CAR_Public/171220.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


          Wednesday, December 20, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 251



                            Headlines

A & J FAMILY: "Perez" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime for Janitors
ACORDA THERAPEUTICS: "Hague" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violation
AIDA: Thousands of Door-to-Door Sales People to Join Class Action
ALKERMES PLC: Jan. 22 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
ALLERGAN INC: "FWK" Suit Alleges Sherman Act Violation

ANN ARBOR, MI: Sued Over Footing Drain Disconnection Program
ARRAY BIOPHARMA: Sued for Making False Statements on Cancer Drug
AUSTRALIA: Darwin Residents Mull PFAS Contamination Class Action
AUSTRALIA: Law Firm Invites Darwin Residents to Join PFAS Suit
AVEO: Hundreds of Former Residents Sign Up for Class Action

BAKER HUGHES: $3MM FLSA Class Settlement Has Final Court OK
CAFE PAPILLON: "Besil" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
CANADA: Deal Reached in RCMP LGBTQ Persecution Class Action
CANADA: Gov't Sets Aside $100MM for LGBTQ Purge Settlement
CANADA: Trudeau Apologizes for Abuse at Indigenous Schools

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Makes Calls That Violate TCPA, Leeb Says
CHEVRON U.S.A.: "Goodman" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
CHINA AGRITECH: To Decide Clock-Tolling on Shareholder Suit
CITIGROUP INC: Court Certifies Plan Investors Class in ERISA Suit
CVS HEALTH: "Prescott" RICO Suit Transferred to New Jersey

BAR TACO: About 400 Sign on to Lawsuit
BARCLAYS PLC: May 18 Euribor Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
CBRE INC: Arbitration Agreements Violate Labor Law, Judge Says
CHANNEL NINE: Class Action Mulled Over Don Burke's Behavior
CHECKERS DRIVE-IN: Faces TCPA Class Action Over Text Messages

CHICAGO, IL: Park Ridge Residents Threaten Legal Action
CONGREGATION OF HOLY CROSS: Oratory Wants Exclusion from Suit
CORDIS CORP: Loses Bid to Appeal Vein Filters Class Action Ruling
DOLLAR TREE: Court Certifies Class of Employees in "Snipes" Suit
DOMETIC CORP: Time to Reply to "Papasan" Suit Extended

DONALD TRUMP: Judge Unseals Settlement Documents in Labor Case
DOUGHERTY COUNTY, GA: "Calhoun" Discovery Order Stayed
DYNAMIC LEDGER: Okusko Sues Over Sale of Unregistered Securities
EOG RESOURCES: "Ferguson" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
EQUIFAX INC: Faces "St. Clair" Suit in N.D. Ga. Over Data Breach

EXETER FINANCE: Ct. Denies Class Certification Bid in "Ginwright"
FACEBOOK INC: CJEU to Decide on Austrian Activist's Privacy Suit
FITBIT INC: Federal Judge Refuses to Grant Summary Judgment
FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Lawsuit on Unpaid Wages
FORECLOSURE EXPEDITORS: Court Narrows Claims in "Hamilton" Suit

FOXTEL: Australian Workers File Wage Theft Class Action
FRANKLIN COUNTY, OH: Denial of "Wood" Class Cert Affirmed
FREEDOM 1ST: Havidic Seeks to Recover Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
GIGAMON INC: "Carpenter" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violation
GIGAMON INC: "Stouffer" Suit Challenges Acquisition by Elliott

GRANBY'S COLLEGE: Class OK'd for Ex-Students Claiming Abuse
HAKKASAN NYC: Can Compel Arbitration in "Zhu" FLSA Suit
HCP INC: Robbins Geller, Motley Rice to Lead in Securities Suit
HERTZ RENTAL: Settles Parking Violation Ticket Class Action
HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Deal in Shareholder Derivative Suit Affirmed

HLO COLLECTION: Accused by "Muhammad" Suit of Violating FDCPA
HOF'S HUT: Court Dismisses "MacKinnon" TCPA Suit with Prejudice
HOME PERFORMANCE: "Kleeklamp" Sues to Recover Overtime Pay
HONDA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Lawsuit
JUST FOR LAUGHS: Quebec Women Seek Class Action v. Co-Founder

KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Court Grants Dismissal of "Viggiano" Suit
LEMAN USA: Deprives Office Workers of Overtime, Malicki Claims
LITTLE CAESAR'S: "Ishaq" Labor Suit Claims Overtime Pay
M-I LLC: "Coder" Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay
M-I LLC: Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in FCRA Class Action

MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Scheck Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
MICHAEL FOODS: Judge Approves $75MM Class Action Settlement
MIDLAND CREDIT: "Gold" Suit Disputes Vague Collection Letter
MIDLAND CREDIT: Can Arbitrate FDCPA Claims in "Thomas"
MINEBEA MITSUMI: Feb. 28 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

MONSANTO COMPANY: Skundrick Sues Over Roundup(R)-Related Lymphoma
NALCOR ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over River Flooding
NATIONAL OILWELL: "Esqueda" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT, Damages
NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: "Fennel" Sues Over Illegal Collection Calls
NEVSUN RESOURCES: Loses Bid to Dismiss Eritreans' Class Action

NEW GENERATION: "King" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Under FLSA
NFL: Counsel's Ties to Litigation Funder Questioned
NOVAN INC: Pomerantz LLP Files Class Action Lawsuit
OCERA THERAPEUTICS: "Franchi" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violation
OMEGA PROTEIN: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action

PATIENT INNOVATION: Tomala Estate Seeks to Recover Wages and OT
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: "Aikens" Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
PPG ARCHITECTURAL: "Cortese" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
PRIME COMMUNICATIONS: "Gales" Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND: Rob Ford Lawyer Joins E-Gaming Lawsuit

PROFESSIONAL TRANSPORTATION: Court Won't Certify Drivers Class
PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Sued by Johnson for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
QUIK NOTARY SERVICES: "LaBorde" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
RACING INDUSTRIES: "Garcia" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
RECOVER HEALTH: Accused by "Marrero" Suit of Not Paying Overtime

ROBERT BOSCH: Must Face Volkswagen Dealers' Class Action
RYB EDUCATION: Jan. 26 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
SERVCO SUBARU: Distributor Sued Over Soy-Based Auto Parts
SHAUN'S TOWING: "Durrant" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
SHOWTIME NETWORKS: Mayweather-McGregor Suit Sent to Arbitration

SOUTHERN STAR: "Evans" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
STAFFMARK HOLDINGS: Court OKs $5.6MM Settlement in "Fronda" Suit
STATE FARM: "Davis" Suit Says Insurance Fund Illegally Siphoned
STEPS IN HOME CARE: "Diaz" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
TANGOE INC: March 8 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

TD BANK: "Lawrence" Sues Over Illegal Overdraft Charges
TENNESSEE: Hepatitis C-Infected Inmates' Class Action Okayed
TESLA INC: Black Workers Sue Over Racial Discrimination
TEXAS FARM: "English" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
TEZOS: Faces Securities Class Action in California

TEZOS: Faces Third Class Action Over ICO
TOTAL CARD: "Cooper" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violations
TRAVELPORT: Settles Antitrust Class Action in New York
TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: Feb. 9 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: More Suits After Data Breach Cover Up

UNITED STATES: Court Enjoins ICE From Removing Indonesian Aliens
UNIVERSAL HANDICRAFT: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Mollicon" Suit
UNIVERSITE LAVAL: Judge Rejects Motion to Stay Class Action
UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS: Lawsuits Over Sexual Assaults Resolved
US BANK: "Guiette" TCPA Suit Transferred to D. Colo.

WELLS FARGO: Faces New 401(k) Fiduciary Class Suit
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC: Massey Files Adversary Suit Under WARN Act
WOODFORD TRANSPORTATION: Water Outage Class Settlement Approved
WOODLAKE CC: Attorney General Pledges to Uphold Action
WORK OUT WORLD: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Susinno" TCPA Suit

* Fight to Preserve Mandatory Arbitration Is Bad Policy
* Illinois Employers Face Class Actions Over BIPA Violations
* Vaginal Mesh May Be Banned in Britain Due to Complications





                            *********



A & J FAMILY: "Perez" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime for Janitors
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NEFTALI OCHOA PEREZ, MARIA I. LOPEZ VEGA, and AMALIA VEGA, on
behalf of themselves, individually, and ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED v. A & J FAMILY INVESTMENTS, LLC, Case No. 4:17-cv-03615
(S.D. Tex., November 28, 2017), alleges that the Plaintiffs and
other janitors employed by the Defendant are entitled to recover
unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, as well as other damages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Janitors are required to work more than 40 hours per week but
the Defendant has a longstanding policy of failing to compensate
the janitors at least the minimum wage for every hour worked, as
well as failing and refusing to compensate the janitors for
overtime at 1.5 times their hourly rate, as required by the FLSA,
according to the complaint.

A & J Family Investments, LLC, provides janitorial services for
various American Multi Cinema (AMC) movie theaters throughout the
greater Houston area.  The Company employs janitors to clean the
theaters.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Taft L. Foley, II, Esq.
          THE FOLEY LAW FIRM
          3003 South Loop West, Suite 108
          Houston, TX 77054
          Telephone: (832) 778-8182
          Facsimile: (832) 778-8353
          E-mail: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com

               - and -

          Lauren M. Serper, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF LAUREN M. SERPER, P.C.
          3405 Edloe Street, Suite 200
          Houston, TX 77027
          Telephone: (713) 278-9398
          Facsimile: (713) 785-0808
          E-mail: laurenserper@gmail.com


ACORDA THERAPEUTICS: "Hague" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Hague, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Acorda Therapeutics, Inc., Ron Cohen, David Lawrence,
and Michael Rogers, Case No. 1:17-cv-08997 (S.D. N.Y., November
17, 2017), seeks to recover damages caused by the Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

This is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired Acorda's securities between April 18, 2016 and
November 14, 2017.

Plaintiff Michael Hague acquired Acorda securities at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the
revelation of alleged corrective disclosures, says the complaint.

Defendant Acorda is a biotechnology company with a focus on the
identification, development, and commercialization of therapies
for neurological disorders. Defendant Acorda is headquartered in
New York, with principal executive offices located at 420 Saw Mill
River Road, Ardsley, New York 10502. Acorda's stock trades on the
NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "ACOR."

The Individual Defendants are officers of Acorda. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AIDA: Thousands of Door-to-Door Sales People to Join Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that thousands of
Australian door-to-door sales people are expected to join a A$100
million dollar class action over wage theft and bullying while
working for some of the nation's biggest companies.

The class action, being launched on Nov. 28, names four sales
contractors -- Aida, Credico, Global Interactive and the PCA Group
-- which represented some of Australia's biggest companies and
charities including Foxtel, Telstra, Optus, AGL and The Red Cross.

It claims some workers were making as little as A$3.67 an hour
selling products door-to-door or in shopping malls.

"The action will help expose the practice of sham contracting,
which is estimated to impact on almost 345,000 Australians in any
one calendar year, according to an analysis of ABS data,"
Godfrey Moase from the National Union of Workers said in a
statement on Nov. 27.

It's estimated 5000 people will join the action backed by the NUW
and Chamberlains Law Firm.

"This will be Australia's first class action to simultaneously
pursue the marketing company and also take aim at clients,
directors and advisors that knew about the exploitation but
decided to profit anyway," Rory Markham from Chamberlains Law Firm
said in a statement.

Some of the claimants say that they went weeks without pay and
were isolated from friends and family because they were constantly
moving around Australia and had no fixed address.

The NUW said for people to join the action, they need to be paid
up members of the union but "further special consideration will be
given to claimants in particularly vulnerable situations".

It comes in the wake of a major A$85 million class action against
Appco, which is alleged to have engaged in sham contracting. [GN]


ALKERMES PLC: Jan. 22 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, notified investors that a
class action lawsuit has been filed against Alkermes plc
("Alkermes" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:  ALKS) and certain of its
officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased Alkermes
securities between February 24, 2015, and November 3, 2017 both
dates inclusive, (the "Class Period").  Such investors are
encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/alks.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Alkermes plc is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the
development of treatments for central nervous system disorders
such as addiction, schizophrenia, depression and diabetes.  The
Company's marketed products include Vivitrol (naltrexone for
extended-release injectable suspension), a treatment for alcohol
and opioid dependence.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that:  (1) Alkermes systemically engaged in deceptive
marketing campaigns to influence policymakers to use Vivitrol in
addiction treatment programs over more scientifically proven and
efficacious alternatives; (2) the foregoing conduct, when
disclosed, would foreseeably subject Alkermes to heightened
regulatory and legislative scrutiny; (3) accordingly, the
Company's revenues derived from Vivitrol during the Class Period
were unsustainable; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Alkermes
shares traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class
Period.

On June 11, 2017, The New York Times published an article entitled
"Seizing On Opioid Crisis, a Drug Maker Lobbies Hard for its
Product."  The article described Alkermes' aggressive efforts to
market Vivitrol while denigrating the efficacy of other addiction
treatments. Following this news, Alkermes stock dropped $2.19 per
share, or 3.55%, to close at $59.47 on June 12, 2017.

Then on November 6, 2017, U.S. Senator Kamala Harris revealed that
she is opening an investigation into the Alkermes sales practices
for its opioid-addiction treatment Vivitrol.  Senator Harris said
that the Company "aggressively marketed" its medication,
convincing judges and prison officials to use it rather than more
proven addiction treatments and spent hundreds of thousands of
dollars lobbying policymakers.  Following this news, Alkermes
stock dropped $2.23, or 4.37%, to close at $48.76 on November 6,
2017.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/alksor you may contact Peretz Bronstein,
Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484.  If you suffered a loss
in Alkermes you have until January 22, 2018 to request that the
Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC -- http://www.bgandg.com-- is
a corporate litigation boutique.  Its primary expertise is the
aggressive pursuit of litigation claims on behalf of its clients.
In addition to representing institutions and other investor
plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's
expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as
well as securities arbitration. [GN]


ALLERGAN INC: "FWK" Suit Alleges Sherman Act Violation
------------------------------------------------------
FWK Holdings, LLC, on behalf of itself and all those similarly
situated v. Allergan, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-00747 (E.D. Tex.,
November 17, 2017), seeks to recover treble damages, interest,
costs of suit and attorneys' fees under the Sherman Act and the
Clayton Act.

This civil antitrust action arises from Allergan's scheme to
unlawfully prolong its monopoly in the market for prescription
cyclosporine emulsion sales in the United States.

Plaintiff FWK Holdings, LLC is a limited liability company
organized under the laws of the State of Illinois, with its
principal place of business located in Glen Ellyn, Illinois. FWK
is the assignee of the claims of the Frank W. Kerr Co. During the
relevant period, Frank W. Kerr Co. purchased Restasis directly
from Allergan at supra-competitive prices as a result of
Allergan's scheme.

Defendant Allergan, Inc. is a corporation organized under Delaware
state law with its principal place of business located in Irvine,
California. Allergan is the holder of approved New Drug
Application No. 50-790 for Cyclosporine Ophthalmic Emulsion,
0.05%, sold under the Restasis trademark. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      S. Calvin Capshaw, Esq.
      Elizabeth L. DeRieux, Esq.
      CAPSHAW DERIEUX, LLP
      114 E. Commerce Ave.
      Gladewater, TX 75647
      Tel: (903) 845-5770
      E-mail: ccapshaw@capshawlaw.com
              ederieux@capshawlaw.com


ANN ARBOR, MI: Sued Over Footing Drain Disconnection Program
------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Stanton, writing for Mlive, reports that the city of
Ann Arbor is facing a new federal lawsuit over its footing drain
disconnection program, claiming the city imposed "forced labor" on
an estimated 3,000-plus residents by requiring them to maintain
mandatory sump pumps in their homes.

Local attorney Irvin Mermelstein, who has been fighting the city
over the issue for several years, filed a new class-action
complaint against the city in U.S. District Court in late October,
repeating many previously litigated claims that the program was
illegally implemented.  Those arguments have failed to convince
state court judges.

City Attorney Stephen Postema confirmed on Monday, Nov. 27, that
the city now has been formally served with the new federal
complaint and his office is reviewing it and will be responding.
Attached to the 51-page complaint are 28 pages of exhibits.

Mr. Mermelstein notes the documents include a series of
allegations related to non-permitted discharges of raw sewage into
the Huron River and other local waters.

With the help of New York attorney Dan O'Brien, Mr. Mermelstein is
bringing the case against the city on behalf of four named
plaintiffs who are Ann Arbor residents who've gone through the
city's FDD program: Anita Yu, who lives on Georgetown Boulevard,
Lynn Lumbard, who lives on Avondale Avenue, and John Boyer and
Mary Raab, who live together on Delaware Drive.

The complaint also identifies "all others similarly situated" as
plaintiffs in the case, indicating that's believed to be more than
3,000 people.

Messrs. Mermelstein and O'Brien were unsuccessful in previous
attempts to sue the city on behalf of the same named plaintiffs.

The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the city earlier
this year in two cases challenging the legality of the FDD
program, reaffirming rulings by Washtenaw County Circuit Judge Tim
Connors and dismissing the cases.

The FDD program, started by the city in 2001 to address problems
with basement sewage backups, has required many homeowners in
targeted neighborhoods to disconnect footing drains around their
homes and install mandatory sump pumps.

That diverts stormwater away from the city's sanitary sewer system
and instead to the stormwater drainage system.

City officials have maintained over the years that the program was
both legal and effective at reducing basement sewage backups. The
city is no longer requiring homeowners to go through the program.

Some residents have argued the city's stormwater drainage system
is inadequate, becoming overwhelmed in heavy rainstorms, and some
have complained they've experienced basement flooding and water
problems they didn't have before the city made them disconnect
their footing drains and install sump pumps.

Some residents also argue it's a burden to live with and maintain
the sump pumps, limiting their enjoyment of their homes.

Connors last year dismissed the two cases in which residents
argued the FDD work done on their homes, including mandatory
installation of sump pumps, represented a government taking of
private property.

The city and the trial court judge both disagreed with the
plaintiffs, and so did the Michigan Court of Appeals.

The new lawsuit once again argues the city's FDD program amounted
to a government taking of private property by means of physical
invasion and permanent physical occupation.

"The mandatory FDDs, and the resulting takings of plaintiffs'
private property and deprivation of their rights to the exclusive
use and occupation of their homes, were initiated and completed
without any steps taken by the city toward condemnation
proceedings under Michigan law, including the payment of just
compensation," it states, arguing the mandatory FDD construction
"disabled the functioning systems for storm water drainage
designed and built into the plaintiffs' houses between 1946 and
1973, as required by applicable codes and the permits issued
thereunder at the time."

The lawsuit argues the city's sewer system did not keep pace with
new development as the city saw significant population growth over
the last several decades, going from less than 68,000 residents in
1960 to more than 114,000 as of 2000.  It references combined
sewage overflows into the Huron River going back to the 1960s.

One of the exhibit documents shows a 2016 storm drain map of Ann
Arbor, including county and city storm sewers.

Two circled areas on the map show the areas where all or nearly
all of the plaintiffs' houses are located, the lawsuit states,
arguing there are no separate city storm sewers in those areas.

"In contrast, the center of the city has had extensive separate
storm sewer construction," the lawsuit states, arguing the city
had failed to construct separate and functioning storm drains in
the areas where plaintiffs' homes are located.

A 2016 map of city and county storm drains in Ann Arbor included
as an exhibit in a federal lawsuit against the city of Ann Arbor.

Another one of the exhibits is a copy of a 1973 city ordinance
that the plaintiffs argue "grandfathered" their houses, meaning
they didn't have to comply with new requirements for drainage of
stormwater in new subdivisions (including runoff and from footing
drain systems) into separate, fully enclosed storm sewers, and a
prohibition against the discharge of stormwater into sanitary
sewers as of 1973.

The lawsuit recalls the circumstances that led the city to start
the FDD program in 2001 as a lower-cost way to address sewage
problems and concludes "the mandatory ongoing and perpetual
responsibilities imposed on present and future owners for the
observation, inspection, operation, repair and maintenance of the
pumps and related equipment represent an unreasonable financial
and personal burden upon the plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of
their property," constitute "forced labor," and "represent an
inappropriate delegation by the city to its citizens of its
governmental obligations pertaining to the capacity, maintenance
and operation of the city's sewage system."

The plaintiffs are seeking compensation for what they see as a
government taking of their private properties, and for their work,
physical labor and the expenses they have incurred.

