 0430
          E-mail: hazel.poei@jacksonlewis.com


UBER TECH: Continues to Freeze Account, Rosales Claims
------------------------------------------------------
DAMARIS ROSALES, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and
Does 1-50, the Defendant, Case No. BC685555 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec.
4, 2017), seeks to enjoin Defendant from continuing to freeze
accounts or funds that have not actually been hacked.

The Plaintiff brings this suit as a class action pursuant to
California Business and Professions Code and California Code of
Civil Procedure against Uber Technologies.

The Plaintiff alleges that Uber unfairly, unlawfully, and
deceptively froze and removed funds from her account under the
guise that it was protecting her from hackers. After exhausting
every administrative remedy provided by Uber, Plaintiff has not
been forwarded the money she earned and Uber continues to hide the
true nature of why it froze her account. The Plaintiff started
driving for Uber in or about April 2016. Since that time, she has
completed approximately 1,200 rides for Uber and has maintained a
4.9/5 rating. During the same time, she has also used the same
bank account for all transfers of funds from her Uber account to
her personal bank account.

On or about October 28, 2017, around 7 pm, Plaintiff received and
accepted a request to drive an Uber customer. Before arriving at
the pickup, Plaintiff received a strange phone call from someone
who she believed was posing as an Uber office employee seeking to
verify personal information. Plaintiff believed that someone was
trying to hack her Uber account. Sensing a problem, Plaintiff
specifically avoided giving out any personal information and hung
up the phone on the suspected hacker. Plaintiff immediately called
the official Uber telephone number to report that she believed
someone had attempted to hack her account. Plaintiff specifically
told the Uber office employee that she had not given out any
personal information.

On October 29, 2017, Plaintiff logged into her Uber account to
transfer her $384.00 of earnings to her bank account. She was
unable to transfer the funds. Uber froze her funds and locked out
her ability to transfer the money. To date, Plaintiff has
attempted every administrative remedy suggested by Uber and still
not been able to retrieve her funds. Plaintiff alleges it was
unfair, fraudulent, deceptive, and unlawful, under California
Business and Professions Code that Uber unilaterally decided to
lock her account and keep her money. By freezing Plaintiff's
account, Uber represented that the transactions involved rights
and obligations which it did not have or involve, or which are
prohibited by law under California Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

By hiding the existence of serious hacking issues, negligently
failing to protect both drivers and riders private information,
and by unilaterally deciding on a policy to freeze or take drivers
funds at the mere report of a hacking attempt, Uber fraudulently
and/or negligently collected, and continues to collect, money from
the Plaintiff and the Class. Further, Uber knew, should have
known, or recklessly disregarded this illegal practice during the
relevant period. Uber did not disclose the illegality of this
practice to past, current, or future drivers and continues to
implement this practice. Due to this conduct, Plaintiff and the
other members of the Class have suffered, or will in the future
suffer, extensive economic damages.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Gold, Esq.
          GOLD APLC
          10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1600
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (323) 936 0540
          E-mail: mgold@goldaplc.com


UBER TECH: Faces "West" Suit over Data Security Breach
------------------------------------------------------
BRADLEY WEST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. UBER USA, LLC, a limited liability
company, UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a California corporation,
RASIER, LLC, a limited liability company, the Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-08593 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 28, 2017), seeks to recover
monetary damages, punitive damages, nominal damages, statutory
damages, and injunctive relief, and all other relief as authorized
in equity and by law as a result of Defendant's violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, negligence, breach of contract,
invasion of privacy, and unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiff brings this class action against Uber for its
failure to secure and safeguard the private information of
approximately 57 million riders and drivers who use its service
and for Uber's concealment and refusal to provide notification to
individuals affected by the data breach for a period of over
twelve months.

On November 21, 2017, Uber publicly announced a data breach that
occurred back in October 2016, wherein hackers accessed Uber user
data stored on a third-party cloud-based service ("Security
Breach"). The Security Breach disclosed the personal information
of approximately 600,000 drivers (including license information);
and names, email addresses, and private cell phone numbers for
approximately 57 million users. Uber allegedly paid the hackers
who stole the information $100,000 in exchange for the criminals'
assurance that they would delete the data. Uber failed to inform
anyone of the Security Breach for more than one year from its
occurrence.

The Security Breach was caused by Uber's knowing violation of its
obligations to secure consumer information. Uber failed to comply
with security standards and allowed the private information of
millions collected by Uber to be compromised.

Uber is a global transportation technology company headquartered
in San Francisco, California, United States, operating in 633
cities worldwide. It develops, markets and operates the Uber car
transportation and food delivery mobile apps.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ben Barnow, Esq.
          Erich P. Schork, Esq.
          Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq.
          Jeffrey D. Blake, Esq.
          BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          One North LaSalle Street, Suite 4600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 621 2000
          Facsimile: (312) 641 5504
          E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com
                  e.schork@barnowlaw.com
                  aparkhill@barnowlaw.com
                  j.blake@barnowlaw.com

               - and -

          Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
          Thomas J. O'Reardon, Esq.
          BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
          701 B Street, Suite 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 338 1100
          Facsimile: (619) 338 1101
          E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com

               - and -

          Aron D. Robinson, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF ARON D. ROBSINON
          180 W. Washington Street, Suite 700
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 857 9050
          Facsimile: (312) 857 9054
          E-mail: adroblaw@aol.com


UBER TECH: Faces "Townsend" Suit over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------
DANYELLE TOWNSEND and KEN TEW, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES,
INC., a Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-
06756-DMR (N.D. Cal., Nov. 22, 2017), seeks declaration that, to
comply with its existing obligations, Uber must implement specific
additional, prudent industry security practices, as outlined
below, to provide reasonable protection and security to the
personally identifiable information of Plaintiffs and the
Nationwide Class.

The Complaint contends Uber users trust the company with their
personal information when they create an Uber account consisting
of their name, email, phone number, login name and password,
address, payment or banking information and other personal
information.  On November 21, 2017, Uber disclosed that it had
experienced a data breach, confirming that the personally
identifiable information of 57 million Uber users worldwide had
been downloaded by hackers, including names, email addresses and
mobile phone numbers. However, also potentially at risk are
additional pieces of personally identifiable information generally
available in Uber customer accounts including: location history,
credit card numbers, bank account numbers, Social Security
numbers, dates of birth and other information.

Additionally, Uber disclosed that the names and drivers' license
numbers of around 600,000 drivers in the United States had been
downloaded by hackers. The Data Breach occurred in October 2016;
however, Uber failed to disclose the Data Breach until more than
one year later. The hackers were able to gain access through a
third-party cloudbased service that handled computing tasks for
the company. From there, the hackers discovered an archive of
rider and driver information. The hackers then emailed the
company, demanding a ransom in exchange for deleting the
downloaded information. Rather than alerting regulators, law
enforcement and victims of the Data Breach, Uber sought to conceal
the Data Breach by paying the hackers $100,000 to destroy the
stolen data and to promise to keep the Data Breach a secret from
the public and regulators. As a result of Uber's negligence and
wanton and reckless disregard of data breach notification
requirements, millions of Americans are now -- and have been for
over one year -- at risk of identity theft.

Uber, the world's largest ridesharing company operating in over
700 countries and 600 cities worldwide, connects millions of
riders with drivers via Uber's mobile application.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Matthew J. Preusch, Esq.
          Christopher L. Springer, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          801 Garden Street, Suite 301
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 456 1496
          Facsimile: (805) 456 1497
          E-mail: mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com
                  cspringer@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623 1900
          Facsimile: (206) 623 3384
          E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Jodi Flowers, Esq.
          Breanne Cope, Esq.
          Laura Ray, Esq.
          Mathew Jasinski, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          28 Bridgeside Boulevard
          Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: (843) 216 9000
          Facsimile: (843) 216 9450
          E-mail: jflowers@motleyrice.com
                  bcope@motleyrice.com
                  lray@motleyrice.com
                  mjasinski@motleyrice.com


UDREN LAW OFFICES: Pa. Super. Affirms Dismissal of "Glover"
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania issued an Opinion affirming the
Judgment of the District Court dismissing the Complaint in the
case captioned MARY E. GLOVER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHER
SIMILARLY SITUATED FORMER AND CURRENT HOMEOWNERS IN PENNSYLVANIA,
Appellant, v. UDREN LAW OFFICES, P.C., A NEW JERSEY DEBT
COLLECTOR, Appellee, No. 1953 WDA 2016 (Pa. Super.).

Appellant, Mary E. Glover, individually and on behalf of other
similarly situated former and current homeowners in Pennsylvania,
appeals from the trial court's order sustaining Appellee's, Udren
Law Offices, P.C., a New Jersey debt collector (Udren),
preliminary objections based on collateral estoppels.

Ms. Glover entered into a residential real estate loan transaction
with Washington Mutual Bank, F.A (WaMu Bank), in which she agreed
to repay a $9,997 loan to WaMu Bank or its mortgage and note
successors or assigns) by making monthly principal and interest
payments of $67.35 over a 30-year period. Ms. Glover sustained
injuries in an automobile accident and suffered a significant loss
of income as a result. Thereafter, she made a request to WaMu Bank
for a loan modification to reduce her monthly payment.  In
response, Washington Mutual Home Loans (WaMu Home Loans), a wholly
owned subsidiary of WaMu Bank demanded that she pay $559.15, which
represented three overdue monthly payments plus three late
charges, or else her home would be sold by the Sheriff to pay off
the mortgage debt.

An attorney for Udren called Ms. Glover and advised her that she
needed to pay $1,700 for about eleven months of missed payments,
and additional attorney's fees and costs of approximately
$1,697.28. Thereafter, on April 10, 2006, Udren filed a
foreclosure complaint, asserting a claim against Ms. Glover for
$12,652.36. In the foreclosure complaint, Udren alleged that Ms.
Glover owed $1,855 for collection costs, which included a title
report, court costs, and attorney's fees.

Ms. Glover filed the complaint where she reasserted the Act 6 and
UTPCPL claims against Udren that the federal court dismissed
without prejudice.  In short, she maintains that Udren has
collected unlawful charges from Ms. Glover, including unincurred
attorney fees based on a flat-rate without court authorization,
prior to a time when any fees should have been collected, in
violation of the contract and state law.

The trial court dismissed Ms. Glover's Act 6 claims, explaining
that she does not allege that Udren violated any provisions of the
Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act.  Since Ms. Glover relies
solely on Section 406, since Section 406 applies only to
residential mortgage lenders, and since Udren is not a residential
mortgage lender, the trial court dismissed Ms. Glover's claims
raised in Counts I-IV for failure to plead any violations of Act 6
that would allow recovery under Section 502.
In addition, the trial court dismissed Ms. Glover's remaining
claims under the UTPCPL.