"Without the cost savings to the city achieved by the use of
forced labor performed by FDD homeowners and the payment by them
of all expenses of their performance, the FDDP would not have been
viable," the complaint states.

The plaintiffs also are seeking injunctive relief, asking the
court to require the city to permit residents to reverse, correct
and remedy the effects of the footing drain disconnects.

They also want a judgment declaring the city's FDD program was
unconstitutionally implemented and includes the use of mandated
labor in violation of federal law, that it improperly resulted in
takings of private property without just compensation, and that it
improperly did so without condemnation proceedings.  They're also
asking the court to require the city to pay their attorney fees.
[GN]


ARRAY BIOPHARMA: Sued for Making False Statements on Cancer Drug
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT NAUMAN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ARRAY BIOPHARMA INC., RON SQUARER, DAVID HORIN, JASON
HADDOCK, Case No. 1:17-cv-02848-STV (D. Colo., November 28, 2017),
accuses the Defendants of making false and misleading statements,
and failing to disclose that Array's NEMO study failed to show
sufficient clinical benefit of the binimetinib NDA in use for
patients with NRAS-mutant melanoma.

Array is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the discovery,
development, and commercialization of targeted small molecule
drugs to treat patients afflicted with cancer.  The Company's lead
cancer drug binimetinib (MEK162) was evaluated in multiple trials
and combinations, including a Phase 3 "NEMO" study versus
dacarbazine in unresectable or metastatic NRAS-mutant melanoma
patients.

Founded in 1998, the Company is headquartered in Boulder,
Colorado.  The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of
the Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          Hui M. Chang, 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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


AUSTRALIA: Darwin Residents Mull PFAS Contamination Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Notzon, writing for ABC, reports that dozens of Darwin
residents have met with lawyers to discuss potentially becoming
the fourth group to sue the Defence Department over Australia's
growing PFAS contamination crisis.

A total of 18 Defence bases across the country have been
identified as being contaminated with the group of chemicals,
including PFOS and PFOA, which stem from the previous use of
firefighting foam at Air Force bases.

The potential Darwin class action would join those already
underway by affected PFAS residents near bases in Williamtown, New
South Wales, and Oakey in Queensland, as well as a third being
considered in the Northern Territory town of Katherine, where PFAS
chemicals have seeped into bores used for drinking and irrigation.

The current area being investigated by Defence in Darwin stretches
from the suburb of Millner to Winnellie and out to sea.

"It was interesting to hear what they had to say and it was really
interesting to see what Defence is doing in response to this," a
woman who only wanted to be identified as Jane said.

"I want to investigate further, but possibly [I would join the
class action]."

Jane detailed how Defence came onto her property, which is within
its PFAS investigation area, to test her bore for the chemicals
last year.

"My impression at the time was that it was not serious, that they
just wanted to test the bore to see if there were some PFAS
chemicals," she said.

"They indicated it was used in the 70s and 80s and there was no
reason for me to feel alarm from the initial letter I received."

Jane said she had not received the results from the test and did
not recall Defence telling her that her property was within an
investigation area.

PFAS chemicals have been found in Darwin's Rapid, Ludmilla and
Bleeser creeks but a Northern Territory Government report released
in July determined that while fish and crustaceans in the
waterways were contaminated with the substances, they were still
safe to eat.

In September, the discovery of the chemicals at a site near Darwin
airport delayed the construction of a multi-million-dollar pond in
Marrara designed to prevent flooding.

"Once again people really are surprised that this contamination is
around, surprised they haven't heard anything from the Department
of Defence about it and surprised that they have never really
heard of PFAS and so to find out that you're under an
investigation area is quite alarming," special counsel at Shine
Lawyers Joshua Aylward said.

Mr Aylward said like the class action being eyed in Katherine, the
one for Darwin residents would focus on property value and impact
on businesses.

The Federal Government maintains there is no consistent evidence
that exposure to PFOS and PFOA causes adverse health effects and
the class action would not be able to focus on this area.

"It's just canvassing whether the people of Darwin are interested
in a class action, just as they are in Katherine and Oakey and so
we'll be back again in a couple of weeks and running more
community meetings to see if there are people in Darwin who are
interested," Mr Aylward said.

Jingili resident and former CLP candidate Steven Klose said the
water table underneath his property had tested positive to PFAS
and he would be looking to join legal action.

"It's a fight that I want to take to the Government and the
Federal Government and to the people in general. This is a serious
issue and it needs to be exposed more," Mr Klose said.
"The more information the better, the more public awareness the
better. More people need to be aware of where this contamination
is so they can avoid it."

Defence said it was not aware of the details of the proposed class
action in Darwin, but it remained committed to working with
communities to manage issues arising from PFAS contamination.

The next community walk-in session with Defence in Darwin was
scheduled for Wednesday, December 6. [GN]


AUSTRALIA: Law Firm Invites Darwin Residents to Join PFAS Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
ABC reports that some Darwin residents heard for the first time
that their properties could be impacted by the national PFAS
contamination crisis.

Letters in the mail from Shine Lawyers invited families living
near the RAAF Base Darwin to be part of a class action against the
federal defence department.

The law firm hosted a meeting in Darwin.  Residents spoke to ABC
Radio Darwin's news journalist Nancy Notzon. [GN]


AVEO: Hundreds of Former Residents Sign Up for Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Adele Ferguson, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports
that hundreds of former Aveo residents have signed up for two
separate class actions against the retirement village giant
following a media investigation that uncovered a series of
questionable business practices at the company.

Lawyers for Levitt Robinson are charging ahead with a class action
they estimate at $30 million after securing a litigation funder
and lodging formal paperwork in the Federal Court last month.

At the same time, Maurice Blackburn is investigating a no-win no-
fee action on behalf of residents.

The actions follows a joint Fairfax Media and Four Corners
investigation which found that Aveo was engaging in practices that
included churning residents, fee gouging, misleading marketing
promises, such as safety and emergency services.

The Levitt Robertson class action is open to anyone who terminated
an Aveo contract after 2015 and specifically focuses on the
company's strategy to change freehold titles to leasehold, named
the Aveo Way.

It is being alleged that freehold unit owners' rights as members
of strata title villages and the value of their property
interests, have suffered as a result of the Aveo Way.

Maurice Blackburn is open to anyone who terminated an Aveo
contract after 2013. It focuses on unfair contract terms,
including high exit fees and maintenance costs.

Professor Murray Gillin is one of 200 retirees who have signed up
for the Levitt Robinson claim.

Professor Gillin, who lectured in entrepreneurship and innovation
at Swinburne University, told Fairfax Media his decision to sell
his townhouse and move into a retirement village at Sackville
Grange in Melbourne's blue ribbon suburb of Kew, ultimately cost
him hundreds of thousands of dollars in exit fees, forgone capital
gains and other fees including maintenance fees.

He bought the freehold property in March 2010 for $850,000 and
walked away after six years with $669,076, after the various fees
were deducted.

In contrast, a similar property in the next street resulted in a
25.6 per cent capital gain. "I think the income incentive of Aveo
overrides the care factor," he said.

"The company loves to pontificate how they care but they use
techniques through marketing that exploit the elderly."

Professor Gillin said during his time at Aveo Sackville Grange he
came into contact with some resident's at Aveo's Veronica Gardens
retirement village, who were unhappy with Aveo's strategy to buy
freehold units and convert villages to leasehold, alleging Aveo
was acquiring the freehold rights at virtually no cost.

Retired diplomat John Lander -- who was Australia's first
ambassador to Iran after the hostage crisis in 1974 -- and who
lived in the Veronica Gardens retirement village has previously
described buying into an Aveo village as a "get poor quick scheme"
and a process of impoverishment of the occupant."

After leaving Aveo, Professor Gillin and his wife Loris moved to
Queensland, where they are living in a complex that has no exit
fees and the weekly maintenance fees are far lower than they were
paying at Aveo. He says they when sell they won't need to use an
Aveo real estate agent.

When he sold his unit at Sackville Grange he paid Aveo a fee of 3
per cent, which he says was above the going rate.

"We have the same facilities that we had at the village but there
are no financial traps," he said.

Maurice Blackburn principal Brooke Dellavedova said the class
action she was looking at was different to the Levitt Robinson
claim and former residents or their family members could sign up
for both.

"We're looking at terms of those contracts that we say may be
unfair and come into play when the contract was terminated," she
said.

"We're looking at exorbitant exit fees, terms relating to capital
gains and losses and expensive maintenance fees. They are really
terms that bite when the resident terminates the contract," she
said.

Ms Dellavedova said Aveo's exit fees of up to 40 per cent higher
were "substantially more" than what other providers are charging.

"It makes it very difficult for people to re-enter the property
market or another village if that's what they want to do," Ms
Dellavedova said.

Aveo filed its defence to the Levitt Robertson action on November
24 afternoon following an inquiry from Fairfax Media.

A spokesman for the company said: "Aveo denies that the
introduction of the Aveo Way programme to units previously held as
freehold units has caused loss to those residents looking to sell
their freehold units, and denies that it failed to disclose any
relevant information about the effects of the Aveo Way programme
on those units."

Levitt Robinson senior partner Stewart Levitt said Aveo's changes
to management contracts had depressed resale values across Aveo
villages.

"We are seeking compensation for owners and former owners,
representing the difference in value of what they should have
received and what they did receive, if they have sold their
dwellings since early 2015," he said.

"The class action also seeks the return of sales commissions
which Aveo has been charging residents to sell their units to
themselves. Aveo is not alone in taking advantage of elderly
people at a very vulnerable stage in their lives." [GN]


BAKER HUGHES: $3MM FLSA Class Settlement Has Final Court OK
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued an Order granting Plaintiff's Motion for Final
Approval of Class Settlement and Granting Motion for Attorney's
Fees and Cost in the case captioned MARC McCULLOCH, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. BAKER HUGHES INTEQ DRILLING FLUIDS, INC., et al.,
Defendant, No. 1:16-cv-00157-DAD-JLT (E.D. Cal.).

The Claims Administrator distributed 52 notices of settlement to
all the class members, which includes the 20 California class
members, the 16 Pennsylvania class members, and the remaining opt-
ins. All 52 class members are participating in the settlement for
a 100 percent participation rate.

The following classes are certified:

   California Class: All individuals who performed directional
drilling services for defendants as consultants/independent
contractors in California at any time since February 2, 2012 to
April 10, 2017, and who do not communicate a timely written
request for exclusion from the Settlement.

   Pennsylvania Class: All individuals who performed directional
drilling services for defendants as consultants/independent
contractors in Pennsylvania at any time since February 2, 2013 to
April 10, 2017 and who do not communicate a timely written request
for exclusion from the settlement.

Two notices were re-mailed and the remaining six received notice
by e-mail from Rust Consulting. The settlement notices advised all
class members of their individual settlement amount, and the
notice forms also apprised the plaintiffs of the projected
attorneys' fees and costs associated with this class action. None
of the Rule 23 class members, or any of the FLSA Opt-ins, has
objected to the amounts set forth therein.

Accordingly, the court finds that adequate notice has been given
to all the class members.

The court finds that the settlement, as posited by the parties,
appropriately balances the strengths and weaknesses of the
plaintiffs' case specifically with respect to employer status,
FLSA exemptions, and hours worked, while providing significant
recovery for class members. This settlement is particularly fair
and reasonable since, according to the parties, it will pay out 92
percent of the plaintiffs' realistic value of the claims after
attorneys' fees and costs.  It is clear that plaintiffs' case,
despite its strengths, was seriously contested by defendants in
this litigation.

The total settlement amount offered here is $3,000,000.  The
average settlement payment per person amounts to $42,625 after
attorneys' fees and costs.  Plaintiffs have requested $750,000 in
attorneys' fees and $20,000 costs.  Unexpended costs are included
in the settlement allocation.  Plaintiffs estimate $40,000 to be
deduced for half of the employer-side taxes.  Approximately
$2,190,000 has been allocated to the 48 opt-in plaintiffs and
class members, to be distributed based on their individual
earnings and the total number of days worked.

This settlement amount is fair and reasonable in relation to the
potential recovery and the court's analysis of that issue remains
unchanged. The amount offered in the settlement supports final
approval of the settlement.

Plaintiffs' counsel was able to use this information during class
interviews and was able to assess the value of the plaintiffs'
claims prior to mediation. As a result of productive discovery,
the parties were able to engage in arms-length negotiations to
reach a settlement in this case.

Based on their years of experience, plaintiffs' counsel believes
the settlement is fair and reasonable and presents clear
advantages over continued litigation, prompt and certain payment.
According to the parties, this agreement was procured by arms-
length negotiations through a mediator and by experienced counsel
on both sides after significant investigation.

As stated, no Rule 23 class members have objected to the
settlement and all FLSA Opt-ins have returned their claim forms.
The parties maintain that in light of these steps, the 100 percent
participation rate, and the lack of any objections having been
received, the settlement agreement warrants approval.
Accordingly, consideration of this factor weighs significantly in
favor of granting final approval and the court therefore approves
the settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate.

The parties maintain that the settlement agreement satisfies
Lynn's Food Stores, which is a less rigorous standard than Rule
23.While defendants' status as an employer, the applicability of
the FLSA exemptions, and total number of hours worked by
plaintiffs were disputed, the court finds the agreement reasonable
because the class members will receive 92 percent of the estimated
potential value of their claims. In addition, all FLSA Opt-ins are
participating in the settlement.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, in the event
settlement checks remain uncashed after 90 days, those funds shall
be donated to Legal Aid at Work, formerly known as the Legal Aid
Society Employment Law Center, as a cy pres beneficiary.  Legal
Aid at Work is a non-profit organization that works to ensure that
all workers benefit from the laws that regulate pay and work
hours. The court finds a sufficient nexus between the class and
Legal Aid at Work, and accordingly approves it as the cy pres
beneficiary.

Plaintiffs' counsel's fees under the lodestar method amount to
$189,927.50 and represents 637.5 hours of billable work at an
hourly rate of $175 for paralegals, $350 for associate attorneys,
and $525 for partners. Additionally, plaintiffs' counsel
anticipates an additional forty hours of work to resolve the case,
which brings the lodestar value to $203,052.50. The hours spent in
calculating the lodestar method include: investigating claims,
interviewing potential class members and opt-in plaintiffs,
preparing discovery, reviewing documents, drafting the motion for
conditional certification, preparing and taking depositions,
assessing damages, conducting mediation, and briefing the motion
for preliminary approval of class settlement as well as the
current motion.

Of the 637.5 hours, Attorney Daniel Brome billed 265.8 hours at an
hourly rate of $350. Attorney Brome has been practicing law for
six years, since 2011. Attorney Michele Fisher expended 41.5 hours
on the case at an hourly rate of $525. Attorney Fisher has been
practicing law for over 17 years, has been partner at Nichols
Kaster, LLP since 2008, and has represented over 100,000
individuals in wage and hour cases particularly in the oil and gas
industry.

Attorney Mathew Morgan expended 49.5 hours on the case at an
hourly rate of $525. (He was admitted to the California Bar in
2000 and became partner in 2011. The court finds these rates
consistent with the rates applied in other cases using the
lodestar cross-check method. Here, awarding attorneys' fees at a
25 percent benchmark of the common fund would yield a lodestar
multiplier of 3.95, which is within the range of acceptable
lodestar multipliers previously approved by this court and others.

Accordingly, and in light of the significant relief obtained by
counsel on behalf of the class members, the court finds that the
requested attorneys' fee award is reasonable.

As indicated in counsel's supplemental declaration, counsel
incurred $16,537.49 in unreimbursed costs during the course of
litigation. At the time of preliminary approval, plaintiffs'
counsel had incurred $15,857.64 in unreimbursed costs during the
course of litigation and based on this amount, requested $20,000
based on future anticipated costs.

These costs include filing fees, postage, Westlaw and PACER usage,
deposition expenses, and expenses related to travel in connection
with this suit. Since the actual amount expended is less than the
requested amount of $20,000, the difference of $3,462.51 will be
allocated pro rata to plaintiffs. The court finds that these are
reasonable expenses to be properly awarded in the amount sought.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 27, 2017 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yczss8lk from Leagle.com.

Marc McCulloch, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew H. Morgan  --
morgan@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, PLLP, pro hac vice.

Marc McCulloch, Plaintiff, represented by Michele R. Fisher  --
fisher@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, PLLP, pro hac vice & Daniel
Solomon Brome -- dbrome@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, LLP.

Baker Hughes Inteq Drilling Fluids, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Amber Rogers -- arogers@hunton.com -- Hunton & Williams, LLP,
pro hac vice, Kevin White  -- kwhite@hunton.com -- Hunton &
Williams LLP, pro hac vice & Michael Brett Burns --
mbrettburns@hunton.com -- Hunton and Williams.

Baker Hughes, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amber Rogers, Hunton
& Williams, LLP, pro hac vice, Kevin White, Hunton & Williams LLP,
pro hac vice & Michael Brett Burns, Hunton and Williams.


CAFE PAPILLON: "Besil" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Damian Besil, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Cafe Papillon Inc., and Jose Revilla-Albo, Case No. 1:17-cv-
24198 (S.D. Fla., November 17, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, and costs and reasonable
attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Damian Besil is a resident of Miami-Dade County,
Florida. The Plaintiff worked as a cook for the Defendants.

Defendants owned and operated a restaurant doing business as Cafe
Papillion located in Miami-Dade County, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Keith M. Stern, Esq.
      Hazel Solis Rojas, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
      One Flagler
      14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 800
      Miami, FL 33132
      Tel: (305) 901-1379
      Fax: (561) 288-9031
      E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com
              hsolis@workingforyou.com


CANADA: Deal Reached in RCMP LGBTQ Persecution Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
RD News Now reports that a lawyer says a group of people seeking
to sue the government over alleged state-sanctioned persecution
for their sexual orientation have reached an agreement in
principle.

Doug Elliott says details of the agreement will be released to
coincide with the apology.

The agreement comes ahead of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's
promised apology, which will acknowledge how members of the
military, RCMP and civil service were discriminated against on the
basis of their sexual orientation between the 1950s and 1990s.

Plaintiffs in the proposed class-action said they were persecuted
and forced out of their jobs in the military and federal
government.

Trudeau will also address people outside those circles who were
convicted of criminal charges linked to consensual sexual activity
with same-sex partners.

Also on November 28, the Liberal government will introduce
legislation to expunge the criminal records of Canadians
previously convicted of consensual sex with same-sex partners.
[GN]


CANADA: Gov't Sets Aside $100MM for LGBTQ Purge Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bronskill, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that the
Trudeau government has earmarked more than $100 million to
compensate members of the military and other federal agencies
whose careers were sidelined or ended due to their sexual
orientation.

The money will be paid out as part of a class-action lawsuit
settlement to employees who were investigated, sanctioned and
sometimes fired as part of the so-called "gay purge."

An agreement in principle in the court action emerged on Nov. 24,
just days before the government delivers a sweeping apology for
discrimination against members of the LGBTQ community.

Details of the agreement must still be worked out by the parties
and approved by the Federal Court, but it's expected that several
thousand people will be eligible for the financial compensation.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will deliver the apology -- which is
expected to surpass what other countries have done to make amends
to LGBTQ people -- in the House of Commons following question
period on Nov. 28.

A clear and unequivocal expression of regret to all affected is
necessary to acknowledge the mistakes so "they will never happen
again," said Liberal MP Randy Boissonnault, a special adviser to
the prime minister on sexual orientation and gender issues.

Among apology-related initiatives, the government is putting
$250,000 toward community projects to combat homophobia and
provide support for people in crisis.

In addition, it plans a commemoration in 2019 of the 50th
anniversary of the federal decriminalization of homosexual acts.

The government also plans to table legislation on Nov. 28 to
expunge the criminal records of people convicted of consensual
sexual activity with same-sex partners, whether in civilian or
military courts.

Those eligible will be required to apply for expungement; requests
may be submitted on behalf of deceased people who were convicted.

The apology and associated efforts to recognize past wrongs will
be genuinely historic, said Gary Kinsman, a sociology professor at
Laurentian University and a leading scholar on the injustices for
many years.

"It's also been an incredibly long time coming," said
Mr. Kinsman, a spokesman for the We Demand an Apology Network,
which includes people directly affected by the purge campaign as
well as supporters and researchers.

"I'm very saddened by the fact that many of the people who really
needed to be apologized to have passed away," Mr. Kinsman said in
an interview.  "It should have happened decades ago, in my view."

The discriminatory policies that often ruined careers and lives
had their roots in federal efforts that began as early as the
1940s to delve into the personal lives of people who were
considered security risks.

There is no evidence of a gay or lesbian employee ever giving
information to Soviet agents or another foreign power,
Mr. Kinsman said.  On the contrary, victims of the purge say the
only ones who tried to blackmail them were the RCMP or military
security, trying to elicit information about friends and
acquaintances in the public service.

"Really what it was about was pushing lesbians and gay men outside
the fabric of the nation, defining our sexualities as being
somehow a security risk," Mr. Kinsman said.  "And on the other
side, defining heterosexuality as the national safe and secure
sexuality."

The apology is expected to include a federal commitment to reveal
more of the hidden historical record of the government's
discriminatory policies and practices. [GN]


CANADA: Trudeau Apologizes for Abuse at Indigenous Schools
----------------------------------------------------------
Ian Austen, writing for The Seattle Times, reports that Prime
Minister Justin Trudeau offered a broad and emotional apology to
indigenous people in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador,
where for much of the 20th century indigenous children were
compelled to attend boarding schools that separated them from
their families and cultures and, in many cases, subjected them to
abuse.

In addition to the apology, the Canadian government settled a
class-action lawsuit and will provide about 50 million Canadian
dollars to about 900 former students of the five schools, which
endured until 1980.

The decision came after a decade-long controversy over the federal
government's responsibility.

In 2008, Trudeau's predecessor, Stephen Harper, apologized to
indigenous people in the rest of Canada for a residential-school
program the federal government operated from the 19th century
until 1996. A national Truth and Reconciliation Commission later
condemned that system as a form of "cultural genocide."

Because Newfoundland and Labrador did not join Canada until 1949,
its boarding-school system had different origins even if it had a
similar legacy. Harper's government took the view that the abuses
committed there in the early 20th century were not the federal
government's fault.

But in a ceremony in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Newfoundland, at
which victims also spoke, Trudeau said, "It's time for Canada to
acknowledge its history for what it is: flawed, imperfect and
unfinished.

"For far too many students, profound cultural loss led to poverty,
family violence, substance abuse and community breakdown. It led
to mental and physical health issues that have impeded their
happiness and that of their family. Far too many continue to face
adversity today as a result of time spent in residential schools,
and for that we are sorry."

At the arts center where Trudeau spoke, organizers had stacked
boxes of facial tissues. They were put to use. Trudeau blotted his
eyes and dabbed his nose with a handkerchief, and former students
and others in the crowd sobbed.

Toby Obed, 45, a former student and one of the leaders of the
class-action lawsuit, entered the stage after Trudeau in a
jubilant mood, arms raised and shouting, "We did it."

"We felt left out, forgotten and abandoned," said Obed, who had
testified about being a victim of sexual assault. "Because I come
from a patient and forgiving culture, I think it is proper for us
to accept an apology from the government of Canada."

Not everyone in the region's indigenous community was so
forgiving.

Grand Chief Greg Rich of the Innu Nation, an umbrella organization
of indigenous groups, said in a statement that he wanted the
apology to also recognize injustices suffered by aboriginal
children in day schools, at an orphanage and in the child-welfare
system. "Our elders are not ready to accept an apology that is
made for such a small part of our experience," Rich said in his
statement.

The schools and related dormitories in Newfoundland and Labrador
were set up by Moravian missionaries or the International Grenfell
Association, a Newfoundland charity established by Wilfred T.
Grenfell, a British surgeon, missionary and explorer.

In an email, Keating Hagmann, chairman of the Grenfell
Association, apologized for "not sheltering these individuals from
the suffering they endured" and welcomed the government's apology.

The Moravian Mission in North America did not respond to requests
for comment. [GN]


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Makes Calls That Violate TCPA, Leeb Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
GREB LEEB, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC. D/B/A SPECTRUM, Case No. 4:17-cv-
02780 (E.D. Mo., November 28, 2017), is brought to secure redress
for the Defendant's alleged practice of calling the cellular
telephone numbers of the Plaintiff and others using an automatic
telephone dialing system and prerecorded voice, in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Charter Communications, Inc., doing business as Spectrum, is an
active Delaware corporation with offices located in St. Louis,
Missouri.  Charter -- through its subsidiaries, including Charter
Communications Holdings, LLC and Charter Communications Operating,
LLC -- offers cable, internet, and telephone services to consumers
throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nathan D. Sturycz, Esq.
          STURYCZ LAW GROUP LLC
          100 N. Main, Suite 7
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (877) 314-3223
          Facsimile: (314) 667-2733
          E-mail: nathan@sturyczlaw.com


CHEVRON U.S.A.: "Goodman" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------
Jerald Goodman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. and Does 1-30, Case No. 3:17-cv-
06649 (N.D. Calif., November 17, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
California labor laws.

Plaintiff Jerald Goodman worked exclusively for Chevron as a
safety consultant from approximately January 2011 to October 2015.

Defendant Chevron is in the business of providing safety personnel
offering safety services to operators and other oil field services
companies. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (713) 877-8788
      Fax: (713) 877-8065
      E-mail: mparmet@brucknerburch.com


CHINA AGRITECH: To Decide Clock-Tolling on Shareholder Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Christine Stuart, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that the U.S. Supreme Court agreed late December 8 to hear a case
against a fertilizer manufacturer that will determine whether new
named plaintiffs from prior failed class actions toll the statute
of limitations.

The appeal by China Agritech Inc. asks the court to reexamine its
1974 decision in American Pipe & Construction v. Utah, regarding
when class actions are filed and whether the statute of
limitations applies to all the plaintiffs if class certification
is denied in a previous case.

Michael Resh, the lead plaintiff in this case -- the third
putative class action against China Agritech by shareholders --
saw the Ninth Circuit revive his class action after a federal
judge ruled it had been filed outside the statute of limitations.
According to the appeals court, the denial of class certification
in the two previous class actions tolled the clock as to Resh's
action.

In urging the Supreme Court to grant review of the decision,
attorneys for China Agritech said the Ninth Circuit's decision
"will lead to obvious forum-shopping." The Ninth Circuit, however,
said its decision will help prevent duplicate filings to keep the
clock stopped.

"The rule creates no unfair surprise to defendants because the
pendency of a prior class suit has already alerted them 'not only
[to] the substantive claims being brought against them, but also
[to] the number and generic identities of the potential plaintiffs
who may participate in the judgment,' Circuit Judge William
Fletcher wrote for the panel earlier this year.

"The rule also promotes economy of litigation by reducing
incentives for filing duplicative, protective class actions
because "[a] putative class member who fears that class
certification may be denied would have every incentive to file a
separate action prior to the expiration of his own period of
limitations."

Fletcher added "ordinary principles of preclusion and comity will
further reduce incentives to re-litigate frivolous or already
dismissed class claims, and will provide a ready basis for
successor federal district courts to deny class action
certification."

Seth Aronson, Esq. -- saronson@omm.com -- of O'Melveny and Myers
in Los Angeles represents China Agritech, and Charles Coleman,
Esq. -- Charles.Coleman@lewisbrisbois.com -- of Lewis Brisbois
Bisgaard and Smith of Sacramento, California, represents the Resh
plaintiffs.


CITIGROUP INC: Court Certifies Plan Investors Class in ERISA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, Southern District of New York,
issued an Opinion and Order granting the Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification in the case captioned MARYA J. LEBER, SARA L.
KENNEDY, LESLIE HIGHSMITH, SHERRI M. HARRIS, and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE CITIGROUP 401(k) PLAN
INVESTMENT COMMITTEE; THE BENEFIT PLANS INVESTMENT COMMITTEE OF
CITIGROUP, INC.; MICHAEL CARPENTER; PAUL COLLINS; JAMES COSTABILE;
VIRGIL CUMMING; DAVID DODILLET; ROBERT GROGAN; WILLIAM HEYMAN;
ROBIN LEOPOLD; ALAN MACDONALD; MICHAEL MURRAY; CHRISTINE SIMPSON;
RICHARD TAZIK; TODD THOMSON; TIMOTHY TUCKER; DAVID TYSON; RONALD
A. WALTER; GUY WHITTAKER; DONALD YOUNG; JAMES ZELTER; BRUCE
ZIMMERMAN; and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Defendants, No. 07-Cv-9329
(SHS) (S.D.N.Y.).

The action involves allegations of self-dealing and imprudent
fiduciary conduct related to the administration of Citigroup's
401(k) Plan.  The Plan is a defined contribution plan, within the
meaning of 29 U.S.C. Section 1002(34).

The three named plaintiffs -- Marya J. Leber, Sara L. Kennedy, and
Sherri M. Harris -- are all participants in the 401(k) Plan, and
claim that the committees responsible for overseeing the Plan
during the putative class period, along with those committees'
individual members and officers, breached their fiduciary duties
of prudence and loyalty by persistently favoring certain
investment options despite the fact that those options had higher
management fees than comparable alternatives.

In their Fourth Amended Complaint, plaintiffs bring three counts,
reflecting three different ways in which defendants are alleged to
have improperly favored Citigroup's proprietary funds and thereby
breached their duties of prudence and loyalty, in violation of the
fiduciary standards outlined in sections 404(a) and 405 of ERISA.

Leber, Kennedy, and Harris seek to represent a class that consists
of all participants in the Plan except for defendants, defendants'
beneficiaries, and defendants' immediate families who invested in
any of the nine Affiliated Funds between October 18, 2001, and
September 4, 2007.

The Second Circuit's class standing doctrine focuses on the
conduct of the defendant and whether that conduct implicates the
same concerns for all putative class members.

Here, despite the variations between the Affiliated Funds,
investors in all nine funds have the same necessary stake in
litigating whether defendants' conduct amounted to a breach of
their fiduciary duties.  Proving the existence and quantum of
losses incurred by each Affiliated Fund is therefore a secondary
inquiry. It is analogous to the damages inquiry, and it is well-
established that the fact that damages may have to be ascertained
on an individual basis is not sufficient to defeat class
certification under Rule 23(a), let alone class standing.

Second, the derivative posture of this action eliminates the
Second Circuit's ultimate concern about situations in which
misconduct must be proved on a fund-by-fund basis. In Retirement
Board, the Second Circuit needed to be reassured that Plaintiffs
themselves have any real interest in litigating the absent class
members' claims. But in this litigation, plaintiffs are suing in a
representative capacity and can prevail on behalf of the Plan so
long as they show that defendants breached their duties of loyalty
and prudence with respect to any of the Plan's investment options.
Therefore, while plaintiffs will ultimately need to establish
liability by proving that the Plan suffered losses through
individual funds, this does not preclude them from satisfying the
Second Circuit's class standing test.

Because plaintiffs asserting 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(2) claims
in a derivative capacity can establish injury-in-fact by pointing
to Plan losses and because, in any event, plaintiffs have class
standing to assert breach of duty of loyalty and prudence claims
on behalf of all Plan participants injured by defendants' common
course of conduct, the Court concludes that plaintiffs have
standing to bring all claims asserted in their Fourth Amended
Complaint.

The Court also found that commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2)
is satisfied when plaintiffs' grievances raise questions of law or
fact common to the class.  The fact that Citigroup employees
routinely sign releases waiving all claims against Citigroup,
including claims brought under the ERISA statute does not preclude
certification.  In cases brought on behalf of a plan, most courts
have held that individuals do not have the authority to release a
defined contribution plan's right to recover for breaches of
fiduciary duty, the consent of the plan is required for a release
of 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(2) claims.  Because plaintiffs have
raised common questions capable of generating common answers and
because the individual issues identified by defendants do not pose
an obstacle for certification, the Court concludes that the
commonality prerequisite is satisfied.

In this case, the funds that plaintiffs seek to represent are all
proprietary funds and each of the claims concerns allegedly
disloyal and imprudent conduct that impacted them in the same
manner.  In these circumstances, the Court concludes that
plaintiffs' claims have the requisite level of congruence with
those of the putative class members despite the fact that all
class members did not all invest in the same funds.  The Court
concludes that the typicality requirement of Rule 23(a)(3) has
been met.

As defendants implicitly acknowledge by declining to contest
adequacy, plaintiffs have an interest in pursuing the class's
claims and do not have fundamental conflicts of interest with the
other class members. Plaintiffs Leber and Kennedy have
demonstrated their commitment to prosecuting this action by
remaining class representatives for the course of this decade-long
litigation.  Plaintiffs have also demonstrated their capacity to
protect the interests of the class by their appointment of
qualified counsel.

The only argument offered by defendants against Rule 23(b)(1)(B)
certification is that this case does not involve a limited fund.
But limited fund cases  which involve situations in which a fund's
assets are insufficient to satisfy all claims  are just one of the
traditional varieties of representative suit encompassed by Rule
23(b)(1)(B).  Rule 23(b)(1)(B) also envisions actions charging 'a
breach of trust by an indenture trustee or other fiduciary
similarly affecting the members of a large class' of
beneficiaries, requiring an accounting or similar procedure 'to
restore the subject of the trust.' That is precisely the kind of
action at issue here.  Accordingly, certification under Rule
23(b)(1)(B) is appropriate and the Court need not address whether
certification is also proper under either Rule 23(b)(1)(A) or Rule
23(b)(3).

After certifying a class, the Court must also appoint class
counsel that will fairly and adequately represent the interests of
the class. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(g)(1)(A), the Court must consider the following factors when
appointing class counsel: (i) the work counsel has done in
identifying or investigating potential claims in the action; (ii)
counsel's experience in handling class actions, other complex
litigation, and the types of claims asserted in the action; (iii)
counsel's knowledge of the applicable law; and (iv) the resources
that counsel will commit to representing the class.

Counsel and their firms have significant prior experience
litigating ERISA class actions involving similar fiduciary breach
claims.   Their ability to prosecute this action over an extended
period of time, including during resource-intensive phases such as
discovery, also demonstrates that they have the resources
necessary to adequately represent the class.

Accordingly, the Court appoints J. Brian McTigue and James Moore
of McTigue LLP and Gregory Porter of Bailey & Glasser LLP as class
counsel and David S. Preminger of Keller Rohrback LLP as liaison
counsel.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 27, 2017 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7mcm4qa from
Leagle.com.

Marya J. Leber, Plaintiff, represented by David Steven Preminger
-- dpreminger@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback L.L.P..
Marya J. Leber, Plaintiff, represented by James Moore, Mctigue Law
LLP, Bryan T. Veis, Mctigue Law LLP, 4530 Wisconsin Ave., NW Suite
300. Washington, DC 20016, pro hac vice, Gregory Y. Porter  --
gporter@baileyglasser.com -- Bailey & Glasser, LLP, James Brian
McTigue, Mctigue Law LLP, pro hac vice, James A. Moore, McTigue &
Veis LLP, 4530 Wisconsin Ave., NW Suite 300, Washington, DC 20016,
pro hac vice & Patrick Owen Muench -- pmuench@baileyglasser.com --
Bailey & Glasser, LLP.

Sara L Kennedy, Plaintiff, represented by David Steven Preminger,
Keller Rohrback L.L.P., James Moore, Mctigue Law LLP, Bryan T.
Veis, Mctigue Law LLP, pro hac vice, Gregory Y. Porter, Bailey &
Glasser, LLP, James Brian McTigue, Mctigue Law LLP, pro hac vice,
James A. Moore, McTigue & Veis LLP, pro hac vice & Patrick Owen
Muench, Bailey & Glasser, LLP.

Leslie Highsmith, Plaintiff, represented by James Moore, Mctigue
Law LLP.

The Citigroup 401(k) Plan Investment Committee, Defendant,
represented by Lewis Richard Clayton -- lclayton@paulweiss.com --
Paul Weiss, Karen R. King -- kking@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss,
Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP & Timothy James Holland --
tholland@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison
LLP.

James Costabile, Defendant, represented by Lewis Richard Clayton,
Paul Weiss, Karen R. King, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison LLP & Timothy James Holland, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,
Wharton & Garrison LLP.

Robert Grogan, Defendant, represented by Lewis Richard Clayton,
Paul Weiss, Karen R. King, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison LLP & Timothy James Holland, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,
Wharton & Garrison LLP.

Robin Leopold, Defendant, represented by Lewis Richard Clayton,
Paul Weiss, Karen R. King, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison LLP & Timothy James Holland, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,
Wharton & Garrison LLP.

Christine Simpson, Defendant, represented by Lewis Richard
Clayton, Paul Weiss, Karen R. King, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton
& Garrison LLP & Timothy James Holland, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,
Wharton & Garrison LLP.

Richard Tazik, Defendant, represented by Lewis Richard Clayton,
Paul Weiss, Karen R. King, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison LLP & Timothy James Holland, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,
Wharton & Garrison LLP.

Timothy Tucker, Defendant, represented by Lewis Richard Clayton,
Paul Weiss, Karen R. King, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison LLP & Timothy James Holland, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,
Wharton & Garrison LLP.

Donald Young, Defendant, represented by Lewis Richard Clayton,
Paul Weiss, Karen R. King, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison LLP & Timothy James Holland, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,
Wharton & Garrison LLP.

The Benefit Plans Investment Committee of Citigroup, Inc.,
Defendant, represented by Lewis Richard Clayton, Paul Weiss, Karen
R. King, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP &Timothy
James Holland, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP.

Michael Carpenter, Defendant, represented by Lewis Richard
Clayton, Paul Weiss, Karen R. King, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton
& Garrison LLP & Timothy James Holland, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,
Wharton & Garrison LLP.


CVS HEALTH: "Prescott" RICO Suit Transferred to New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle, granted the PBM Defendants'
motion to transfer the case, JEANINE PRESCOTT, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. CVS HEALTH CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. C17-803RSL
(W.D. Wash.), to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

On March 17, 2017, a class action lawsuit was filed in the
District of New Jersey alleging collusion between pharmacy benefit
managers ("PBMs") and drug manufacturers to unlawfully inflate the
price of insulin, a life-saving drug used to treat diabetes.  Four
other class action lawsuits related to the pricing of insulin were
also filed in the District of New Jersey around this same time.
While waiting for the court in New Jersey to appoint interim lead
counsel, the Boss, et al. v. CVS Health Corp. attorneys filed
three separate lawsuits in other districts.

On May 23, 2017, Johnson v. OptumRx Inc., was filed in the Central
District of California.  On May 24, 2017, the present case and
Bewley, et al. v. CVS Health Corp., were filed here in the Western
District of Washington.  On Sept. 18, 2017, the Honorable David O.
Carter, District Judge, transferred Johnson to the District of New
Jersey based on the first-to-file rule.  On Nov. 7, 2017, this
Court similarly transferred Bewley.

The Johnson, Bewley, and Boss complaints assert the same types of
claims by similar classes of plaintiffs alleging the same unlawful
collusion between the PBM defendants and drug manufacturer
defendants.  These drug manufacturer defendants produce insulin
(Boss), Victoza (Johnson), and glucagon (Bewley), medications for
people with diabetes.

In the present case, the Plaintiffs assert similar claims based on
the same alleged pricing scheme with respect to glucose test
strips, a medical product for people with diabetes to monitor
their blood sugar.  Here, the PBM Defendants are the same, but the
Manufacturer Defendants are different.  The Manufacturer
Defendants in the present case make glucose test strips, but they
do not manufacture the diabetes medications at issue in the other
lawsuits.

The PBM Defendants ask the Washington Court to transfer the case
to the District of New Jersey.  They assert that the present case
should be transferred pursuant to the first-to-file rule or 28
U.S.C. Section 1404(a) because multiple similar actions have
already been filed in that district.  The Plaintiffs and the
Manufacturer Defendants oppose the motion to transfer.

Based on the second factor, Judge Lasnik finds that transfer is
not appropriate pursuant to the first-to-file rule.  Unlike in
Bewley, where every defendant had also been named in the Boss
action, the Manufacturer Defendants here are not substantially
similar to defendants in the New Jersey cases.  The Defendant
Manufacturers in the present case produce glucose test strips, but
they do not also produce diabetes medications, like insulin, which
are at issue in the other complaints.  Because the parties are not
substantially similar to warrant transfer under the first-to-file
rule, the Judge Court instead considers transfer pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1404(a).

He finds that the District of New Jersey is equally if not more
convenient than the Western District of Washington.  Because of
the similar litigation already pending in New Jersey, transfer is
warranted to minimize duplicitous litigation and avoid
inconsistent results.  Additionally, the Defendant Manufacturers'
opposition is in part based upon the fact that the New Jersey
litigation was mired for several months in a conflict over the
appointment of lead class counsel, and has not progressed much
during that time.  Now, however, the interim lead counsel has been
appointed, and the litigation may proceed.  The Judge, in the
interest of justice, finds that transfer is warranted.