While Ms. Glover's appeal was pending before the state Supreme
Court, her federal litigation against Wells Fargo, among others,
continued.  On October 14, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit issued an opinion, in which it affirmed the entry of
summary judgment in favor of Wells Fargo on Ms. Glover's Act 6
claim.

The Third Circuit stated that, "Section 406 of Act 6 allows a
residential mortgage lender to contract for or receive from the
mortgage debtor a reasonable fee actually incurred in connection
with foreclosure actions. Even assuming Wells Fargo is a
residential mortgage lender under Section 406, Ms. Glover has
failed to present evidence on which a reasonable jury could
conclude that she was charged attorney's fees not incurred or
permitted under the loan documents and, more significantly, that
she paid any such fees. Thus, she has not shown that there is a
genuine issue of material fact for the jury to resolve in
connection with her Act 6 claim and so we will affirm summary
judgment in Wells Fargo's favor." Glover v. Wells Fargo Home
Mortg., 629 Fed.Appx. 331, 343 (3d Cir. 2015).

Ms. Glover argues that collateral estoppel does not apply as the
federal judgment against Wells Fargo fails to satisfy two criteria
for the application of Pennsylvania's collateral estoppel
doctrine.

First, she states that the issue as decided by the federal courts
with respect to Wells Fargo is not identical, under the collateral
estoppel doctrine, to the Act 6 issue now presented against Udren.

Second, she claims that lack of discovery prevented Ms. Glover
from obtaining a full and fair opportunity to litigate her claims
against Wells Fargo in the federal action.

In addition, Ms. Glover also states that the Act 6 claims in the
two cases are not identical because in the federal case, the
federal court's holding related to a failure with respect to the
requisite evidentiary showing under federal summary judgment
standards while the lower court here was required to analyze the
case against Udren under Preliminary Objection standards which
precluded affirmative defenses. Without any citation in support,
Ms. Glover claims that collateral estoppel does not apply when the
burdens of proof in the two actions are significantly different.

In response, the Pa. Super. concurs with the trial court, which
stated that it found no support for Ms. Glover's argument that
collateral estoppel is limited by the evidence underlying the
first suit's final judgment. Whether a plaintiff can adduce
sufficient evidence if given a second bite at the apple is not
grounds to defeat the collateral estoppel effect of the judgment.
Additionally, the Pa. Super. is persuaded by its observation that
further discovery directed at Udren related to its collection' of
any money cannot defeat the Third Circuit's finding that Ms.
Glover was not charged and did not pay any unlawful fees.

Accordingly, the Pa. Super. agrees with the trial court that the
issues are identical, and Udren satisfied element one of the
collateral estoppel doctrine.

A full-text copy of the Superior Court's November 20, 2017 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9muu8pb from Leagle.com.

Michael P. Malakoff, Michael P. Malakoff, PC, The Frick Building
437 Grant StreetSuite 200 Pittsburgh, PA 15219- 6002, for
Appellant, Mary E. Glover.

Jonathan Robert Burns -- jburns@bonwlaw.com -- for Appellant, Mary
E. Glover.

Jonathan J. Bart -- jbart@wilentz.com -- Wilentz, Goldman &
Spitzer, P.A., for Appellee, Udren Law Offices.


UNION PACIFIC: "Logan" Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of Washington
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Michael L. Logan, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Union Pacific Railroad Company, a Delaware corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. 17204339-1, was removed from the Spokane
County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Washington on Nov. 27, 2017. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-00394-SMJ to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Salvador Mendoza, Jr.

Union Pacific is a freight hauling railroad that operates 8,500
locomotives over 32,100 route-miles in 23 states west of Chicago
and New Orleans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          India Lin Bodien, Esq.
          INDIA LIN BODIEN ATTORNEY AT LAW
          2522 N Proctor St No. 387
          Tacoma, WA 98407
          Telephone: (253) 212 7913
          E-mail: india@indialinbodienlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Clarence M Belnavis, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP - SEA
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2750
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 682 2308
          E-mail: cbelnavis@fisherphillips.com


UNITED STATES: "Harris" Suit v. FBOP Moved to S.D. Indiana
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled DONTE ROLANDO HARRIS, John Does,
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CHARLES E. SAMUELS, JR.,
Director, FBOP, TERMINATED: 06/29/2017; MS ANGELA P. DUNBAR,
Assistant Programs Director CPD, TERMINATED: 06/29/2017; JOHN &
JANE DOES, TERMINATED: 06/29/2017; COUNTER TERRORISM UNIT,
TERMINATED: 06/29/2017; ANGELA P. DUNBAR; STEPHEN COPE, CTU
Analyst; JOHN DOE, and CTU Director, Case No. 1:16-cv-01012, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia, to the Southern District of Indiana (Terre Haute) on
Nov. 28, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-
00536-WTL-MPB to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge William T. Lawrence.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Patricia K. McBride, Esq.
          U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          555 Fourth Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20530
          Telephone: (202) 252 7123
          Facsimile: (202) 252 2599


UNITED STATES: Court Enjoins Minors' Suit vs. ICE
-------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order granting Plaintiff's Motions for
Preliminary Injunction and Provisional Class Certification in the
case captioned ILSA SARAVIA, et al., Petitioners/Plaintiffs, v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, et al., Respondents/Defendants, Case No.
17-cv-03615-VC (N.D. Cal.).