For all of reasons he stated, Judge Lasnik granted PBM Defendants'
motion to transfer.  He directed the Clerk of Court to transfer
the matter to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey as being related to Boss, and the other similar actions
currently pending in that district.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 28, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/LAwuRW from Leagle.com.

Jeanine Prescott, Plaintiff, represented by Derek W. Loeser --
dloeser@kellerrohrback.com -- KELLER ROHRBACK.

Jeanine Prescott, Plaintiff, represented by Gretchen S. Obrist --
gobrist@kellerrohrback.com -- KELLER ROHRBACK.

Michael Bewley, Plaintiff, represented by Derek W. Loeser, KELLER
ROHRBACK & Gretchen S. Obrist, KELLER ROHRBACK.

Scott Strumello, Plaintiff, represented by Derek W. Loeser, KELLER
ROHRBACK & Gretchen S. Obrist, KELLER ROHRBACK.

Julia Boss, Plaintiff, represented by Derek W. Loeser, KELLER
ROHRBACK & Gretchen S. Obrist, KELLER ROHRBACK.

Type 1 Diabetes Defense Foundation, Plaintiff, represented by
Derek W. Loeser, KELLER ROHRBACK & Gretchen S. Obrist, KELLER
ROHRBACK.

CVS Health Corporation, Defendant, represented by Enu Mainigi --
emainigi@wc.com -- WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY, pro hac vice, Richmond T.
Moore -- rtmoore@wc.com -- WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY, pro hac vice &
Michael D. Hunsinger, THE HUNSINGER LAW FIRM.

Caremark RX, LLC, Defendant, represented by Enu Mainigi, WILLIAMS
& CONNOLLY, pro hac vice, Richmond T. Moore, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY,
pro hac vice & Michael D. Hunsinger, THE HUNSINGER LAW FIRM.

Caremark RX, Inc, Defendant, represented by Enu Mainigi, WILLIAMS
& CONNOLLY, pro hac vice, Richmond T. Moore, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY,
pro hac vice & Michael D. Hunsinger, THE HUNSINGER LAW FIRM.

Express Scripts Holding Company, Defendant, represented by James
A. Keyte -- james.keyte@skadden.com -- SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER
& FLOM, pro hac vice, Patrick G. Rideout --
atrick.rideout@skadden.com -- SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM,
pro hac vice, Robert A. Fumerton -- robert.fumerton@skadden.com --
SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM, pro hac vice & John S. Devlin,
III -- devlinj@lanepowell.com -- LANE POWELL PC.

Express Scripts, Inc, Defendant, represented by James A. Keyte,
SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM, pro hac vice, Patrick G.
Rideout, SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM, pro hac vice, Robert
A. Fumerton, SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM, pro hac vice &
John S. Devlin, III, LANE POWELL PC.

UnitedHealth Group, Inc, Defendant, represented by Brian D. Boone
-- brian.boone@alston.com -- ALSTON & BIRD LLP, pro hac vice, John
M. Snyder -- john.snyder@alston.com -- ALSTON & BIRD LLP, pro hac
vice, Trent M. Latta -- tlatta@mcdougaldlaw.com -- MCDOUGALD LAW
GROUP P.S., William H. Jordan -- bill.jordan@alston.com -- ALSTON
& BIRD LLP, pro hac vice & Shannon L. McDougald --
smcdougald@mcdougaldlaw.com -- MCDOUGALD LAW GROUP P.S..

OptumRx, Inc, Defendant, represented by Brian D. Boone, ALSTON &
BIRD LLP, pro hac vice, John M. Snyder, ALSTON & BIRD LLP, pro hac
vice, Trent M. Latta, MCDOUGALD LAW GROUP P.S., William H. Jordan,
ALSTON & BIRD LLP, pro hac vice & Shannon L. McDougald, MCDOUGALD
LAW GROUP P.S..

Abbott Laboratories, Defendant, represented by Andrew A. Kassof --
andrew.kassof@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS, pro hac vice,
Diana M. Watral, KIRKLAND & ELLIS, pro hac vice, Emily Dodds
Powell -- emilyp@calfoeakes.com -- CALFO EAKES & OSTROVSKY PLLC,
James F. Hurst -- james.hurst@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS,
pro hac vice, Rachel B. Haig -- rachel.haig@kirkland.com --
KIRKLAND & ELLIS, pro hac vice & Angelo J. Calfo --
angeloc@calfoeakes.com -- CALFO EAKES & OSTROVSKY PLLC.

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew A.
Kassof, KIRKLAND & ELLIS, pro hac vice, Diana M. Watral, KIRKLAND
& ELLIS, pro hac vice, Emily Dodds Powell, CALFO EAKES & OSTROVSKY
PLLC, James F. Hurst, KIRKLAND & ELLIS, pro hac vice, Rachel B.
Haig, KIRKLAND & ELLIS, pro hac vice & Angelo J. Calfo, CALFO
EAKES & OSTROVSKY PLLC.

Abbott Diabetes Care Sales Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Andrew A. Kassof, KIRKLAND & ELLIS, pro hac vice, Diana M. Watral,
KIRKLAND & ELLIS, pro hac vice, Emily Dodds Powell, CALFO EAKES &
OSTROVSKY PLLC, James F. Hurst, KIRKLAND & ELLIS, pro hac vice,
Rachel B. Haig, KIRKLAND & ELLIS, pro hac vice & Angelo J. Calfo,
CALFO EAKES & OSTROVSKY PLLC.

Bayer Healthcare LLC, Defendant, represented by Christopher M.
Murphy, MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY, pro hac vice, David S. Rosenbloom,
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY, pro hac vice, Megan E. Thibert-Ind,
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY, pro hac vice & Philip S. McCune, SUMMIT
LAW GROUP.


BAR TACO: About 400 Sign on to Lawsuit
--------------------------------------
Jennifer Turiano, writing for Greenwich Time, reports that about
400 people have contacted Marler and Clark, the Seattle-based law
first specializing in food safety lawsuits, regarding a class
action lawsuit against bartaco -- the Port Chester, N.Y.
restaurant that was temporarily closed after a food handler there
was diagnosed with hepatitis A.

Two of those people were of the total five who contracted the
illness and claim to have eaten at the restaurant, according to
attorney Bill Marler. Others who signed on to or expressed
interest in the suit were among the more than 3,000 people
vaccinated after potential exposure to hepatitis A at bartaco
between Oct. 12 and 23.

Hepatitis A is a viral illness that affects the liver and can
cause fatigue, fever, poor appetite, abdominal pain, diarrhea,
jaundice and other problems.

In response to the lawsuit, some have expressed support for the
popular restaurant.

"So (they are) blaming a person for carrying a virus that they
didn't know they had until bartaco closed its doors and informed
all of its patrons dating back to August of the exposure,"
Greenwich resident Nicole Schiano wrote in a Nov. 2 Facebook post.

The illness typically shows no symptoms until roughly two weeks
after contraction.

"The poor soul who was carrying the virus is now carrying a huge
guilt of all the people he/she possibly passed it to ... I really
hope anyone with half a heart does not take part in this 'class-
action law suit," Schiano wrote.

Restaurant owner Christian Petroni of Fortina, a pizzeria with
locations in Westchester County and Stamford, used to work as a
chef at Barcelona Wine Bar in Greenwich -- which is owned by the
same company as bartaco.

He posted a photo of himself eating a taco outside the Port
Chester restaurant on Nov. 7, receiving hundreds of likes on
Instagram and Facebook.

Bartaco representatives did not responded to requests for comment
for this article. [GN]


BARCLAYS PLC: May 18 Euribor Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
If you transacted in Euribor Products[1] between June 1, 2005 and
March 31, 2011, inclusive ("Class Period"), then your rights will
be affected and you may be entitled to a benefit.

The purpose of this Notice is to inform you of your rights in
connection with the proposed settlements with Settling Defendants
Barclays plc, Barclays Bank plc and Barclays Capital Inc.
(collectively, "Barclays"), HSBC Holdings plc and HSBC Bank plc
(collectively, "HSBC"), and Deutsche Bank AG and DB Group Services
(UK) Ltd. (collectively, "Deutsche Bank") in the action titled
Sullivan, et al. v. Barclays plc, et al., 13-cv-2811 (PKC)
(S.D.N.Y.).  The settlements with Barclays, HSBC, and Deutsche
Bank (collectively, the "Settlements") are not a settlement with
any other Defendant and thus are not dispositive of any of
Plaintiffs' claims against remaining Defendants.

The Settlements have been proposed in a class action lawsuit
concerning the alleged manipulation of the Euro Interbank Offered
Rate ("Euribor") and the prices of Euribor Products during the
Class Period.  The Settlements provide $309 million to pay claims
from persons who transacted in Euribor Products during the Class
Period.  If you qualify, you may send in a Proof of Claim and
Release form to potentially get benefits, or you can exclude
yourself from the Settlements, or object to them.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York (500 Pearl St., New York, NY 10007-1312) authorized this
Notice. Before any money is paid, the Court will hold a Settlement
Hearing to decide whether to approve the Settlements.

Who Is Included?

You are a "Settlement Class Member" if you purchased, sold, held,
traded, or otherwise had any interest in Euribor Products during
the Class Period, and during the Class Period were either
domiciled in the United States or its territories or, if domiciled
outside the United States or its territories, you transacted
Euribor Products in the United States or its territories during
the Class Period.  "Settlement Class Members" include, but are not
limited to, all persons who during the Class Period traded CME
Euro currency futures contracts, all persons who during the Class
Period transacted in NYSE LIFFE Euribor futures and options from a
location within the United States, and all persons who during the
Class Period traded any other Euribor Product from a location
within the United States or its territories.

Contact your brokerage firm to see if you purchased, sold, held,
or traded or otherwise had any interest in Euribor Products.  If
you are not sure you are included, you can get more information,
including the Settlement Agreements, Mailed Notice, Plan of
Allocation, Proof of Claim and Release, and other important
documents, at www.EuriborSettlement.com ("Settlement Website") or
by calling toll free 800-492-9154.

What Is This Litigation About?

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, during the Class Period,
conspired to manipulate and manipulated Euribor and the prices of
Euribor Products.  Defendants allegedly did so by using several
means of manipulation.  For example, panel banks that made daily
Euribor submissions to Thomson Reuters, such as Barclays, HSBC,
and Deutsche Bank, allegedly falsely reported their costs of
borrowing in order to financially benefit their Euribor Products
positions.  Defendants also requested that other Defendants make
false Euribor submissions on their behalf to benefit their Euribor
Products positions.

Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants continuously conspired
to fix the prices of Euribor Products in the over-the-counter
market to financially benefit their own Euribor Products
positions.  In addition to coordinating Euribor submissions and
agreeing on where to price Euribor Products, in order to
effectuate their alleged manipulations of Euribor and Euribor
Products during the Class Period, Defendants allegedly engaged in
"pushing cash," transmitted false bids and offers, used derivative
traders as submitters, and rigged bids and offers for Euribor
Products.

Plaintiffs have asserted legal claims under various theories,
including the Sherman Act, the Commodity Exchange Act, the
Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and common
law.

Barclays, HSBC, and Deutsche Bank have consistently and vigorously
denied Plaintiffs' allegations.

What Do the Settlements Provide?

Under the Settlements, Barclays agreed to pay $94 million, HSBC
agreed to pay $45 million, and Deutsche Bank agreed to pay $170
million into the Settlement Funds.  If the Court approves the
Settlements, potential Settlement Class Members who qualify and
send in valid Proof of Claim and Release forms may receive a share
of the Settlement Funds after they are reduced by the payment of
certain expenses.  The Settlement Agreements, available on the
Settlement Website, describe all of the details about the proposed
Settlements.  The exact amount each qualifying Settlement Class
Member will receive from the Settlement Funds cannot be calculated
until (1) the Court approves the Settlements; (2) certain amounts
identified in the full Settlement Agreements are deducted from the
Settlement Fund; and (3) the number of participating Class Members
and the amount of their claims are determined.  In addition, each
Settlement Class Member's share of the Settlement Funds will vary
depending on the information the Settlement Class Member provides
on their Proof of Claim and Release form.

The number of claimants who send in claims varies widely from case
to case.  If less than 100% of the Settlement Class sends in a
Proof of Claim and Release form, you could get more money.

How Do You Ask For a Payment?

If you are a Settlement Class Member, you may seek to participate
in the Settlements by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release to
the Settlement Administrator at the address in the Settlement
Notice postmarked no later than August 1, 2018.  You may obtain a
Proof of Claim on the Settlement Website or by calling the toll-
free number referenced above.  If you are a Settlement Class
Member but do not file a Proof of Claim and Release, you will
still be bound by the releases set forth in the Settlement
Agreements if the Court enters an order approving the Settlement
Agreements.

What Are Your Other Options?

All requests to be excluded from any of the Settlements must be
made in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Settlement Notice and must be postmarked to the Settlement
Administrator no later than April 13, 2018.  All requests for
exclusion must comply with the requirements set forth in the
Settlement Notice to be honored.  The Settlement Notice, available
at the Settlement Website, explains how to exclude yourself or
object.  If you exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you
will not be bound by the Settlement Agreements and can
independently pursue claims at your own expense.  However, if you
exclude yourself, you will not be eligible to share in the Net
Settlement Funds or otherwise participate in the Settlements.

The Court will hold a Settlement Hearing in this case on May 18,
2018, to consider whether to approve the Settlements and a request
by the lawyers representing all Settlement Class Members (Lowey
Dannenberg, P.C. and Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP) for an
award of attorneys' fees of no more than twenty-three percent
(23%) of the Settlement Funds for investigating the facts,
litigating the case, and negotiating the settlement, and for
reimbursement of their costs and expenses in the amount of no more
than approximately $1,600,000.00.  The lawyers for the Settlement
Class may also seek additional reimbursement of fees, costs, and
expenses in connection with services provided after the Settlement
Hearing.  These payments will also be deducted from the Settlement
Funds before any distributions are made to the Settlement Class.

You may ask to appear at the Settlement Hearing, but you do not
have to. For more information, call toll free 800-492-9154 or
visit the website www.EuriborSettlement.com

[1] "Euribor Products" means any and all interest rate swaps,
forward rate agreements, futures, options, structured products,
and any other instrument or transaction related in any way to
Euribor, including but not limited to, New York Stock Exchange
("NYSE") London International Financial Futures and Options
Exchange ("LIFFE") Euribor futures contracts and options, Chicago
Mercantile Exchange ("CME") Euro currency futures contracts and
options, Euro currency forward agreements, Euribor-based swaps,
Euribor-based forward rate agreements, and/or any other financial
instruments that reference Euribor.


CBRE INC: Arbitration Agreements Violate Labor Law, Judge Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Mulvaney, writing for Law.com, reports that the real estate
company CBRE Inc.'s mandatory arbitration agreements violate
federal labor law, according to an administrative law judge ruling
that highlighted controversial employee restrictions that are at
the center of a U.S. Supreme Court case this term.

Administrative law judge John Giannopoulos at the National Labor
Relations Board ruled that the global commercial real estate
firm's employment agreements violate labor law by requiring that
disputes be handled through arbitration and not through "any
class, collective or representative action."

The administrative case, filed by a CBRE facility manager named
Steve Thoma, is far from settled. But it exposes the potential
broad impact that the Supreme Court litigation could have on the
power of employees to form class actions.  Dozens of pending labor
cases involving major companies will be affected by the outcome of
the high-court litigation.

Littler Mendelson's Gordon Letter -- gletter@littler.com -- in Los
Angeles, representing CBRE, was not immediately reached for
comment.  A CBRE spokesman said in a statement: "We believe that
this decision does not accurately apply the law to the facts, and
we plan to appeal."

Attorneys for Mr. Thoma did not immediately respond to request for
comment on the administrative law judge's ruling.

Mr. Thoma has a pending civil case against CBRE and JPMorgan Chase
that's on hold in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The appeals court, citing the action in the Supreme Court, is
awaiting the outcome of the case there.

In October, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a consolidated
case that considered whether workplace arbitration agreements that
ban class actions violate the labor law because they constrict
employees' right to engage in "concerted activities." The
consolidated cases before the justices are: National Labor
Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA; Epic Systems v. Lewis; and
Ernst & Young v. Morris.

Mr. Thoma sued in California federal district court and filed a
labor complaint in August with the NLRB, claiming he was
misclassified as an exempt employee and therefore not entitled to
overtime.  His attorneys at California-based firm Baker, Curtis &
Schwartz are seeking class action status for all similarly
situated employees.  Mr. Thoma's federal civil case alleges CBRE
and Chase misclassified their facility managers to exempt them
from overtime and other protections under California and federal
law.

The NLRB administrative judge, ruling on Nov. 24, called CBRE's
arbitration agreement "unlawfully vague and likely to leave
employees unwilling to risk violating the rule by exercising
Section 7 rights," which allow workers to join together in
concerted activity. Giannopoulos ordered CBRE to end agreements
that restrict rights to file charges with the NLRB and rescind the
arbitration agreement in all its forms.

One issue that might arise in any appeal in Mr. Thoma's
administrative case could focus on recusals.  William Emanuel, one
Trump's two appointees to the NLRB, is a former Littler Mendelson
shareholder in Los Angeles. Employee-side labor attorneys have
raised questions about whether and when Emanuel should be required
to recuse in current disputes that have ties to his firm or to his
former clients.

Mr. Emanuel formerly represented CBRE and Chase, among 49 former
clients that he said would cause him to recuse, for a year, unless
he received a waiver, according to his financial disclosure filed
at the U.S. Office of Government Ethics.

The CBRE case was one of dozens noted in a letter sent to Emanuel
by Senate Democrats asking the new board member to clarify his
commitment to not participating in cases involving former clients.
Staff for Senate Democrats identified dozens of pending cases
before the NLRB that involve the 49 companies Emanuel noted in his
financial disclosure documents. [GN]


CHANNEL NINE: Class Action Mulled Over Don Burke's Behavior
-----------------------------------------------------------
B&T Magazine reports that it appears Don Burke's attempts to
explain revelations he was a serial abuser of women has done more
harm than good.

Appearing on Channel Nine's (his former employer) A Current Affair
last night, Burke told interviewer Tracy Grimshaw that he was a
victim of a social media "witch hunt".

Mr. Burke, 70, did admit to a string of extra-marital affairs
during the peak of his national TV fame and blamed undiagnosed
Asperger's syndrome for his behaviour, something that has
infuriated actual Asperger's sufferers.

Following the ACA interview, Autism Awareness Australia tweeted:
"Autism Awareness Australia is sickened tonight by Don Burke's
excuse of undiagnosed Aspergers as a reason for his appalling
behaviour.  What kind of human sinks this low?"

Mr. Burke told Ms. Grimshaw he had no recollection of the
accusations against him, many dating back more than three decades.

"I'm not that man at all," he said in the ACA interview.  "I've
got a lot of failings.  Some of these things are despicable.

"I am happy to say to the people of Australia: this is my story,
make up your mind if I'm the most evil person that's ever lived,
that's your decision.

"If you can forgive me for the stupidity and the other things I
have done then I am very grateful, but I think that's their
decision not mine.

"I have looked in the mirror and there's a lot I don't like.  But
that's up to the people of Australia to decide can they forgive me
or not," Mr. Burke said.

On the string of affairs, he added: "I think I've got a bit to
apologise for to my family and also to the people who supported
Burke's Backyard. There are things I've done that I'm not at all
proud of."

Meanwhile, Channel Nine may not escape the whole furore either
after revelations senior management at the network turned a blind
eye to Mr. Burke's behaviour back in the 90s and fostered a
culture of endemic bullying.

The Australian is reporting that Channel Nine could be exposed to
a potential class action by Mr. Burke's accusers and could be in
serious strife if it's found that Nine bosses were in anyway
complicit.

The Oz quotes Shine Lawyers defamation special counsel
Roger Singh who has said media companies could be in serious
strife if they are found to have breached their duty of care to
their employees.

Mr. Singh said: "You have to be able to demonstrate that there was
a breach of duty of care and negligence on the part of the
institution . . . on the basis that it knew, or ought to have
known, the propensity of the offender to inflict abuse, but
didn't take appropriate action."

The problem for Nine could well be comments in the press from
senior Nine figures during Mr. Burke's time with the network that
appear to suggest they knew of his predatory behaviour.