The minors have filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, and
they seek to provisionally certify a class of unaccompanied minors
for purposes of that motion.

In the Spring of 2017, agents from Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE), which is a division of the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS), executed "Operation Matador" in two New
York counties.  Operation Matador targeted undocumented immigrants
in Suffolk and Nassau Counties who had alleged connections to
criminal gangs.  After receiving allegations of gang affiliation
from local law enforcement officers, ICE agents proceeded to
arrest the alleged gang members, relying on ICE's authority under
federal law to arrest noncitizens who are subject to removal from
the country.

Some of the people arrested were minors. And ICE decided, after
making the arrests, that some of the minors fell within a certain
legal category: unaccompanied minors.  Under federal law, an
unaccompanied minor is a child who comes across the border without
any parent or legal guardian in the United States available to
take care of them.  When DHS takes custody of an unaccompanied
minor, federal law requires that agency to transfer custody of the
minor to the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), a division
within a different cabinet-level agency, namely, the Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS).

The minors and their attorneys ask the Court to rule quickly on
their request for a preliminary injunction.

The issue in this case is not whether federal agents may arrest
and detain undocumented minors who truly are members of dangerous
criminal gangs.  If federal agents have probable cause to believe
that a minor is a member of a criminal gang, certainly that could
be a "changed circumstance" that would justify detention, even if
the government had previously determined that the minor was not
dangerous. But there is no reason to deny these minors protections
that noncitizens typically get after having been released on bond
or parole. The minors and their sponsors have the right to
participate in a prompt hearing before an immigration judge in
which the government's evidence of changed circumstances is put to
the test. By shipping the minors across the country for indefinite
detention in a high-security facility before providing that
hearing, the government has violated their due process rights.

Accordingly, for any noncitizen minor previously placed with a
sponsor who has been arrested on allegations of gang activity, the
government is ordered to provide a hearing before an immigration
judge by no later than November 29, 2017, to allow the minor and
his sponsor to contest the government's evidence of changed
circumstances. The government must restore the minor to the
sponsor's custody if such evidence is lacking. Going forward, at
least while this lawsuit is pending, the government is ordered to
provide such a hearing within seven days of arrest of any such
minor.

The plaintiffs have asked for further relief, and they have
asserted additional legal theories. Further relief may be
warranted, but because the minors are clearly entitled to at least
this due process protection, and because their need for that
protection is time-sensitive, a preliminary injunction on this
issue is warranted at this time.

The motion for a preliminary injunction on behalf of a class of
noncitizen minors is granted to remedy the government's likely
violation of the class members' procedural due process rights.
The government is ordered to provide A.H. and all other noncitizen
minors previously released to a sponsor who were rearrested and
are currently in federal custody based on allegations of gang
affiliation with a hearing before an immigration judge to
challenge the basis for those allegations, in conformity with the
requirements set out in Part III.A of this order.

The defendants' motions to dismiss are granted as to the claims
brought by F.E. and J.G. individually.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 20, 2017 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y89yfque from Leagle.com.

Ilsa Saravia, Plaintiff, represented by Ashley K. Corkery --
acorkery@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP.

Ilsa Saravia, Plaintiff, represented by Holly Stafford Cooper,
University of California, Davis School of Law Immigration Law
Clinic, Judy Rabinovitz, ACLU Foundation Immigrants' Rights
Project, Kathlyn Anne Querubin -- kquerubin@cooley.com -- Cooley
LLP, Martin S. Schenker -- mschenker@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP,
Nathaniel Robert Cooper -- ncooper@cooley.com -- COOLEY LLP,
Stephen B. Kang, ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, Trevor Morehead
Kempner, Cooley LLP, William S. Freeman, ACLU Foundation of
Northern California & Julia Harumi Mass, Esq., American Civil
Liberties Union of Northern California, Inc..

Lorenza Gomez, Plaintiff, represented by Ashley K. Corkery, Cooley
LLP, Holly Stafford Cooper, University of California, Davis School
of Law Immigration Law Clinic, Judy Rabinovitz, ACLU Foundation
Immigrants' Rights Project, Julia Harumi Mass, Esq., American
Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, Inc., Kathlyn Anne
Querubin, Cooley LLP, Martin S. Schenker, Cooley LLP, Nathaniel
Robert Cooper, COOLEY LLP, Stephen B. Kang, ACLU Immigrants'
Rights Project, Trevor Morehead Kempner, Cooley LLP & William S.
Freeman, ACLU Foundation of Northern California.

Wilfredo Velasquez, Plaintiff, represented by Ashley K. Corkery,
Cooley LLP, Holly Stafford Cooper, University of California, Davis
School of Law Immigration Law Clinic, Judy Rabinovitz, ACLU
Foundation Immigrants' Rights Project, Julia Harumi Mass, Esq.,
American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, Inc.,
Kathlyn Anne Querubin, Cooley LLP, Martin S. Schenker, Cooley LLP,
Nathaniel Robert Cooper, COOLEY LLP, Stephen B. Kang, ACLU
Immigrants' Rights Project, Trevor Morehead Kempner, Cooley LLP &
William S. Freeman, ACLU Foundation of Northern California.

Jefferson B. Sessions, Defendant, represented by Sarah B. Fabian,
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division Office of Immigration
Litigation, Nicole N. Murley, Office of Immigration Litigation
United States Department of Justice, Civil Division & Vinita
Andrapalliyal, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division.

James McHenry, Defendant, represented by Sarah B. Fabian, U.S.
Department of Justice, Civil Division Office of Immigration
Litigation, Nicole N. Murley, Office of Immigration Litigation
United States Department of Justic, Civil Division & Vinita
Andrapalliyal, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division.

Thomas E. Price, Defendant, represented by Sarah B. Fabian, U.S.
Department of Justice, Civil Division Office of Immigration
Litigation, Nicole N. Murley, Office of Immigration Litigation
United States Department of Justic, Civil Division & Vinita
Andrapalliyal, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division.
Steven Wagner, Defendant, represented by Sarah B. Fabian, U.S.
Department of Justice, Civil Division Office of Immigration
Litigation, Nicole N. Murley, Office of Immigration Litigation
United States Department of Justic, Civil Division & Vinita
Andrapalliyal, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division.

Scott Lloyd, Defendant, represented by Sarah B. Fabian, U.S.
Department of Justice, Civil Division Office of Immigration
Litigation, Nicole N. Murley, Office of Immigration Litigation
United States Department of Justic, Civil Division & Vinita
Andrapalliyal, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division.

Elicia Smith, Defendant, represented by Sarah B. Fabian, U.S.
Department of Justice, Civil Division Office of Immigration
Litigation, Nicole N. Murley, Office of Immigration Litigation
United States Department of Justic, Civil Division & Vinita
Andrapalliyal, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division.

Elaine Duke, Defendant, represented by Sarah B. Fabian, U.S.
Department of Justice, Civil Division Office of Immigration
Litigation, Nicole N. Murley, Office of Immigration Litigation
United States Department of Justic, Civil Division & Vinita
Andrapalliyal, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division.

Thomas D Homan, Defendant, represented by Sarah B. Fabian, U.S.
Department of Justice, Civil Division Office of Immigration
Litigation, Nicole N. Murley, Office of Immigration Litigation
United States Department of Justic, Civil Division & Vinita
Andrapalliyal, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division.

James McCament, Defendant, represented by Sarah B. Fabian, U.S.
Department of Justice, Civil Division Office of Immigration
Litigation, Nicole N. Murley, Office of Immigration Litigation
United States Department of Justic, Civil Division & Vinita
Andrapalliyal, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division.


UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: "Millman" Class Certification Bid Premature
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, issued an Opinion and Order denying
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned
OPAL MILLMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, LEAR
CORPORATION EEDS AND INTERIORS, as successor to United
Technologies Automotive Inc., ANDREW DAIRY STORE, INC., L.D.
WILLIAMS, INC., CP PRODUCT, LLC, as successor to Preferred
Technical Group, Inc., and LDW DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Defendants, Cause
No. 1:16-CV-312-TLS (N.D. Ind.).

This matter is before the Court on two pending motions: the
Defendant L.D. Williams' Rule 12(f) Motion to Strike the Amended
Complaint and the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class.

To date, there has been no response by the Defendants, and the
Court notes that additional Defendants have been added in the
Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint.  Accordingly, the parties'
briefing has focused on the Third Amended Complaint, and the
parties are also engaged in discovery.

The Court further finds that filing a motion that the parties are
not yet ready to support or defend, and the Court is not yet able
to rule upon, does not promote the efficient administration of
justice. No party has indicated that the certification issue is
ripe for adjudication.

The Court, finding no reason to consider the certification issue
at this time, denies the Motion to Certify Class as premature, but
without prejudice to refiling at the appropriate juncture of the
case.

The Court also denies as moot the Rule 12(f) Motion to Strike the
first Amended Complaint.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 16, 2017 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc4slgly from
Leagle.com.

Opal Millman, Plaintiff, represented by Rodney L. Michael, Jr. --
rmichael@taftlaw.com -- Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP.

Opal Millman, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas A. Barnard --
tbarnard@taftlaw.com -- Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Benjamin
A. Wolowski -- bwolowski@taftlaw.com -- Taft Stettinius &
Hollister LLP & Tammara D. Porter -- tporter@taftlaw.com -- Taft
Stettinius & Hollister LLP.

Eric Powell, Plaintiff, represented by Rodney L. Michael, Jr.,
Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Thomas A. Barnard, Taft
Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Benjamin A. Wolowski, Taft Stettinius
& Hollister LLP & Tammara D. Porter, Taft Stettinius & Hollister
LLP.

Laury Powell, Plaintiff, represented by Rodney L. Michael, Jr.,
Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Thomas A. Barnard, Taft
Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Benjamin A. Wolowski, Taft Stettinius
& Hollister LLP & Tammara D. Porter, Taft Stettinius & Hollister
LLP.

United Technologies Corporation, Defendant, represented by Alicia
Marcia Raines - Alicia.RainesBarrs@btlaw.com --, Barnes &
Thornburg LLP, Joseph G. Eaton -- joe.eaton@btlaw.com -- Barnes &
Thornburg LLP & Kelly J. Hartzler -- kelly.hartzler@btlaw.com --
Barnes & Thornburg LLP.

Lear Corporation Eeds and Interiors, Defendant, represented by
Alicia Marcia Raines, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Joseph G. Eaton,
Barnes & Thornburg LLP & Kelly J. Hartzler, Barnes & Thornburg
LLP.

Andrews Dairy Store Inc, Defendant, represented by Thomas A. Herr
-- tah@barrettlaw.com -- Barrett McNagny LLP & William A. Ramsey -
- war@barrettlaw.com -- Barrett McNagny LLP.