The then CEO of Nine, David Leckie, said of Mr. Burke: "I've been
trying to think of Harvey Weinstein-type people [in Australia] and
the only one I can ever come up with is Burke.  He was a horrible,
horrible man."

While Mr. Leckie's predecessor at Nine, Sam Chisolm, said: "Don
Burke was a disgrace because of his behaviour internally and
externally" before adding he was a "terrible grub".

To its credit, Nine has opened a full investigation into the
allegations against Burke and encouraged any employee -- past or
present -- to come forward.

In Nine's defence, Mr. Burke's Backyard was made by Mr. Burke's
own production company CTC Productions and not by Nine staff or at
Nine's studios.

In a statement to media, Nine said: "The allegations are extremely
serious; the behaviour described is completely unacceptable and
would not be tolerated at Nine today.

"Nine has zero tolerance of sexual harassment and workplace
bullying and no employee should be subjected to this kind of
behaviour.  Everyone is entitled to come to work confident that
our workplace is safe, free from harassment and unacceptable
behaviour will be dealt with effectively." [GN]


CHECKERS DRIVE-IN: Faces TCPA Class Action Over Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------------
David O. Klein, Esq. -- dklein@kleinmoynihan.com -- of Klein
Moynihan Turco LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that a
putative class action text message lawsuit was filed in a Chicago
federal district court against Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc.
("Checkers") and its affiliate mobile marketer, alleging
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").

Why should sellers and mobile marketers ensure that their text
messages are TCPA compliant?

Checkers' Text Message Marketing Campaign

Checkers operates more than 850 Checkers and Rally's drive-thru
restaurants in 29 states and the District of Columbia.  As an
advertising vehicle for its fast food products, Checkers works
with marketing affiliates to offer digital coupons and other
promotions to prospective and existing customers.  Some such
promotions offer coupon codes for free Checkers or Rally's menu
items to consumers who use their mobile phones to text a specific
keyword to a designated five-digit short code.

Louisiana resident Toby Branden, presumably enticed by a Checkers
coupon offer, texted "Coupons" and "70117" to a Checkers mobile
marketing short code.  Mr. Branden alleges that mobile marketer
Vibes Media, LLC ("Vibes") subsequently delivered multiple
advertising text messages to her mobile phone number on Checkers'
behalf.

Text Message Lawsuit

On November 3, 2017, Mr. Branden filed a putative class action
text message lawsuit against both Checkers and Vibes in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 17-
cv-7947) on behalf of all cell phone users who received
unauthorized text messages from Checkers or Vibes.

The complaint alleges that Checkers and Vibes violated the TCPA by
sending commercial text messages to consumers without obtaining
each recipient's prior express written consent to receive such
messages.  Braden's text message lawsuit claims that the
Defendants texted thousands of consumers nationwide, and seeks
damages of $500 to $1,500 per text message delivered.

Are Your Text Message Marketing Practices Compliant?

Text messaging (rather than voice or video calling) is now the
most widely and frequently used smartphone feature.  It should
come as no surprise then that more sellers and marketers are
capitalizing on the popularity of text messaging to promote their
respective products and services to consumers.

However, as the above-mentioned text message lawsuit demonstrates,
text message marketing campaigns that are not TCPA compliant place
sellers and their affiliate marketers at serious legal risk.  In
fact, text message marketing is classified as a subset of
telemarketing, and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) rigorously enforce the TCPA and
its implementing regulations against both text message marketers
and traditional telemarketers.

In addition, the Mobile Marketing Association (MMA) has
established its own best practices and guidelines for text message
marketing that are enforced by the Cellular Telecommunications
Industry Association ("CTIA").  The CTIA reports non-compliant
text message marketers to the major wireless carriers, which can
shut down or suspend non-compliant text message marketing
campaigns.

In light of the foregoing, to avoid future legal action and
regulatory surprises, sellers and marketers should consult with
competent counsel concerning their text message marketing
practices and procedures. [GN]


CHICAGO, IL: Park Ridge Residents Threaten Legal Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Johnson, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that plans
for a community garden at North Park are on hold as the Park Ridge
Park District contemplates its next steps following a legal threat
from residents living near the park.

An attorney retained by residents calling themselves the North
Park Preservation Group has ordered the park district to "cease
and desist" from any activities at North Park that go against its
"dedicated purpose" -- in this case, that it be used only as a
public "playground."

The cease and desist order was laid out in a letter addressed to
the park district's legal counsel and read by Park Board President
Jim O'Brien during a Nov. 16 meeting.

Legal action was also threatened by Parkside Drive resident Grant
Petersen, who told the board that 110 residents have "signed on to
be part of a class-action lawsuit to prevent the Park Ridge Park
District from developing the land in North Park as a community
garden or anything that is in violation of the public playground
intent when the [North Park] deed was filed."

O'Brien told the Park Ridge Herald-Advocate that no definitive
decision has yet been made as to whether the park district will
challenge the residents in court. The board held a closed-door
discussion on the issue during the Nov. 16 meeting.

"We're trying to figure out what, if anything, we can do at North
Park, now or in the future," O'Brien said.

The attorney's letter refers to the 1947 plat of subdivision for
the park, which designates it as a "public playground." Neighbors
living near North Park argue that taking away land in the park for
a community garden violates the intent of the park.

O'Brien said consideration of a 30-plot community garden at North
Park has been "tabled" for the time being, and that the board has
asked park district staff to present "alternative locations" that
can be considered.

"We don't plan to make any further decisions without notifying the
public," he said.

In recent months, residents living near North Park have appeared
before the park board and park district staff to express
opposition to the community garden proposal. In addition to their
belief that a garden violates the original purpose of North Park,
residents have given a variety of other reasons for their
opposition, including that it will take space away from the five-
acre park, draw crime and increased wildlife, interfere with
stormwater drainage and be an "eyesore."

The park district has proposed setting aside $75,000 in its
capital budget next year for the creation of the garden. A 4-foot-
tall "wire type" fence would surround the garden plots, which
would be available to citizens to rent, said Terry Wolf,
superintendent of buildings and grounds for the Park Ridge Park
District.

Plans call for the garden to be located just north of the existing
playground and to the west of an existing walking path.

Nan Parson, who was among a steering committee of residents
interested in bringing a community garden to Park Ridge, told the
park board that North Park's neighbors are "making a terrible
mistake" by discouraging a garden there.

"When I tell other residents of Park Ridge about this contention,
they are shocked and ask, 'Why would people not want a garden in
their neighboring park?' " Parson said. "[Opponents] are missing
out on one of the most gratifying experiences one can have."

Terri Schmidt, another member of the community garden steering
committee, said she never realized the project would "become such
a contentious issue" when she initially proposed it. Schmidt
explained that she was also involved in starting a community
garden at St. Paul of the Cross Catholic Church five years ago,
and that the garden has since "yielded thousands of pounds of
vegetables" for clients of the church's food pantry.

"I never expected it to become such a huge issue here," Schmidt
said. "I apologize for causing so much contention among the
citizens of Park Ridge, but at the time, it sounded like a simple
idea."

O'Brien said he did not believe Park Ridge residents are opposed
to community gardens in general, but rather it is the location
that has been the point of consternation.

"We're still working through this," he said. [GN]


CONGREGATION OF HOLY CROSS: Oratory Wants Exclusion from Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that Montreal's Saint Joseph's Oratory wants to
be excluded from a class-action lawsuit that alleges a Roman
Catholic religious order sexually abused its members on the site.

The oratory is seeking, from the Supreme Court, leave to appeal a
Quebec Court of Appeal decision that authorized a lawsuit against
the Congregation of Holy Cross, the oratory and other
institutions.

Holy Cross is the religious order that built the oratory and
continues to provide religious services on the site.

The lawsuit outlines alleged abuse carried out by a member of Holy
Cross committed in the oratory during the 1950s.

The oratory, which filed its leave request on November 24, said it
is "exceptionally targeted as the only place cited and as an
institution" in the latest lawsuit.

It also questioned the legitimacy of the case, adding that a
"judicial burden" is being wrongfully imposed on the oratory.

SÇbastien Richard, a spokesperson for the victims, said in
September, when the Court of Appeal authorized the lawsuit, that
the oratory had "stayed silent for a long time" about the alleged
abuse.

In 2013, the Congregation of Holy Cross apologized and paid up to
$18 million to compensate victims for abuse that occurred at three
Quebec institutions (not including the oratory) over a five-decade
span. [GN]


CORDIS CORP: Loses Bid to Appeal Vein Filters Class Action Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tina Bellon, writing for Reuters, reports that the U.S. Supreme
Court on Nov. 27 declined to take up an appeal by medical devices
company Cordis Corp., which claimed that a series of lawsuits
against it were improperly remanded to state court under the 2005
Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).

The company claimed plaintiffs alleging injuries from its vein
filters transformed their state lawsuits into a mass action,
removable to federal court under CAFA, by seeking to coordinate
discovery, pre-trial motions and trials. [GN]


DOLLAR TREE: Court Certifies Class of Employees in "Snipes" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued a Memorandum and Order granting Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned TERRY T.
SNIPES, SR., an individual, Plaintiff, v. DOLLAR TREE
DISTRIBUTION, INC., a Virginia corporation, and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, No. 2:15-cv-00878-MCE-DB (E.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff alleges that Dollar Tree's California handbook fails to
provide non-exempt employees with legally compliant meal and rest
periods in several ways.  First, according to Plaintiff, Dollar
Tree requires its employees to clock in and out in a manner that
always benefits Dollar Tree.  More specifically, Plaintiff claims
that non-exempt employees, who are paid in 15-minute increments,
cannot clock in more than seven minutes in advance of their
scheduled shift, or more than seven minutes after their shifts
end.  This systemic practice results in underpayment to employees
since they never monetarily benefit from Dollar Tree's automatic
practice of rounding to the nearest 15-minute intervals.

Here, the numbers involved easily satisfy the numerosity
requirement.  As confirmed by the Plaintiff's discovery, Dollar
Tree employed a total of 783 non-exempt employees throughout its
California facilities during the course of the designated period
of April 1, 2011 to the present.  Since numerosity is ordinarily
presumed to the extent the proposed class size exceeds 40
individuals, Plaintiff has thus satisfied that requirement.

Irrespective of whether they ultimately prove to be persuasive,
the allegations lodged here by Plaintiff on behalf of other
employees appear unquestionably to involve questions of law or
fact common to the purported classes.  Therefore this prerequisite
for class action treatment is also satisfied.

Given the fact that Plaintiff claims are predicated on allegedly
uniform policies and practices that applied equally to all
proposed class members, it would appear that Plaintiff's claims
and injuries are typical of those suffered by the purported
classes. Resolution of that question therefore also weighs in
favor of class treatment.

The final hurdle interposed by Rule 23(a) is that the
representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class.  To satisfy constitutional due process
concerns, absent class members must be afforded adequate
representation before entry of a judgment which binds them.  As
for counsel, Rule 23(g) lists four factors for consideration: (1)
the work counsel has done in identifying or investigating
potential claims in the action; (2) counsel's experience in
handling class actions or other complex litigation and the type of
claims in the litigation; (3) counsel's knowledge of the
applicable law; and (4) the resources that counsel will commit to
representing the class.  Plaintiff's counsel represents that they
are seasoned litigators with significant experience in wage-and-
hour disputes and class actions.  The Court has no reason to doubt
these representations, and even Dollar Tree does not challenge the
adequacy of Plaintiff's counsel.  Thus, this prerequisite is
satisfied on counsel's part as well.

The predominance inquiry focuses on the relationship between the
common and individual issues and tests whether proposed classes
are sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by
representation.

At the class certification stage, Plaintiff need only propose a
valid method for calculating class wide damages such that a trier
of fact could accurately calculate damages.  Here, Plaintiff's
counsel alleges they can discern from the daily and/or weekly
timesheets both whether employees received the appropriate meal
and rest period, and whether they were improperly subject to
Dollar Tree's time rounding practice.

Counsel also claims that they can determine which employees were
uncompensated for time standing in line by comparing actual break
times to actual employee time punches.  Plaintiff's statistical
expert, Keith Mendes, states that given time and attendance data
for putative class members, he can estimate damages by applying
the appropriate rate of pay to the net harm suffered by the
employee.  Mendes also proposes two methodologies for measuring
the amount of time spent waiting in line to clock out for meal
period.

Plaintiff must also establish that the proposed class action is
the superior method for resolving the dispute as compared to
available alternatives.  As Plaintiff indicates, relative to the
cost of litigation each proposed member's individual claim is
relatively small. This makes adjudication by a class action
superior and weighs in favor of certifying a class.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 27, 2017
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybps2voe
from Leagle.com.

Terry T. Snipes, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony Eugene Guzman -
- anthony@suttonhague.com -- Sutton Hague Law Corporation.
Terry T. Snipes, Plaintiff, represented by S. Brett Sutton --
brett@suttonhague.com -- Sutton Hague Law Corporation, PC, Jared
Hague  -- jared@suttonhague.com -- Sutton Hague Law Corporation,
PC & Joseph Vidal Macias  -- joseph.macias@maxmintegrated.com --
Sutton Hague Law Corporation, PC.

Dollar Tree Distribution, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey
J. Mann -- mbrewer@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Kurt R.
Bockes -- kbockes@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C.,
Lindbergh Porter, Jr. -- lporter@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson,
Steven B. Katz -- skatz@constangy.com -- Constangy Brooks Smith &
Prophete, LLP & Steven Woodrow Moore -- smoore@constangy.com --
Constangy Brooks Smith & Prophete LLP.


DOMETIC CORP: Time to Reply to "Papasan" Suit Extended
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CATHERINE PAPASAN, NELSON AND MARJORIE GOEHLE, ANDREW
YOUNG, JIMMY BYERS, CHRISTOPHER JOHNSTON, RICHARD AND LEAH
VOLLBERG, TIMOTHY CHERRY, PAULA MEURER, JILL AND SID GARRETT,
RICHARD LANDSHEFT, GARY GRAUS, GWENDOLYN AND LOUIS KING, and all
persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DOMETIC CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-02117-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood
S. Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Oakland Division, granted the Dometic's
Motion for Enlargement of Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond to
Plaintiffs' Second Amended Class Action Complaint.

Dometic will answer or otherwise respond to the Plaintiffs' Second
Amended Class Action Complaint within 14 days after the later of
(i) the Court's Order on Dometic's Motion to Transfer Venue and
(ii) the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation's decision on
the Plaintiffs' Motion to Transfer three other cases to the Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 28, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/JrxdI3 from Leagle.com.

Catherine Papasan, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman --
jefff@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Catherine Papasan, Plaintiff, represented by Terrence Allen Beard,
Law Offices of Terrence A. Beard, Ashley A. Bede --
ashleyb@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac
vice, Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com
-- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Nelson Goehle, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Terrence Allen Beard, Law Offices of
Terrence A. Beard, Ashley A. Bede, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP.

Andrew Young, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Terrence Allen Beard, Law Offices of
Terrence A. Beard, Ashley A. Bede, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP.

Jimmy Byers, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Terrence Allen Beard, Law Offices of
Terrence A. Beard, Ashley A. Bede, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP.

Christopher Johnston, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Terrence Allen Beard, Law Offices
of Terrence A. Beard, Ashley A. Bede, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP.

Richard Vollberg, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Terrence Allen Beard, Law Offices
of Terrence A. Beard, Ashley A. Bede, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP.

Leah Vollberg, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Terrence Allen Beard, Law Offices of
Terrence A. Beard, Ashley A. Bede, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP.

Sid Garrett, Plaintiff, represented by Steve W. Berman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Marjorie Goehle, Plaintiff, represented by Steve W. Berman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Dometic Corporation, Defendant, represented by Peter Allen Wald --
peter.wald@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, Adam L. Rosenbloom --
adam.rosenbloom@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, Emily Rose Goebel,
Latham & Watkins LLP, Marcy Christina Priedeman --
marcy.priedeman@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP & Robert Christian
Collins, III -- robert.collins@lw.com -- Latham and Watkins LLP,
pro hac vice.


DONALD TRUMP: Judge Unseals Settlement Documents in Labor Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Charles V. Baglinov, writing for The New York Times, reports that
in 1980, under pressure to begin construction on what would become
his signature project, Donald J. Trump employed a crew of 200
undocumented Polish workers who worked in 12-hour shifts, without
gloves, hard hats or masks, to demolish the Bonwit Teller building
on Fifth Avenue, where the 58-story, golden-hued Trump Tower now
stands.

The workers were paid as little as $4 an hour for their dangerous
labor, less than half the union wage, if they got paid at all.

Their treatment led to years of litigation over Mr. Trump's labor
practices, and in 1998, despite frequent claims that he never
settles lawsuits, Mr. Trump quietly reached an agreement to end a
class-action suit over the Bonwit Teller demolition in which he
was a defendant.

For almost 20 years, the terms of that settlement have remained a
secret.  But recently, the settlement documents were unsealed by
Loretta A. Preska, a United States District Court judge for the
Southern District, in response to a 2016 motion filed by Time Inc.
and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.  Judge
Preska found that the public's right to know of court proceedings
in a class-action case was strengthened by the involvement of the
"now-president of the United States."

In a 21-page finding, Judge Preska wrote that "the Trump Parties
have failed to identify any interests that can overcome the common
law and First Amendment presumptions of access to the four
documents at issue."

On the campaign trail and as president, Mr. Trump has made curbing
immigration one of his top priorities, seeking to close the
borders to people from certain Muslim-majority countries and to
deport immigrants who are here illegally.  The settlement serves
as a reminder that as an employer he relied on illegal immigrants
to get a dangerous and dirty job done.

Katie Townsend, litigation director of the Reporters Committee,
called the decision a major victory that goes beyond this one
case.  "It makes clear that both the First Amendment and common
law rights of public access apply to settlement-related documents
in class actions," she said.

Lawyers for Mr. Trump were not immediately available for comment.

The documents show that Mr. Trump paid a total of $1.375 million
to settle the case, known as Hardy v. Kaszycki, with $500,000 of
it going to a union benefits fund and the rest to pay lawyers'
fees and expenses.  According to the documents, one of the union
lawyers involved asked the judge to ensure "prompt payment" from
Mr. Trump, suggesting "within two weeks after the settlement
date."

Mr. Trump jumped in to object. "Thirty days is normal," he said.

At the time of the settlement, the court papers note, "this case
has been litigated for 15 years and has already required three
rounds of discovery, extensive motion practice, a 16-day trial and
two appeals."

Trump Tower was Mr. Trump's second solo project after leaving his
father's real estate company, which developed working- and middle-
class housing in Queens and Brooklyn.  But before he could build a
glassy condominium tower on what he considered to be a "Tiffany"
of locations, Fifth Avenue and 56th Street, Mr. Trump had to
demolish a venerable department store, the 12-story Bonwit Teller
building.

For the demolition work, Mr. Trump hired an inexperienced
contractor, William Kaszycki of Kaszycki & Sons, for $775,000. Mr.
Kaszycki specialized in window and job-site cleaning.  His company
was renovating an adjoining building for Bonwit Teller, where he
employed undocumented Polish workers.

Mr. Trump would later testify that he never walked into the
adjoining building or noticed the Polish workers.  But a foreman
on the job, Zbignew Goryn, testified that Mr. Trump visited the
site, marveling to him about the Polish crew.

"He liked the way the men were working on 57th Street," Mr. Goryn
said. "He said, 'Those Polish guys are good, hard workers.'"

The demolition began in January 1980. It was hard, dirty work,
breaking up concrete floors, ripping out electrical wiring and
cutting pipes while laboring in a cloud of dust and asbestos.

A smaller group of union demolition workers, who were paid much
higher wages and, unlike the Poles, overtime, often made fun of
their Polish co-workers, according to the testimony of Adam
Mrowiec, one of the Polish laborers.  "They told me and my friends
that we are stupid Poles and we are working for such low money,"
he said.

In 1998, Wojciech Kozak described to The New York Times the
backbreaking labor on the job.

"We worked in horrid, terrible conditions," Mr. Kozak said.  "We
were frightened illegal immigrants and did not know enough about
our rights."

Today, Mr. Kozak, now 75, lives at the O'Donnell-Dempsey Senior
Housing building in Elizabeth, N.J.

He has blue eyes and a strong handshake, but speaks through a
special device because he had a tracheotomy for cancer.  He
proudly showed off his citizenship papers, dated Nov. 3, 1995.

Mr. Kozak still recalls the work, and seeing Mr. Trump at the site
in 1980.

"We were working, 12, 16 hours a day and were paid $4 an hour," he
said.  "Because I worked with an acetylene torch, I got $5 an
hour.  We worked without masks.  Nobody knew what asbestos was.  I
was an immigrant.  I worked very hard."

But Mr. Kaszycki stopped paying the men, and they eventually took
their complaints to a lawyer named John Szabo.  Mr. Szabo went to
Thomas Macari, a vice president of the Trump Organization,
threatening to place a mechanic's lien on the property if the men
weren't paid.

According to testimony, Mr. Macari began paying the men in cash
himself. The delays and disruptions were adding to the pressure on
the Trump Organization to meet its deadlines.

One evening, Joseph Dabrowski testified, Mr. Trump arrived on site
to tell the workers that he was taking charge.

"I am telling you for the last time that Trump told us, 'If you
finish this fast and I will pay for it,'" Mr. Dabrowski recalled
in court.

Still, there were problems. Mr. Szabo filed the lien, prompting
Mr. Trump to ask for help from Daniel Sullivan, a labor
consultant. Mr. Sullivan later testified that Mr. Trump described
his "difficulties," and "that he had some illegal Polish
employees."

Mr. Trump, however, testified that he did he not remember that
there were undocumented Polish workers on the job, or signing
paychecks for the crew.  "I really still don't know that there
were illegal aliens," Mr. Trump said on the stand.

Mr. Trump did, according to Mr. Szabo, have his lawyer call Mr.
Szabo with a threat to call Immigration and Naturalization Service
to have the men deported.

Mr. Szabo got the Labor Department to open a wages-and-hours case
for the men, which ultimately won a judgment of $254,000 against
Mr. Kaszycki.

Mr. Kaszycki had signed a contract with Local 79 of the House
Wreckers Union.  But while Mr. Kaszycki or Mr. Trump paid into the
union welfare funds for the handful of union workers on the job,
they had not done so for the bulk of the work force, the
undocumented, nonunion Poles.

A union dissident and former boxer, Harry Diduck, brought a case
in federal court in 1983 against Mr. Kaszycki and, eventually, Mr.
Trump and others, claiming that Mr. Kaszycki, the union president
and Mr. Trump had colluded to deprive the welfare funds of about
$600,000.

A judge ruled that Mr. Trump was a legal employer of the Poles,
but both sides appealed elements of his decision, with the total
the welfare funds could get reduced to $500,000.  On the eve of a
second trial, Mr. Trump settled.

Most of the records of the litigation were placed in a federal
storage building where Time Inc. unearthed them in 2016.  But the
settlement documents remained under seal.  After Judge Preska
ordered them released, it turned out that two of the documents had
been destroyed in routine housecleaning at the court.

Wendy Sloan, a now-retired lawyer who represented the plaintiffs
in the original case, had retained them, and provided them to the
court.  In one of them, Ms. Sloan noted that "in light of the
unusually high profile of defendant Donald Trump, plaintiffs have
agreed to confidentiality."

Now that the documents have been released, Ms. Sloan said that
"the settlement we obtained recovered 100 percent of the maximum
amount plaintiffs could recover," plus lawyers fees and costs.

"When you get one hundred cents on the dollar in a settlement,
that is a great settlement," Ms. Sloan and Lewis M. Steel, another
of the plaintiffs' lawyers, said in an email. [GN]


DOUGHERTY COUNTY, GA: "Calhoun" Discovery Order Stayed
------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned APRIL D CALHOUN, Plaintiff, v. WILLIE E
LOCKETTE, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-CV-153(LJA)(M.D. Ga.),
Judge Leslie J. Abrams of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Georgia, Albany Division, denied the Plaintiff's
Motion for Preliminary Certification of Class Action denied the
Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and granted the
Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery and Motion to Stay Issuance
of the Scheduling Order.

The action was originally filed in the Superior Court of Dougherty
County and was removed to the District Court by the Defendants.
The Plaintiff alleges that she was incarcerated as a pretrial
detainee in the custody of Defendant Sheriff Sproul, the Sheriff
of Dougherty County, on April 22, 2017.  The Plaintiff alleges
that her Fourth and Sixth Amendment and due process rights under
the federal Constitution and her rights under the Georgia
Constitution were violated.

The Plaintiff asserts that Defendants Superior Court Judge
Lockette and Sproul are not alleged to have committed any
transgressions in regard to her, but were named to allow the class
to obtain full relief.  She seeks a writ of prohibition, a writ of
mandamus, an order supervising inferior court, both preliminary
and permanent injunctive relief, and the release of the Plaintiff
and the proposed class members from jail.

Before the Court are Calhoun's Motion for Preliminary
Certification of Class Action, her Motion for Preliminary
Injunction, the Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery, and the
Defendants' Motion to Stay Issuance of the Scheduling Order.

Judge Abrams finds that the Plaintiff has not satisfied Rule
23(a)(2).  The Complaint further makes clear that her claims are
not typical of those in the class.  Some members of the proposed
class were given committal hearings while she was not.
Furthermore, the Judge says the Plaintiff's individual claims are
not applicable to those proposed class members that were
purportedly deprived of rights under Georgia law at said committal
hearings.  Thus, the Plaintiff has not satisfied Rule 23(a)(3).

The Plaintiff also has not demonstrated that her situation was or
is sufficiently similar to those of the members of the class she
seeks to represent such that she can fairly and adequately protect
the class' interests.  The broad class of all pretrial detainees
in the Dougherty County Jail encompasses a wide variety of
individualized circumstances, and the Plaintiff has made no
attempt to explain how or why she is uniquely situated to
represent all of those individualized circumstances.  Thus, she
has not satisfied Rule 23(a)(4).  Accordingly, preliminary class
certification is not appropriate.

The Judge also finds that the Plaintiff presents no argument in
her Motion for Preliminary Injunction. From the face of the
Complaint, however, the Plaintiff has not met the required
elements for a preliminary injunction.  She does not present
claims against two of three named Defendants.  Further, much of
the relief sought is not within the Court's power.  Finally, it is
not apparent that irreparable injury will be suffered unless an
injunction is issued.  Thus, a preliminary injunction is not
appropriate.

Based on the Court's preliminary review of the Complaint and the
briefing submitted in connection with the Motions for judgment on
the pleadings, Judge Abrams says a stay is appropriate as there
may be valid defenses that would limit the scope of the Complaint.
By staying discovery until the Motions for judgment on the
pleadings are ruled upon, the parties will benefit by avoiding
unnecessary discovery.  The resulting harm is minimal when
compared to that benefit.

Accordingly, Judge Abrams denied the Plaintiff's Motion for
Preliminary Certification of Class Action, denied her Motion for
Preliminary Injunction, and granted the Defendants' Motion to Stay
Discovery and Motion to Stay Issuance of the Scheduling Order.
The discovery and the issuance of the scheduling order in the
instant action are stayed pending the Court's ruling on the
Defendants' Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 28, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/U82ZCR from Leagle.com.

APRIL D CALHOUN, Plaintiff, represented by JAMES NORMAN
FINKELSTEIN.

WILLIE E LOCKETTE, Defendant, represented by MICHELLE J. HIRSCH --
mhirsch@law.ga.gov.

VICTORIA S DARRISAW, Defendant, represented by MARY M. KATZ.

KEVIN SPROUL, Defendant, represented by MARY M. KATZ.


DYNAMIC LEDGER: Okusko Sues Over Sale of Unregistered Securities
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW OKUSKO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DYNAMIC LEDGER SOLUTIONS, INC., THE TEZOS FOUNDATION,
KATHLEEN BREITMAN, ARTHUR BREITMAN, and TIMOTHY DRAPER, Case No.
3:17-cv-06829 (N.D. Cal., November 28, 2017), alleges that in
connection with Tezos' Initial Coin Offering, the Defendants
raised approximately $232 million in digital cryptocurrencies by
offering and selling unregistered securities in direct violation
of the Securities Act of 1933.

From July 1, 2017, through July 14, 2017, the Defendants ran the
Tezos ICO during which they raised and were paid approximately
65,703 Bitcoin ("BTC") and 361,122 Ether ("ETH") -- worth
approximately $232 million at the time.  The primary purpose of
the Tezos ICO was to raise funds to develop and establish a Tezos
blockchain network and create a Tezos cryptocurrency, the Tezos
Token ("XTZ"), according to the complaint.

The Defendants have attempted to portray the Tezos ICO as a mere
"fundraiser," under which "contributors" or "donors" made
"donations," and would receive a certain number of promised Tezos
Tokens, based on the amount "donated," that would be issued when,
or if, the Tezos blockchain was launched, the Plaintiff alleges.
In reality, the Plaintiff contends, the Tezos ICO was a clear
offer and sale of securities because, inter alia, the Defendants
touted, and Plaintiff and other Tezos ICO investors reasonably
expected, that the XTZ investors were promised after the launch of
the Tezos blockchain would be worth more than the BTC and ETH
invested.

DLS is a Delaware corporation founded in August 2015.  DLS is
controlled by the Breitman Defendants.  Defendant Draper, through
his firm Draper Associates, had, and may continue to still hold,
an ownership interest in Defendant DLS.  DLS owns all of the
Tezos-related intellectual property, including the source code for
the Tezos blockchain network still in development and the Tezos
trademark.

The Breitmans co-founded DLS and are domiciled in Mountain View,
California.  They have been married to each other at all relevant
times.

Tezos Foundation is a Swiss foundation based in Zug, Switzerland,
that continues to seek not-for-profit status, but has not been
granted such under Swiss law at this time.  Tezos Foundation was
created to store the so-called "donations" raised from the Tezos
ICO.  Tezos Foundation is described by Defendants as being managed
by a three-person board.

Timothy Draper is a billionaire venture capitalist that runs
Draper Associates, a venture capital firm operating out of Menlo
Park, California.  Mr. Draper, through his firm Draper Associates,
had an ownership interest in DLS during the Tezos ICO, and may
continue to hold an interest.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 291-2420
          Facsimile: (415) 484-1294
          E-mail: rrivas@zlk.com

               - and -

          Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          Facsimile: (212) 636-7171
          E-mail: ek@zlk.com


EOG RESOURCES: "Ferguson" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
Richard Ferguson, individually and for others similarly situated
v. EOG Resources, Inc., Case No. 4:17-cv-03548 (S.D. Tex.,
November 17, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
other damages owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
Mexico Minimum Wage Act.

Plaintiff Richard Ferguson, worked exclusively for EOG as an
oilfield contractor, specifically as a drilling fluids engineer,
from approximately March 2014 until April 2015.

Defendant EOG Resources, Inc. is one of the largest independent
crude oil and natural gas companies in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "St. Clair" Suit in N.D. Ga. Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
KURTIS ST. CLAIR, KYLE MCCLURE, JEREMIAH SMITH, COURTNEY D. SMITH,
JOSH RUPNOW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. EQUIFAX, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-04792-TWT (N.D. Ga.,
November 28, 2017), arises from a data breach at the Defendant.

On September 7, 2017, Equifax disclosed the occurrence of a
cybersecurity incident ("Data Breach") in which unauthorized
persons gained access to the PII of approximately 143 million U.S.
consumers held by Equifax.  Based on its investigation, Equifax
stated that the period of unauthorized access lasted approximately
10 weeks, from mid-May through July 2017.  On October 2, 2017,
Equifax disclosed that 2.5 million additional people were impacted
by the breach.

Equifax is one of the largest consumer credit reporting agencies
in the world.  Its core business -- the very reason for its
existence -- is the collection, aggregation, and sale of the
personally identifiable information ("PII") of hundreds of
millions of U.S. consumers, usually without their knowledge or
consent.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James M. Evangelista, Esq.
          David J. Worley, Esq.
          Kristi Stahnke McGregor, Esq.
          EVANGELISTA WORLEY, LLC
          8100 A. Roswell Road, Suite 100
          Atlanta, GA 30350
          Telephone: (404) 205-8400
          Facsimile: (404) 205-8395
          E-mail: david@ewlawllc.com
                  jim@ewlawllc.com
                  kristi@ewlawllc.com

               - and -

          Ariana J. Tadler, Esq.
          Andrei V. Rado, Esq.
          Henry Kelston, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, 50th Floor
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 594-5300
          Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
          E-mail: atadler@milberg.com
                  arado@milberg.com
                  hkelston@milberg.com

               - and -

          Roger L. Mandel, Esq.
          LACKEY HERSHMAN, L.L.P.
          3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 777
          Dallas, TX 75219-4259
          Telephone: (214) 560-2201
          Telecopier: (214) 560-2203
          E-mail: rlm@lhlaw.net


EXETER FINANCE: Ct. Denies Class Certification Bid in "Ginwright"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BILLY GINWRIGHT, Plaintiff, v. EXETER FINANCE CORP.,
Defendant, Civil Action No. TDC-16-0565 (D. Md.), Judge Theodore
D. Chuang of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
denied both Exeter's Motion for Summary Judgment and Ginwright's
Motion for Class Certification.

Exeter is an automobile finance company that purchases consumer
contracts known as "consumer automobile retail installment
contracts" from car dealerships.  Once Exeter decides to purchase
a contract, it stores an electronic copy of whatever credit
application and retail installment contract forms were signed by
the customer at the dealership.  Exeter conducts and manages
telephone calls to its customers through a system known as Aspect
that automatically dials calls.

On May 23, 2013, Ginwright purchased a vehicle from Baltimore
Washington Auto Outlet ("BW Auto Outlet") of Hanover, Maryland and
sought a loan to pay for it.  Ginwright signed two documents
relating to financing.  On the first document, a credit
application issued by a company called DealerTrack, Ginwright
listed his cell phone number in the box for his home phone number
and agreed to the following statement.  The Credit Application
authorized the dealership to solicit financial institutions to
extend credit to Ginwright for the purchase of the vehicle.  The
same day, Ginwright also signed a Retail Installment Sale Contract
with BW Auto Outlet, which established the conditions for
purchasing the vehicle on credit and the terms for repayment of
the loan.

Ginwright has brought suit against Exeter alleging violations of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") and the Maryland
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("MTCPA").  He alleges that
Exeter violated these laws by calling his cellular telephone
repeatedly without his consent between June 2013 and July 2015.

Pending before the Court are Exeter's Motion for Summary Judgment
and Ginwright's Motion for Class Certification.  Exeter seeks
summary judgment in its favor based on its assertion that the
evidence conclusively establishes that Ginwright provided "prior
express consent" to receive autodialed calls, within the meaning
of the TCPA and the MTCPA.  According to Exeter, Ginwright
provided this consent by signing the Credit Application and
through oral conversations with Exeter representatives over the
course of his loan.  It further contends that Ginwright never
validly revoked his consent to receive calls from Exeter.

In his Motion for Class Certification, Ginwright seeks
certification of the following class of all persons within the
United States who, on or after Feb. 26, 2012 (i) received a non-
emergency telephone call from Exeter (ii) to a cellular telephone
(iii) through the use of an automatic telephone dialing system.

Judge Chuang finds that Exeter's internal Shaw System loan
servicing notes state that consent was not granted at various
times over the life of the loan.  Whether or not Ginwright orally
consented to autodialed calls during loan servicing discussions
does not alter the analysis.  Although such statements could have
provided an additional basis to find express consent, the lack of
such statements does not undo his finding of express consent based
on the undisputed fact that Ginwright provided his cell phone
number on the Credit Application, which constitutes consent as a
matter of law under the binding FCC ruling.  Having found express
consent based on the Credit Application, the Judge says it is not
necessary to reach Exeter's other theories for establishing that
Ginwright provided express consent.

Moreover, he finds that the Shaw System loan servicing records
list Ginwright as not having consented to calls on his cell phone
on June 1, 2013; June 17, 2015; July 20, 2015; Sept. 8, 2015; and
Sept. 9, 2015.  Although Exeter claims that these notations
suggest that Ginwright never asked Exeter to stop making phone
calls to his cell phone, these entries, viewed in the light most
favorable to Ginwright, provide some support for his contention
that he told Exeter to stop calling his cell phone number.  If a
factfinder were to determine that Ginwright had revoked his
consent, he could succeed on his TCPA and MTCPA claims, because
there is no dispute that the calls to Ginwright continued unabated
until July 30, 2015.

With respect to Ginwright's Motion for Class Certification, Judge
Chuang finds that the proposed class does not satisfy the
commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2) or the predominance
requirement of Rule 23(b)(3), and it may not be maintained under
any other prong of Rule 23(b).  The proposed class has been so
broadly defined as to draw no distinctions between the type of
calling system used and whether class members consented to receive
calls or later revoked such consent.  The Judge cannot find that
the commonality requirement has been established.  Whether
Exeter's dialing system qualifies as an ATDS, does not appear to
be in serious dispute and cannot be deemed to predominate over the
individualized issues of consent, which will drive the outcome of
individual claims.

For these reasons, Judge Chuang denied both Exeter's Motion for
Summary Judgment and Ginwright's Motion for Class Certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 28, 2017 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://is.gd/z1HAB5 from Leagle.com.

Billy Ginwright, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Howard Carney,
Gordon, Wolf & Carney, Chtd.

Billy Ginwright, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel M. Hutchinson --
dhutchinson@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP,
pro hac vice, Ingmar Bancroft Goldson, The Goldson Law Office &
Martin Eugene Wolf, Gordon, Wolf & Carney, Chtd.

Exeter Finance Corp., Defendant, represented by Andrew Karl
Stutzman -- astutzman@stradley.com -- Stradley Ronon Stevens and
Young LLP, Brent D. Hitson -- bhitson@burr.com -- Burr and Forman
LLP, pro hac vice, Christine Marie Debevec, Stradley Ronon Stevens
and Young LLP, pro hac vice, John R. Chiles -- jchiles@burr.com --
Burr & Forman LLP, pro hac vice, John Christopher Suedekum --
csuedekum@burr.com -- Burr & Forman LLP, Matthew Thomas Mitchell -
- mmitchel@burr.com -- Burr and Forman LLP, pro hac vice, Thomas
Kelly Potter, III -- tpotter@burr.com -- Burr and Forman LLP, pro
hac vice & Zachary D. Miller -- zmiller@burr.com -- Burr and
Forman LLP, pro hac vice.

Exeter Finance Corp., Counter Claimant, represented by Andrew Karl
Stutzman, Stradley Ronon Stevens and Young LLP, Brent D. Hitson,
Burr and Forman LLP, pro hac vice, Christine Marie Debevec,
Stradley Ronon Stevens and Young LLP, pro hac vice, John R.
Chiles, Burr & Forman LLP, pro hac vice, John Christopher
Suedekum, Burr & Forman LLP, Matthew Thomas Mitchell, Burr and
Forman LLP, pro hac vice, Thomas Kelly Potter, III, Burr and
Forman LLP & Zachary D. Miller, Burr and Forman LLP.

Billy Ginwright, Counter Defendant, represented by Benjamin Howard
Carney, Gordon, Wolf & Carney, Chtd, Daniel M. Hutchinson, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP, pro hac vice, Ingmar Bancroft
Goldson, The Goldson Law Office & Martin Eugene Wolf, Gordon, Wolf
& Carney, Chtd.

Exeter Finance Corp., Counter Claimant, represented by Andrew Karl
Stutzman, Stradley Ronon Stevens and Young LLP, Brent D. Hitson,
Burr and Forman LLP, pro hac vice, Christine Marie Debevec,
Stradley Ronon Stevens and Young LLP, pro hac vice, John R.
Chiles, Burr & Forman LLP, pro hac vice, John Christopher
Suedekum, Burr & Forman LLP, Matthew Thomas Mitchell, Burr and
Forman LLP, pro hac vice, Thomas Kelly Potter, III, Burr and
Forman LLP & Zachary D. Miller, Burr and Forman LLP.

Billy Ginwright, Counter Defendant, represented by Benjamin Howard
Carney, Gordon, Wolf & Carney, Chtd, Daniel M. Hutchinson, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP, pro hac vice, Ingmar Bancroft
Goldson, The Goldson Law Office & Martin Eugene Wolf, Gordon, Wolf
& Carney, Chtd.


FACEBOOK INC: CJEU to Decide on Austrian Activist's Privacy Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Techdirt reports that the Austrian privacy activist Max Schrems
has appeared a few times on Techdirt, as he conducts his long-
running campaign to find out what Facebook is doing with his
personal data, and to take back control of it.  In 2011, he
obtained a CD-ROM (remember those?) containing all the information
that Facebook held about him at that time.  More dramatically, in
2015 Schrems persuaded the Court of Justice of the European Union
(CJEU) that the Safe Harbor framework for transferring personal
data from the EU to the US was illegal under EU laws because of
the NSA's spying, as revealed by Edward Snowden. As Schrem's
detailed commentary (pdf) on that CJEU judgment explains, the case
was specifically about Facebook, although it applied much more
generally.  Last month, we wrote about another case, currently
being referred to the CJEU, concerning Facebook's use of standard
contractual clauses (SCCs) (pdf), also known as "model clauses".
It's an alternative legal approach for transferring data across
the Atlantic, and if the CJEU rules against Facebook again, it
could make things rather difficult for the big US Internet
companies (but ordinary businesses won't be affected much.)