L.D. Williams, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew M. McNeil --
amcneil@boselaw.com -- Bose McKinney & Evans LLP, Bradley M. Dick
-- bdick@boselaw.com -- Bose McKinney & Evans LLP & Bradley R.
Sugarman -- bsugarman@boselaw.com --, Bose McKinney & Evans LLP.

CP Product LLC, Defendant, represented by G. Daniel Kelley, Jr. --
daniel.kelley@icemiller.com -- Ice Miller LLP, Nicholas B. Reuhs
Nicholas.Reuhs@icemiller.com -- Ice Miller LLP & Samuel B. Gardner
-- Samuel.Gardner@icemiller.com -- Ice Miller LLP.

LDW Development LLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew M. McNeil,
Bose McKinney & Evans LLP, Bradley M. Dick, Bose McKinney & Evans
LLP & Bradley R. Sugarman, Bose McKinney & Evans LLP.

Andrews Dairy Store Inc, Cross Claimant, represented by Thomas A.
Herr, Barrett McNagny LLP & William A. Ramsey, Barrett McNagny
LLP.

L.D. Williams, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R.
Sugarman, Bose McKinney & Evans LLP.

LDW Development LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Andrew M.
McNeil, Bose McKinney & Evans LLP, Bradley M. Dick, Bose McKinney
& Evans LLP & Bradley R. Sugarman, Bose McKinney & Evans LLP.


UNIVERSAL FITNESS: Rose Sues over Gym Memberships Rates
-------------------------------------------------------
GIOVANNA ROSE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSAL FITNESS CLUB, and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-
08547 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 26, 2017), seeks to recover damages and any
other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the
illegal actions of Defendant, in negligently, knowingly, and/or
willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against Defendant
to stop Defendant's practice of falsely advertising its services
and products to falsely induce consumers to purchase Defendant's
gym memberships and obtain redress for all California consumers
(a) who were promised a gym membership at one price, but then
ultimately charged a higher price, (b) who were represented to
receive free training sessions, or (c) whose bank accounts were
debited on a reoccurring basis without obtaining a written
authorization signed or similarly authenticated for preauthorized
electronic fund transfers, Defendant.

The Defendant is engaged in the advertising, sale, and provider of
gym services with a large share of its business done in
California. The Defendant represents to prospective consumers that
they would get a gym membership for a monthly fee of $24.99 with a
free training session.

The Plaintiff and others similarly situated purchased Defendant's
gym memberships. The Defendant misrepresented and falsely
advertised to Plaintiff and others similarly situated the price of
these services because Defendant charged purchasers of these
services and products for more than what was advertised and
deducted these funds from accounts of Plaintiff and those
similarly situated to Plaintiff which these consumers never agreed
to pay for. The Defendant's misrepresentations to Plaintiff and
others similarly situated caused them to purchase Defendant's gym
memberships and training sessions, which Plaintiff and others
similarly situated would not have purchased absent these
misrepresentations by Defendant and its employees. In so doing,
Defendant has violated California consumer protection
statutes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VISTANA MANAGEMENT: "Michel" Suit Seeks OT Wages under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
NERLINE MICHEL, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. VISTANA MANAGEMENT, INC., DBA
SHERATON'S VISTANA RESORT, a Florida for Profit Corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv-02085-ACC-DCI (M.D. Fla., Dec. 5,
2017), seeks to recover overtime wages, liquidated damages, and
reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendant
without being paid the proper overtime pay, premium rate of time
and one-half her regular rate of pay, for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours within a work week.

Vistana Management is a real estate agent and manager which
provides asset management services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
          THE LEACH FIRM, PA
          1950 Lee Road, Suite 213
          Witer Park, FL 32789
          Telephone: (321) 287 6021
          Facsimile: (407) 960 4789
          E-mail: cleach@theleachfirm.com


VITAQUEST INT'L: "Shoaf" Suit Moved to District of New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Renee Shoaf and Pamela Parra, on
behalf of herself, all others similarly situated and the general
public, the Plaintiff, v. VitaQuest, Intl. LLC and WINDMILL HEALTH
PRODUCTS, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-02007, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey (Newark) on Dec. 5, 2017.  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-12604 to the proceeding.  The case is
assigned to Hon. Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel.

VitaQuest engages in the formulation, development, and manufacture
of custom dietary supplements for clients worldwide. It offers
anti-aging supplements, bodybuilding supplements, capsules,
chewable tablets, enzyme supplements, herbal supplements, kosher
vitamins, and men's supplements.


WEINSTEIN COMPANY: Geiss et al. Sue over Unwanted Sexual Conduct
----------------------------------------------------------------
LOUISETTE GEISS, KATHERINE KENDALL, ZOE BROCK, SARAH ANN
THOMAS (a/k/a SARAH ANN MASSE), MELISSA SAGEMILLER, and NANNETTE
KLATT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. THE WEINSTEIN COMPANY HOLDINGS, LLC,
MIRAMAX, LLC, MIRAMAX FILM CORP., MIRAMAX FILM NY LLC, HARVEY
WEINSTEIN, ROBERT WEINSTEIN, DIRK ZIFF, TIM SARNOFF, MARC LASRY,
TARAK BEN AMMAR, LANCE MAEROV, RICHARD KOENIGSBERG, PAUL TUDOR
JONES, JEFF SACKMAN, JAMES DOLAN, MIRAMAX DOES 1-10, and JOHN DOES
1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-09554 (S.D.N.Y.,
Dec. 6, 2017), alleges that under the guise of meetings ostensibly
to help further Plaintiffs' showbiz careers, or to hire them, or
to socialize at industry events, Harvey Weinstein isolated
Plaintiffs and Class Members in an attempt to engage in unwanted
sexual conduct that took many forms: flashing, groping, fondling,
harassing, battering, false imprisonment, sexual assault,
attempted rape and/or completed rape. The Plaintiffs and Members
of the Class had or wanted to have careers in the entertainment
industry and correctly understood that Weinstein was a powerful
force in the production world. The Plaintiffs and the Class
operated under duress and the credible and objective threat of
being blacklisted by Weinstein and major film producers such as
Miramax and TWC if they refused Weinstein's unwanted sexual
advances or complained about his behavior. To the extent a woman
was "lucky" enough to escape physically unscathed, Weinstein's
behavior (and the fact it was facilitated by TWC and Miramax, the
"Complicit Producers") nonetheless caused injury to their business
prospects, career, reputation, and severe emotional and physical
distress.

Weinstein Company is a mini-major film studio, founded in New York
City by Bob and Harvey Weinstein in 2005. TWC is one of the
largest mini-major film studios in North America. Bob Weinstein
owns 23% of the company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason Zweig, Esq.
          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Shelby Smith, Esq.
          Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
          Emily Brown, Esq.
          Robert B. Carey, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
          New York, NY 10017
          E-mail: jasonz@hbsslaw.com
                  steve@hbsslaw.com
                  shelbys@hbsslaw.com
                  beth@hbsslaw.com
                  emilyb@hbsslaw.com
                  rob@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          M. Cris Armenta, Esq.
          Credence E. Sol, Esq.
          THE ARMENTA LAW FIRM, APC
          1230 Rosecrans Ave, Suite 3


WEST BASIN WATER: Faces "Rastegar" Suit over Standby Charges
------------------------------------------------------------
MIKEL RASTEGAR, individually and on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated; HENRY PORTER, JR., individually and on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; EMAN
KHOUBIAN, individually and on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. WEST BASIN MUNICIPAL WATER
DISTRICT; and DOES 1-100, the Defendants, Case No. BC 684499 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Nov. 22, 2017), seeks refund of all wrongfully imposed
and collected "Standby Charges" and seeks declaratory and/or
injunctive relief requiring Defendants to discontinue the
assessment, collection and remittance of these Standby Charges.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs suspect that West Basin
intended to euphemistically label taxes as 'Standby Charges' and
"property assessments" on the Plaintiffs' and Class members'
property tax bills because West Basin has no legal right to
provide, and therefore bill, these "end-use customers" for retail
water services -- and again, West Basin and its officers,
directors, and managing agents have been, and are, fully aware
that these standby charges have been illegal since their first
enactment and have never been "standby/availability charges".
Additionally, and as West Basin is well aware, the Plaintiffs and
Class Member receive their retail water from water agencies or
municipal water districts other than West Basin.

West Basin is a wholesale water agency that provides imported
drinking water to nearly one million people in 17 cities and
unincorporated areas in Los Angeles County. West Basin is an
industry leader in water recycling, conservation, and water
education.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul E. Heidenreich, Esq.
          David W.T. Brown, Esq.
          HUSKINSON, BROWN & HEIDENREICH, LLP
          1200 Aviation Blvd., Suite 202
          Redondo Beach, CA 90278
          Telephone: (310) 545-5459
          Facsimile: (310)546-1019
          E-mail: pheidenreich@,hbhllp.com


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Subclass Rep Replacement in "Schechner" Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TOBY SCHECHNER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WHIRLPOOL
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-12409 (E.D. Mich.), Judge
Stephen J. Murphy, III, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division, denied the Plaintiffs
motion to substitute the putative "Michigan Subclass
representative," or in the alternative, leave to withdraw.

In June 2016, the Plaintiffs filed their initial complaint; filing
of an amended complaint followed several months later.  During
preliminary motion practice, the Court issued its first scheduling
order.  And after the motions were resolved, the parties filed a
joint discovery plan; the Court then held a scheduling conference.
On the recommendation of the parties, the Court issued a second
scheduling order that delayed the end of fact discovery by more
than two months.

In August 2017, the Court held a telephonic status conference at
the request of the parties.  During the conference, the parties
advised that they were disputing whether the Defendant could
inspect the ovens that were at the heart of the litigation.  The
Plaintiffs expressed concerns about potential intrusion and the
cost of having attorneys present.  The Court advised that the
inspections seemed reasonable, and that conducting the inspections
around the times and places set for depositions could reduce
costs.

A month later, the Court held a second telephonic conference at
the parties' request.  It became clear during the call that the
discovery issues had escalated, so the Court appointed a discovery
master.  The discovery master then recommended compelling the oven
inspection of one of the Plaintiffs: Laura Bliss.  The Court
agreed with the recommendation, and ordered the inspection.  In
the meantime, the Plaintiffs moved to substitute out or withdraw
Bliss as the Michigan Subclass representative.

The Plaintiffs disclosed for the first time that Bliss has medical
reasons that justify her substitution even though she is willing
to permit the inspection and to appear at trial by video
conference.  Judge Murphy holds that although legitimate medical
conditions would usually justify delay, the delay appears to be
caused by a lack of communication between the Plaintiffs' counsel
and Bliss rather than the medical condition itself.  He says the
timing suggests that the counsel inadequately communicated with
Bliss when confirming the inspection and the lack of communication
resulted in a week delay to learn that the inspection would be an
issue; the ramifications of the delay are amplified because it
occurred near the end of discovery.