You might think that all these Facebook cases would be more than
enough for any privacy activist, but not for Schrems, apparently.
He is engaged in yet another legal action that involves Facebook.
As Schrems explains:

   "[he] has sued Facebook over his private Facebook account at
his home court in Vienna, Austria. Schrems accuses Facebook to
massively violate strict European privacy laws.  The lawsuit
includes claims from invalid privacy policies all the way to data
sharing with US intelligence services.  In addition to bringing
his personal claims, he also invited other users to sign over
their rights to him, to form a so-called "Austrian style class
action" against Facebook, in which he represents other users on a
pro bono basis."

This legal action is rather different from the others discussed
above, and involves Schrems personally suing Facebook in Austria
using civil law.  Unusually, he also gathered 25,000 people to
join him in a class action against Facebook, each asking for
EUR500 damages. Because of the importance of the legal questions
under discussion, Austria's supreme court referred them to the
CJEU for a definitive ruling.  As is usual, before the CJEU judges
themselves rule, one of the court's Advocates General offered a
legal opinion, which has just been published.  Two questions were
considered: whether Schrems could bring a case at all, and whether
a class action was possible. Here's Schrems' explanation of what
the Advocate General (AG) said for the first issue:
Facebook tried to argue that Mr Schrems cannot bring a lawsuit at
his home court, as he would not qualify as a consumer, but as a
business.  This is despite the fact that the courts have found,
that the lawsuit is organized on a pro bono basis and he never
used his Facebook account in any commercial way.

The strategy of Facebook was to force Schrems to bring his lawsuit
at Facebook's home court in Dublin -- where a single case of
EUR500 could cost Millions in legal fees. This was clearly
rejected by the AG, just like previously by the Higher Regional
Court in Vienna: Individuals that fight for their rights as
volunteers are not 'businesses' and can enjoy their consumer
rights.  The AG confirmed: Mr Schrems can bring a 'model case' in
Vienna.

On the second question:

     the advocate general accepted Facebook's point of view: An
"Austrian style class action" is only admissible against an
Austrian company -- but not if an Austrian consumer sues a company
in another EU member state [Facebook's EU operations have their
headquarters in Ireland].

Schrems spends some time explaining why he thinks the Advocate
General is wrong, and it's worth reading his thoughts here, since
Schrems is naturally something of an expert in this domain after
all these years.  But as he also points out, what counts is what
the five judges who will consider the case at the CJEU decide.
Although they usually accept the reasoning of the Advocate
General, they don't have to and sometimes disagree.  Schrems
thinks their judgment will be handed down in January 2018, after
which the case will go back to the Austrian courts to make a final
ruling based on the CJEU's findings. [GN]


FITBIT INC: Federal Judge Refuses to Grant Summary Judgment
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a
federal judge refused to grant Fitbit summary judgment in a class
action accusing it of lying that its wearable device can track
sleep quality.

The case is JAMES P. BRICKMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FITBIT,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:15-cv-02077-JD (N.D. Calif.).

The plaintiffs are represented by Patrick Perotti and Frank
Bartela of Dworken & Bernstein Co. in Painesville, Ohio.

Fitbit is represented by William Stern, Erin Bosman and Julie Park
of Morrison & Foerster in San Francisco and San Diego.


FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Lawsuit on Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class of workers claims
Ford made them work off-the-clock for 15 minutes before and after
their shifts and automatically deducted time for lunch breaks,
regardless of whether they took one.

The case is ROLLIN DYE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant,
No. ____ (N.D. Ill.).

Plaintiffs' Attorneys:

     Andrew H. Haber, Esq.
     Dennis R. Favaro, Esq.
     Max Barack, Esq.
     FAVARO & GORMAN, LTD.
     835 Sterling Avenue, Suite 100
     Palatine, IL 60067
     Tel: (847) 934-0060
     Email: dfavaro@favarogorman.com
            ahaber@favarogorman.com
            mbarack@favarogorman.com


FORECLOSURE EXPEDITORS: Court Narrows Claims in "Hamilton" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JEFFERY S. HAMILTON, and KALEIMAEOLE NOLA LINDSEY
LATRONIC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, V. FORECLOSURE EXPEDITORS INITIATORS, LLC, a
Washington limited liability company, and NORTHWEST TRUSTEE
SERVICES, INC., a Washington corporation, et al., Defendants,
Civil No. 13-00145 DKW-KJM (D. Haw.), Judge Derrick K. Watson of
the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawai'i granted the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as to the Plaintiffs' wrongful
foreclosure and intentional interference with prospective economic
advantage causes of action; and denied as to the Plaintiffs'
Hawai'i Revised Statutes ("HRS") Section 480-2 claims.

Defendants Northwest Trustee Services ("NWTS") and Foreclosure
Expeditors/Initiators ("FEI") are entities that assisted
mortgagees in the non-judicial foreclosures of the Plaintiffs'
mortgages.  In their First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), filed on
April 24, 2013, the Named Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, allege that NWTS and FEI, plus
several law firms and individual attorneys, violated state law
during the course of non-judicial foreclosure proceedings.

Hamilton and Latronic each executed mortgages to purchase real
property in Hawaii, and each mortgage included a power-of-sale
clause.  Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., the mortgagee under the
Hamilton Mortgage, recorded the "Notice of Mortgagee's Intention
to Foreclose Under Power of Sale" on or around Oct. 14, 2008, and
the non-judicial foreclosure sale of Hamilton's property took
place on Feb. 4, 2009.  U.S. Bank, the assignee of the Latronic
Mortgage, recorded its first "Notice of Mortgagee's Intention to
Foreclose Under Power of Sale" on April 8, 2010, which was
cancelled and followed by a subsequent Notice of Sale, recorded on
May 13, 2010.  The non-judicial foreclosure sale of Latronic's
property took place on June 16, 2010.

The Plaintiffs allege that their foreclosing mortgagees contracted
with NWTS to assist in foreclosing on the Hamilton and Latronic
mortgages, and NWTS, in turn, arranged for its affiliated law
firm, Routh Crabtree Olsen, P.S. ("RCO"), to represent the
foreclosing mortgagees in connection with the non-judicial
foreclosures of those mortgages.  According to them, NWTS
authorized, ordered, directed, and/or reviewed and consented to
the acts, policies, and practices of Defendants RCO and RCO
Hawaii, LLC in connection with the non-judicial foreclosures of
mortgages held by NWTS's clients.  NWTS arranged for FEI to
publish the Notices of Sale as required by HRS Section 667-5, but
charged the foreclosing mortgagee amounts higher than what was
actually paid to publish the Notices of Sale in newspapers of
general circulation in the counties where the properties were
located, without the mortgagees' knowledge or consent.

Generally, the Plaintiffs allege three causes of action: (i)
wrongful foreclosure; (ii) violations of HRS Section 480-2(a); and
(iii) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage
("IIPEA").  As redress for the Defendants' repeated violations of
HRS Section 480-2(a), wrongful foreclosure, and tortious
interference with the prospective economic advantage of the
Plaintiffs, each demands, inter alia, damages, treble damages,
punitive damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs.

NWTS and FEI ask dismissal, arguing that they cannot be liable for
the wrongful foreclosure or HRS Chapter 480 claims against them as
a matter of law because, as agents of a foreclosing mortgagee,
they owe no duty by statute or under the common law to mortgagors.
The Plaintiffs counter that they state cognizable claims both
under the relevant statutes and also because a non-attorney agent
owes a duty to use reasonable means to maximize the sales price
when choosing to actively participate in a non-judicial
foreclosure.  The Defendants also move to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
IIPEA cause of action as untimely and for failure to state a
claim, which the Plaintiffs did not oppose.

First, because no private cause of action exists against a
mortgagee's agent based on alleged violations of the non-judicial
foreclosure statute, HRS Chapter 667, and Hawai'i courts have yet
to recognize such a cause of action under the common law, Judge
Watson concludes that the Plaintiffs' wrongful foreclosure claim
will be dismissed.  Second, the Plaintiffs sufficiently allege
that NWTS and FEI's conduct occurred in the course of trade or
commerce' with the Plaintiffs, as is necessary to sustain a claim
for unfair or deceptive acts or practices and unfair methods of
competition under Section 480-2.  Finally, the Plaintiffs' claim
for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage
fails to state a claim under the circumstances alleged and
therefore will be dismissed.

For these reasons, Judge Watson granted the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss as to the Plaintiffs' wrongful foreclosure and intentional
interference with prospective economic advantage causes of action.
He denied the Motion, however, with respect to the Plaintiffs' HRS
Section 480-2 claims.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 28, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/eS2cNA from Leagle.com.

Jeffrey S. Hamilton, Plaintiff, represented by Brandee J. Faria,
Perkin & Faria.

Jeffrey S. Hamilton, Plaintiff, represented by Bridget Gallagher
Morgan -- morgan@bsds.com -- Bickerton Dang LLLP, James J.
Bickerton -- bickerton@bsds.com -- Bickerton Lee Dang & Sullivan,
John F. Perkin -- perkin@perkinlaw.com -- Perkin & Faria, Raymond
C. Cho, Affinity Law Group, Stanley H. Roehrig --
shroehrig@bsds.com -- Law Office of Stanley H. Roehrig & Van-Alan
H. Shima, Affinity Law Group.

Kaleimaeole Nola Lindsey Latronic, Plaintiff, represented by
Brandee J. Faria, Perkin & Faria, Bridget Gallagher Morgan,
Bickerton Dang LLLP, James J. Bickerton, Bickerton Lee Dang &
Sullivan, John F. Perkin, Perkin & Faria, Raymond C. Cho, Affinity
Law Group, Stanley H. Roehrig, Law Office of Stanley H. Roehrig &
Van-Alan H. Shima, Affinity Law Group.

Foreclosure Expeditors/Initiators LLC, Defendant, represented by
Audrey Malia Yap, Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel LLLP, Edmund K.
Saffery -- esaffery@goodsill.com -- Goodsill Anderson Quinn &
Stifel LLLP, Lynda L. Arakawa -- larakawa@goodsill.com -- Goodsill
Anderson Quinn & Stifel LLLP & Lauren K. Chun --
lchun@goodsill.com -- Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel LLLP.

Northwest Trustee Services Inc., Defendant, represented by Audrey
Malia Yap, Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel LLLP, Edmund K.
Saffery, Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel LLLP, Lynda L. Arakawa,
Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel LLLP & Lauren K. Chun, Goodsill
Anderson Quinn & Stifel LLLP.


FOXTEL: Australian Workers File Wage Theft Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
7News Melbourne reports that Australian workers who were paid as
little as three dollars an hour have launched a million-dollar
class action.

They sold products for big companies including Foxtel and Telstra
through labour hire agencies.

Lawyers say their working conditions amounted to "modern-day
slavery".

"It's like, I suppose, being in a cult -- you had no way of
getting out unless you were going to be carried out," former
worker Clint Webb said.

The workers are seeking compensation for wage theft, bullying and
humiliation.

"They end up in a job where they are working 60 to 70 hours a week
and are pulling down just a few hundred bucks," National Union of
Workers spokesman Godfrey Moase said.

"That is terrible."

Australia's minimum wage is $18 an hour, and the union will argue
the companies have breached the Fair Work Act. [GN]


FRANKLIN COUNTY, OH: Denial of "Wood" Class Cert Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Donald E. Wood, Appellant-Appellant, v.
Richard J. Simmers, Chief, Division of Oil and Gas Resources
Management, Appellee-Appellee, Case No. 17AP-269 (Ohio App.),
Judge Lisa L. Sadler of the U.S. Court of Appeals of Ohio for the
Tenth District, Franklin County, affirmed Franklin County Court's
order affirming Oil and Gas Commission's order denying the
Appellant's motion to certify a class.

The Appellant is the owner of 16 oil and gas wells in Ohio.  He is
also an attorney licensed to practice law in Ohio.  On July 6,
2015, the Appellee issued Chief's Order 2015-345, finding that the
Appellant failed to maintain and/or file financial assurance with
the Division as required by R.C. 1509.07(C).  The chief's order
required the Appellant to immediately suspend all oil and gas
operations and, within 30 days of receipt of the order, do one of
the following: execute and file a surety bond, certificate of
deposit, irrevocable letter of credit, cash or cashier's check
with the division; properly plug and abandon all wells; or
transfer ownership of all his oil and gas wells to another
qualified owner.

On Aug. 3, 2015, the Appellant filed a notice of appeal to the
commission, pursuant to R.C. 1509.36, from the July 6, 2015
chief's order.  Therein, he argued the chief's order affected a
change of policy in the Division of Oil and Gas Resources
Management regarding financial assurance and such change in policy
may be affected only by an amendment to the relevant provisions of
the Ohio Revised Code or the Ohio Administrative Code, not by a
chief's order.  According to him, prior to July 6, 2015, the chief
permitted well owners to establish proof of financial
responsibility by filing a Form 3 Financial Statement.

On Jan. 11, 2016, the Appellant filed a motion with the
commission, pursuant to Civ.R. 23(B)(3), seeking certification of
a class of existing, non-exempt well owners who received the
chief's order prohibiting them from providing proof of financial
responsibility by means of a Form 3 Financial Statement.  In his
motion, he represented that approximately 43 such well owners
received the chief's order at issue in the case.

On Nov. 18, 2016, the Commission issued an order denying the
Appellant's motion to certify a class.  It did not reach the
merits of the Appellant's arguments regarding the lawfulness of
Chief's Order 2015-345.

Pursuant to R.C. 1509.37, the Appellant appealed to the Franklin
County Court of Common Pleas from the decision of the commission.
On Jan. 4, 2017, he filed a motion requesting the common pleas
court to certify a class action pursuant to Civ.R. 23(B)(3).  In a
decision and entry dated March 21, 2017, the common pleas court
affirmed the commission's Nov. 18, 2016 order and denied his Jan.
4, 2017 motion to certify a class.  The Appellant appealed to the
court from the decision of the common pleas court.

Judge Sadler explains that the common pleas court found that the
Commission's decision to deny class certification was lawful and
reasonable.  Under such circumstances, R.C. 1509.37 required the
common pleas court to affirm the order.  Nothing in R.C. 1509.37
permits the common pleas court to entertain a motion for class
certification in ruling on an appeal from the commission.
Moreover, the Judge says Civ.R. 1(C) specifies that the civil
rules where clearly inapplicable, will not apply to procedure (i)
upon appeal to review any judgment, order or ruling or in all
other special statutory proceedings.  Because she finds that
Civ.R. 23(B)(3) certification is clearly inapplicable in an R.C.
1509.37 appeal, class certification is unavailable to litigants in
such an appeal.

For these reasons, Judge Sadler held that the common pleas court
did not err when it affirmed the order of the commission and
denied the Appellant's motion for class certification.
Accordingly, to the extent the Appellant's merit brief sets forth
a reviewable assignment of error, she overruled it.  Having
overruled the Appellant's sole assignment of error, she affirmed
the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 28, 2017 Decision is
available at https://is.gd/YtsIOw from Leagle.com.

Donald E. Wood -- dwood@attorneydonaldwood -- for appellant.

On brief: Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Gene D. Park, for
appellee. Argued: Gene D. Park.


FREEDOM 1ST: Havidic Seeks to Recover Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rose Havidic, James Jones and Clyde Ruff, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Freedom
1st Transportation, LLC, and Josh Reinert Defendants, Case No. 17-
cv-01859 (N.D. Ill., December 5, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid
wage compensation, liquidated damages and statutory penalties
resulting from violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
Illinois Minimum Wage Law and Illinois Wage Payment Collection
Act.

Freedom 1st provides transportation pursuant to various private
and governmental contracts to transport special needs, disabled
and elderly passengers to medical and other appointments.

Plaintiffs worked as drivers who claim compensation for off-the-
clock work that included vehicle pre-trip inspections, training
programs, accounting of monetary receipts and other paperwork and
parking the vehicle. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Russell J. Heitz, Esq.
      Law Office of Heitz & Bromberek, Ltd.
      300 E. 5th Ave., Suite 380
      Naperville, IL 60563
      Tel: (630) 355-1458
      Fax: (630) 355-4390

             - and -

      David J. Fish, Esq.
      John Kunze, Esq.
      Kim Hilton, Esq.
      THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
      200 E. 5th Ave., Suite 123
      Naperville, IL 60563
      Tel: (630) 355-7590
      Fax: (630) 778-0400
      Email: dfish@fishlawfirm.com


GIGAMON INC: "Carpenter" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Carpenter, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Gigamon Inc., Corey M. Mulloy, Paul A.
Hooper, Arthur W. Coviello, Jr., Joan Dempsey, Ted C. Ho, John H.
Kispert, Paul Milbury, Michael C. Ruettgers, Robert E. Switz, and
Dario Zamarian, Case No. 3:17-cv-06653 (N.D. Calif., November 17,
2017), is a class action complaint for violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On October 26, 2017, the Board caused the Company to enter into an
agreement and plan of merger ("Merger Agreement") between Gigamon
and Elliott Management Corporation, pursuant to which the
Company's shareholders stand to receive $38.50 in cash for each
share of Gigamon stock they own, representing $1.6 billion in
equity value.

On November 13, 2017, in order to convince Gigamon shareholders to
vote in favor of the Proposed Merger, the Board authorized the
filing of a materially incomplete and misleading Preliminary Proxy
Statement on a Schedule 14A with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Brian Carpenter is, and at all relevant times has been,
a holder of Gigamon common stock.

Defendant Gigamon provides a visibility platform to allow
companies to manage, secure, and understand their data across
their networks, and offers active visibility into physical and
virtual network traffic.  Defendant Gigamon is incorporated in
Delaware and maintains its principal executive offices at 3300
Olcott Street, Santa Clara, California 95054. The Company's common
stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker
symbol "GIMO."

The Individual Defendants are board of directors of Gigamon. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GIGAMON INC: "Stouffer" Suit Challenges Acquisition by Elliott
--------------------------------------------------------------
SPENCER STOUFFER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. GIGAMON INC., COREY M. MULLOY, PAUL A.
HOOPER, ARTHUR W. COVIELLO, JR., TED C. HO, JOHN H. KISPERT, PAUL
MILBURY, MICHAEL C. RUETTGERS, ROBERT E. SWITZ, JOAN DEMPSEY, and
DARIO ZAMARIAN, Case No. 4:17-cv-06789-PJH (N.D. Cal., November
27, 2017), stems from a proposed transaction, pursuant to which
Gigamon will be acquired by the New York-based private equity firm
Elliott Management through its affiliates Ginsberg Holdco, Inc.
("Newco") and Newco's wholly-owned subsidiary, Ginsberg Merger
Sub, Inc.

On October 26, 2017, Gigamon's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Newco
and Merger Sub.  Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement,
Newco will purchase each issued and outstanding share of Gigamon
common stock for $38.50 in cash, for a total value of
approximately $1.6 billion.  Upon completion of the Merger, Merger
Sub will merge with and into Gigamon, with Gigamon surviving the
merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Newco.

Gigamon is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive
offices located in Santa Clara, California.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

According to the Company's Form 10-K for the year ended Dec. 31,
2016, Gigamon develops "innovative solutions that deliver
pervasive, dynamic, and intelligent visibility into data-in-motion
traveling across networks of any scale."  The Company's Visibility
Platform consists of a distributed system of visibility node that
is deployed across an organization's infrastructure that is
orchestrated from a common software management plane.  The
Company's Visibility Platform enables organizations to
intelligently find, shape and move the relevant traffic to the
appropriate security and monitoring tools with their operational
environment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com
                  rprongay@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Carl L. Stine, Esq.
          Fei-Lu Qian, Esq.
          WOLF POPPER LLP
          845 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 759-4600
          Facsimile: (212) 486-2093
          E-mail: cstine@wolfpopper.com
                  fqian@wolfpopper.com


GRANBY'S COLLEGE: Class OK'd for Ex-Students Claiming Abuse
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jason Magder, writing for Montreal Gazette, reports that a judge
has authorized a class-action lawsuit to go ahead against Granby's
College Mont-Sacre-Coeur on behalf of former students who say they
were sexually abused there.

Robert Kugler, Esq. -- rkugler@kklex.com -- of the law firm
Kugler, Kandestin, is leading the case. He said more than 70
people have come forward with abuse complaints over the years. The
span of class action extends from 1932, when the school was
founded, until 2008, when the order of Les Freres du Sacre Coeur
was no longer in charge.

"We expect more people will come forward," Kugler said. "The
objective is to make sure that anyone who was sexually abused is
eligible to benefit from this class action. We have heard from
victims in the 1940s, the 1950s, the 1960s, the 1970s and the
1980s, so we have little doubt the abuse occurred before then and
after then."

Kugler said the extent of the alleged abuse seems to be larger
than originally thought.

"We have amended the class action to cover all the abusers who
were disclosed to us and there were 11. There may be more; we
don't know that," he said.

In one of the cases, reported in the Gazette in 2016, a former
student alleged that, starting at age 13 and from 1972 to 1975, he
was abused more than 300 times when he was a boarder and Brother
Claude Lebeau was a dorm supervisor.

Now that the class-action suit has been authorized, it will take
about a year to proceed to court. If it is successful, others who
can show they have been abused by staff at the school could be
eligible for compensation.

Kugler said anyone who feels they have been a victim should
contact him at 514-878-2861, Ext. 116. That also goes for others
who have suffered from abuse in other situations.

"We keep their names and any identifying information confidential,
so they need to have no fear to come forward," he said.

Kugler has experience with similar actions. On Nov. 17, he filed a
petition for authorization in Quebec Superior Court, targeting the
Servites de Marie religious order and College Servite, formerly
known as College Notre-Dame des Servites, in Ayer's Cliff.

The lead plaintiff in that case alleges he was repeatedly sexually
abused by Father Jacques Desgrandchamps between 1973 and 1975. He
says he was 12 when the abuse started. Desgrandchamps, who taught
different subjects at the high school, asked him to help correct
other students' history tests. Within a few days, he said,
Desgrandchamps started inviting him to his room, where he sexually
abused him on numerous occasions. The alleged acts included forced
oral sex "several times a week" and, on one occasion, an attempt
to sodomize him.

In both cases, the accusations have not been proven in court. [GN]


HAKKASAN NYC: Can Compel Arbitration in "Zhu" FLSA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SUQIN ZHU, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER
EMPLOYEES SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. HAKKASAN NYC LLC,
HAKKASAN HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 16 Civ. 5589 (KPF)
(S.D. N.Y.), Judge Katherine Polk Failla of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York granted the
Defendants' motion to compel arbitration, and denied their request
that the Court orders individual arbitration in the matter.

Plaintiff Zhu commenced the putative collective action by filing
the Complaint on July 13, 2016, on behalf of all persons employed
by the Defendants as sous chefs and other similarly situated
employees holding comparable positions after July 30, 2012.
Plaintiff Zhu alleged that: (i) between March 17, 2013, and July
1, 2016, the Defendants failed to provide her with overtime
compensation for time worked beyond 40 hours each workweek; (ii)
her workdays frequently lasted longer than 10 hours, but the
Defendants did not pay her spread of hours premium for every day
in which she worked over 10 hours; (iii) the Defendants
misclassified the Plaintiff and other members of the contemplated
class as salaried, exempt employees; (iv) the Defendants did not
provide the Plaintiff with proper written notice about the terms
and conditions of her employment upon hire or upon pay increases
in relation to their rate of pay, regular pay cycle, and rate of
overtime pay; (v) the Defendants failed to provide detailed
paystub information every payday; (vi) Zhu, who is Han Chinese,
was required to work substantially more hours for the same pay as
her Caucasian colleagues who performed similar work functions; and
(vii) the Defendants provided Caucasian employees with more paid
holidays than they did to Chinese employees.

In lieu of answering the Complaint, the Defendants filed a pre-
motion letter on Oct. 18, 2016, requesting leave to move to compel
arbitration, pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, of the
Plaintiffs' claims alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, and the New York Labor Law on a class and collective action
basis, as well as individual discrimination claims under the New
York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law.
They also move to dismiss the case pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b) or stay the action pursuant to the Federal
Arbitration Act, and for costs and fees associated with the pre-
motion letter.

On Oct. 20, 2016, Plaintiff Zhu filed a letter motion requesting
leave to file a motion to certify a collective action.  On Oct.
21, 2016, Plaintiff Zhu filed a subsequent letter opposing the
Defendants' pre-motion letter to compel arbitration in which Zhu
argued that she was fraudulently induced into signing the
agreement.

At a pre-motion conference on Oct. 27, 2016, the Court considered
Plaintiff Zhu's request for leave to file a certification motion
and the Defendants' request for leave to file a motion to compel
arbitration.  At that conference, the parties indicated that they
wished to engage in settlement discussions before engaging in
motion practice.  For that reason, the Court did not rule on the
parties' letter motions.

On Nov. 8, 2016, Nelson Leung and Lip Kuen Moy filed consent
forms.  The Court notes that it had not certified a collective
action in the case and that, to this day, the Plaintiffs have
filed neither a conditional certification motion nor an amended
complaint adding Leung and Moy as the Plaintiffs.  However, the
parties' submissions refer to Leung and Moy as Individual
Plaintiffs and state that Leung and Moy joined the case when they
filed consents to sue.  The Court adopts the parties' framework
and, following the parties' lead, refers to Leung and Moy as the
Plaintiffs in the action.

On March 31, 2017, after the parties tried unsuccessfully to
settle the case, the Court ordered the Defendants to file their
motion to compel arbitration on or before April 20, 2017; the
Plaintiffs to file their opposition by May 11, 2017; and the
Defendants to file their reply, if any, by May 25, 2017.  The
parties filed their papers accordingly.

Judge Failla finds that the Arbitration Agreement is valid and
enforceable and that the Plaintiffs' claims fall within its scope.
Accordingly, he granted the Defendants' motion to compel
arbitration.  However, because the availability of collective
arbitration is not a "question of arbitrability," he reserved the
question for the arbitrator.  The Judge similarly finds that the
Plaintiffs' claim that the confidentiality clause is invalid under
Cheeks is not a "question of arbitrability" and must therefore be
decided in the first instance by the arbitrator.  Pursuant to
binding Second Circuit precedent, the Clerk of Court is ordered to
stay the case pending the outcome of arbitration.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 28, 2017 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/1p25Ua from Leagle.com.

Suqin Zhu, Plaintiff, represented by William Michael Brown --
wbrown@hanglaw.com -- Hang & Associates, PLLC.

Suqin Zhu, Plaintiff, represented by Jian Hang --
jhang@hanglaw.com -- Hang & Associates, PLLC, William Michael
Brown, Hang & Associates, PLLC & Jian Hang, Hang & Associates,
PLLC.

Lip Kuen Moy, Plaintiff, represented by Jian Hang, Hang &
Associates, PLLC & Jian Hang, Hang & Associates, PLLC.

Nelson Leung, Plaintiff, represented by Jian Hang, Hang &
Associates, PLLC & Jian Hang, Hang & Associates, PLLC.

Hakkasan NYC LLC, Defendant, represented by Douglas Joseph Klein -
- Douglas.Klein@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C. & Felice B.
Ekelman -- EkelmanF@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C..

Hakkasan Holdings, LLC, Defendant, represented by Douglas Joseph
Klein, Jackson Lewis P.C. & Felice B. Ekelman, Jackson Lewis P.C.


HCP INC: Robbins Geller, Motley Rice to Lead in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled Boynton Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund,
Plaintiff. v. HCP, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-1106
(N.D. Ohio), Judge Jeffrey J. Helmick of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division, appointed
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd and Motley Rice as lead counsel.

The Court denied Albert J. Belle's and the Public Employees'
Retirement System of Mississippi ("Mississippi PERS")'s motions
for appointment as the Lead Plaintiff and approval of counsel; and
granted the motion of Societe Generale Securities Services GmbH
("SGSS Germany") and the City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief
System for appointment as the co-Lead Plaintiffs and approval of
Counsel.

Plaintiff Boynton Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund brings the
action on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased
Defendant HCP's common stock from March 30, 2015 through Feb. 8,
2016, inclusive.  It alleges all the Defendants violated Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Securities and
Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5.  It also alleges Defendant HCP and
the individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the 1934
Exchange Act.

HCP is a real estate investment trust, and Defendant HCR ManorCare
was its most significant client.  Because of HCP's investment in
ManorCare, HCP derived approximately 30% of its revenue from its
leases with ManorCare during the class period.  During the class
period, the Defendants allegedly misrepresented ManorCare's
financial performance, falsely assuring investors that HCP's
ManorCare assets and revenue stream from its leases with ManorCare
were secure and unimpaired.

But during that time ManorCare was allegedly engaged in billing
fraud, generating over $6 billion in false claims for
reimbursement.  This behavior eventually led to three
whistleblower lawsuits, filed under seal in 2009 and 2011, and an
investigation by the United States Department of Justice.  The DOJ
eventually intervened in the lawsuits, resulting in their public
disclosure on April 20, 2015.  HCP issued corrective disclosures
the following day.  But HCP allegedly continued to mislead its
investors by downplaying the severity of the situation.

HCP subsequently disclosed two impairment charges relating to its
business dealings with ManorCare but continued to assure investors
of ManorCare's profitability.  Each disclosure brought with it a
decline of less than three percent in HCP's stock.  Finally, on
Feb.9, 2016, HCP disclosed, among other things, that it had taken
an $836 million non-cash impairment on its ManorCare lease assets
and that ManorCare could no longer be relied upon to pay its rent.
HCP's stock price declined 17% that day.

The Plaintiff filed the action on May 9, 2016.  On May 10, 2016,
it published notice of the pendency of the action, giving
purported class members until July 11, 2016, to move for
appointment as the Lead Plaintiff.  Three class members or groups
of class members timely filed motions seeking to be appointed the
Lead Plaintiff and to have their choice of counsel approved.  One
of those movants, Belle, reviewed the competing motions and
subsequently filed a notice of non-opposition, recognizing he does
not appear to have the largest financial interest in the action.
This leaves Mississippi PERS and the group comprised of SGSS
Germany and Birmingham.  On Sept. 13, 2016, Judge Helmick held a
hearing on the remaining two motions and took the matter under
advisement.

Judge Helmick denied Belle's and Mississippi PERS' motions for
appointment as the Lead Plaintiff and approval of counsel; and
granted the motion of SGSS Germany and the City of Birmingham
Retirement and Relief System for appointment as the co-Lead
Plaintiffs and approval of Counsel.

He explains that SGSS Germany is a co-Lead Plaintiff, so it will
not be the only decision-maker.  And there is no evidence before
him suggesting Birmingham has a relationship with SGSS Germany's
affiliates.  Further, SGSS Germany and Birmingham have both served
or are serving as the Lead Plaintiffs in other securities class
actions.  They have represented to him that they fully appreciate
and understand the Lead Plaintiff's role under the PSLRA and are
prepared to execute their responsibilities accordingly.

SGSS Germany has also declared that its independent legal
department will be the internal corporate division overseeing the
litigation and making decisions on its behalf.  Neither Societe
Generale SA nor SG Americas Securities, LLC will be involved in
the case.  Thus, the Judge is assured that SGSS Germany and
Birmingham fully understand their obligations to actively
represent the class and that they are prepared to vigorously
pursue recovery on behalf of all the class members.  Having
already found Robbins Geller and Motley Rice experienced and
capable, he will approve them as the Lead Plaintiffs' choice of
counsel.

Accordingly, Judge Helmick denied Belle's and Mississippi PERS'
motions for appointment as the Lead Plaintiff and approval of
counsel.  He granted the motion of SGSS Germany and Birmingham for
appointment as the co-Lead Plaintiffs and approval of counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 28, 2017 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://is.gd/CDucSW from Leagle.com.

Boynton Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund, Plaintiff, represented
by Scott D. Simpkins -- sdsimp@climacolaw.com -- Climaco, Wilcox,
Peca, Tarantino & Garofoli.

Boynton Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund, Plaintiff, represented
by Avi Josefson -- avi@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger
& Grossman, Gerald H. Silk -- jerry@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein,
Litowitz, Berger & Grossman, Jack Landskroner, Landskroner Grieco
Merriman, John R. Climaco -- jrclim@climacolaw.com -- Climaco,
Wilcox, Peca, Tarantino & Garofoli & Rebecca E. Boon --
Rebecca.Boon@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger &
Grossman.

Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi, Plaintiff,
represented by Ross M. Shikowitz -- ross@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein,
Litowitz, Berger & Grossman, Jack Landskroner, Landskroner Grieco
Merriman & Scott D. Simpkins, Climaco, Wilcox, Peca, Tarantino &
Garofoli.

HCP, Inc., Defendant, represented by Audra J. Soloway --
asoloway@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison, Daniel J. Kramer -- dkramer@paulweiss.com -- Paul,
Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, Patrick J. Somers --
psomers@kbkfirm.com -- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison &
James A. King -- jking@porterwright.com -- Porter, Wright, Morris
& Arthur.

HCR ManorCare, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael D. Meuti --
mmeuti@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler, Jessie M. Gabriel --
jgabriel@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler & Thomas D. Warren --
twarren@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler.

Lauralee Martin, Defendant, represented by Audra J. Soloway, Paul,
Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, Daniel J. Kramer, Paul, Weiss,
Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, Patrick J. Somers, Paul, Weiss,
Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison & James A. King, Porter, Wright,
Morris & Arthur.

Timothy Schoen, Defendant, represented by Audra J. Soloway, Paul,
Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, Daniel J. Kramer, Paul, Weiss,
Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, Patrick J. Somers, Paul, Weiss,
Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison & James A. King, Porter, Wright,
Morris & Arthur.

Paul A. Ormond, Defendant, represented by Michael D. Meuti, Baker
& Hostetler, Jessie M. Gabriel, Baker & Hostetler & Thomas D.
Warren, Baker & Hostetler.

Steven M. Cavanaugh, Defendant, represented by Michael D. Meuti,
Baker & Hostetler, Jessie M. Gabriel, Baker & Hostetler & Thomas
D. Warren, Baker & Hostetler.

Albert J Belle, Movant, represented by Katherine C. Ferguson --
kferguson@kmfylaw.com -- Kooperman Gillespie Mentel.

Societe Generale Securities Services GmbH, Movant, represented by
Christopher F. Moriarty -- cmoriarty@motleyrice.com -- Motley
Rice, Darren J. Robbins -- darrenr@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd, Gregg S. Levin -- glevin@motleyrice.com -- Motley
Rice, Jack Reise -- JReise@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd, pro hac vice, Joseph F. Rice -- jrice@motleyrice.com --
Motley Rice, Nathan R. Lindell -- nlindell@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd, Tricia L. McCormick -- TriciaM@rgrdlaw.com -
- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, William H. Narwold --
bnarwold@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice, Jack Landskroner,
Landskroner Grieco Merriman & Richard M. Kerger, Kerger Law Firm.

City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System, Movant,
represented by Darren J. Robbins, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd,
Gregg S. Levin, Motley Rice, Jack Reise, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd, pro hac vice, Nathan R. Lindell, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd, Tricia L. McCormick, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, Jack
Landskroner, Landskroner Grieco Merriman & Richard M. Kerger,
Kerger Law Firm.


HERTZ RENTAL: Settles Parking Violation Ticket Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joe Ducey, writing for ABC15, reports that if your rental car
company passed on a parking violation to you and added costs, you
may qualify for a settlement.

New claims allege Hertz passed on administrative and handling fees
along with the ticket.

A settlement means you could get $10 to $20 per incident if it
happened to you during a certain period.

The deadline to file was November 30, 2017.

Hertz claims no wrongdoing in settling.

Think back.

Did you buy a laptop, computer, cell phone, cordless power tool or
anything else powered by a lithium-ion battery between 2001 and
2011?

I'm guessing you did, and it could mean money for you.

Lawsuits allege the top makers of those batteries schemed to raise
and fix prices.

It's a $45 million settlement and the payout is determined by how
many people file a claim.

The deadline to file was November 29, 2017.

The makers claimed no wrongdoing in settling this lawsuit.

Have you been looking for relatives or wanted to know your own
genetic health risks?

If you tried 23andme in the past, you could get a little money
back, $12 cash or a $40 certificate.

That's the settlement after a lawsuit alleged the company
misrepresented their products.

It affects purchases made between 2007 and 2013.

The deadline to file a claim was December 6, 2017.

The company claims no wrongdoing in settling this lawsuit. [GN]


HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Deal in Shareholder Derivative Suit Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases styled In re: HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY SHAREHOLDER
DERIVATIVE LITIGATION. STANLEY MORRICAL, Plaintiff-Appellee, A. J.
COPELAND, Objector-Appellant, v. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees, VINCENT HO, Intervenor-Defendant-Appellee.
In re: HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION,
STANLEY MORRICAL, Plaintiff-Appellee, HARRIET STEINBERG, Objector-
Appellant, v. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY; et al., Defendants-
Appellees, VINCENT HO, Intervenor-Defendant-Appellee, Case Nos.
15-16688, 15-16690 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's approval of the
settlement.

In the shareholder derivative suit, the Ninth Circuit reviews a
settlement agreement that included corporate governance reforms
but no monetary compensation for shareholders.  The appeal stems
from HP's failed acquisition of Autonomy Corp.

The Appellate Court finds that the reforms in the settlement set
forth an extensive, detailed list of procedures for HP to follow
in future mergers and acquisitions.  The settlement also gave
shareholders the right to sue to enforce its terms, including the
governance reforms -- a right they would not have had absent the
settlement.  The district court's finding that the litigation
influenced HP's decision to adopt the corporate governance reforms
was supported by the record.  The record also supports the
district court's conclusion that the settlement negotiations were
not collusive.

The Appellate Court finds that the district court did not abuse
its discretion in approving the scope of the release.  Objectors
cite no circuit authority for their argument that a liability
release can only encompass those defendants who made a concrete
contribution to the settlement; indeed, we have acknowledged some
authority to the contrary.

It also finds that none of the objections to the notice of
settlement have merit.  Most of Objectors' concerns amount to the
argument that the notice did not contain every conceivable detail
of the settlement.  There was also sufficient time to lodge
objections.  More than three months elapsed between publication of
the notice and the objection deadline; the Appellate Court has
approved much shorter deadlines.

The Appellate Court also finds that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in keeping certain documents sealed following
final judgment.  The district court adopted the special master's
detailed consideration of whether HP's limited sealing motions
should be granted.  The special master found that HP provided
compelling reasons to justify its sealing motion, including that
the documents at issue included trade secrets, material protected
by the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine,
and confidential whistleblower information.

Finally, the Appellate Court finds that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in declining to award attorneys' fees to
Rodney Cook.  Cook claims he conferred a substantial benefit on HP
by influencing the district court's decision to order the removal
of a retention agreement from the settlement.  That position is
belied by the district court's pointed finding that its decision
on the removal order had nothing to do with Cook.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 28, 2017 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/tmMA9n from Leagle.com.


HLO COLLECTION: Accused by "Muhammad" Suit of Violating FDCPA
-------------------------------------------------------------
ISXAAQ MUHAMMAD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. HLO COLLECTION SERVICES, LLC and NICHOLAS G. HIGGINS,
PC, Case No. 0:17-cv-05252 (D. Minn., November 28, 2017), accuses
the Defendants of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
by failing to meaningfully convey the name of the creditor to whom
the alleged debt of the Plaintiff is owed.

The Defendants are entities that are engaged, by use of the mails
and telephone, in the business of attempting to collect debts.
The Defendants regularly collect or attempt to collect, directly
or indirectly, debts owed or due, or asserted to be owed or due,
another.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          JD Haas, Esq.
          JD HAAS AND ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          9801 Dupont Ave. South, Suite 430
          Bloomington, MN 55431
          Telephone: (952) 345-1025
          Facsimile: (952) 854-1665
          E-mail: jdhaas@consumerlawinfo.com


HOF'S HUT: Court Dismisses "MacKinnon" TCPA Suit with Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John A. Mendez of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss
with prejudice the case, STEVE MACKINNON, Plaintiff, v. HOF'S HUT
RESTAURANTS, INC., a California corporation, Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-01456-JAM-DB (E.D. Cal.).

In April 2017, the Plaintiff made a dinner reservation at
Lucille's Smokehouse Bar-B-Que in Rocklin, California, a
restaurant owned by the Defendant.  When making the reservation