The Judge says diligent communication would have resulted in the
Plaintiffs learning of the alleged need for substitution sooner,
and discovery likely could have been conducted on the new Michigan
Subclass representative without delaying the litigation.  In sum,
he finds that granting leave to amend would delay the litigation
and that the delay is unjustified.  Justice therefore does not
require him to grant the Plaintiffs leave under Civil Rule
15(a)(2).

For these reasons, Judge Murphy denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Substitute.  The Plaintiffs may file, no later than 30 days after
the date of the Order, a motion to dismiss Bliss' claims.  If
filed, the motion should state (i) under which Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure or other authority she seeks to dismiss her
claims, and (ii) any conditions of the dismissal.  The Defendant
will have an opportunity to respond in accordance with Eastern
District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(e).

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 21, 2017 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/4G4qEd from Leagle.com.

Morley Witus, Special Master, represented by Morley Witus --
mwitus@bsdd.com -- Barris, Sott, Denn & Driker, PLLC.

Toby Schechner, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis A. Lienhardt --
dal@miller.law -- The Miller Law Firm, P.C., Mark Samuel Reich --
mreich@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Down LLP, Sharon S.
Almonrode -- ssa@miller.law -- The Miller Law Firm, P.C., Stuart
Andrew Davidson -- SDavidson@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP & E. Powell Miller -- epm@miller.law -- The Miller Law
Firm.

Barbara Barnes, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis A. Lienhardt, The
Miller Law Firm, P.C., Mark Samuel Reich, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Down LLP, Stuart Andrew Davidson, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
& E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm.

Kathryn Limpede, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis A. Lienhardt,
The Miller Law Firm, P.C., Mark Samuel Reich, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Down LLP, Stuart Andrew Davidson, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP & E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm.

Mary Ellen Thome, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis A. Lienhardt,
The Miller Law Firm, P.C., Mark Samuel Reich, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Down LLP, Stuart Andrew Davidson, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP & E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm.

Richard Thome, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis A. Lienhardt, The
Miller Law Firm, P.C., Mark Samuel Reich, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Down LLP, Stuart Andrew Davidson, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
& E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm.

Louise Miljenovic, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis A. Lienhardt,
The Miller Law Firm, P.C., Mark Samuel Reich, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Down LLP, Stuart Andrew Davidson, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP & E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm.

Laura Bliss, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis A. Lienhardt, The
Miller Law Firm, P.C., Mark Samuel Reich, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Down LLP, Stuart Andrew Davidson, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
& E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm.

Beverly Simmons, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis A. Lienhardt,
The Miller Law Firm, P.C., Mark Samuel Reich, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Down LLP, Stuart Andrew Davidson, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP & E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm.

Candace Oliarny, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis A. Lienhardt,
The Miller Law Firm, P.C., Mark Samuel Reich, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Down LLP, Stuart Andrew Davidson, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP & E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm.

Whirlpool Corporation, Defendant, represented by Howard B. Iwrey -
- hiwrey@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett, James P. Feeney --
jfeeney@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett, Jessica G. Scott --
scott@wtotrial.com -- Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, Julian Richard
Ellis, Jr. -- ellis@wtotrial.com -- Wheeler, Trigg, O'Donnell, LLP
& Michael T. Williams -- williams@wtotrial.com -- Wheeler Trigg
O'Donnell LLP.


WYNDHAM HOTELS: Faces "Ogen" Suit over Biometric Data Collection
----------------------------------------------------------------
MONICA OGEN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. WYNDHAM HOTELS AND RESORTS, LLC,
WYNDHAM HOTEL MANAGEMENT, INC., WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE OPERATIONS,
INC., and DOLCE INTERNATIONAL/ST. CHARLES, LLC, the Defendants,
Case No. 2017-CH-15626 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Nov. 28, 2017), seeks to
put a stop to Defendants' unlawful collection, use, storage, and
disclosure of Plaintiffs and the proposed Class' sensitive
biometric data.

Wyndham operates hotels and resorts located throughout the State
of Illinois and in this Circuit. When Wyndham hires an employee,
he or she is enrolled in an employee database. Wyndham uses the
employee database to monitor the time worked by each of their
employees, including salaried employees. While most retail
establishments use conventional methods for tracking time worked
(such as ID badge swipes or punch clocks), Wyndham employees are
required to have their fingerprints scanned by a biometric
timekeeping device. Unlike badges or time cards -- which can be
changed or replaced if stolen or compromised -- fingerprints are
unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated with each
employee. This exposes Wyndham employees to serious and
irreversible privacy risks. For example, if a fingerprint database
is hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed -- such as in the recent
Equifax data breach -- employees have no means by which to prevent
identity theft, unauthorized tracking, and other improper or
unlawful use of this information. Recognizing the need to protect
its citizens from situations like these, Illinois enacted the
Biometric Information Privacy Act. Despite this law, Wyndham
disregards its employees' statutorily protected privacy rights and
unlawfully collects, stores, and uses their biometric data in
violation of BIPA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq.
          Haley R. Jenkins, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 6060
          Telephone: (312) 233 1550
          Facsimile: (312) 233 1560
          E-mail: lawyers@stephanzouras.com








                             *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Marion
Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala,
Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2017. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Joseph Cardillo at 856-381-
8268.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *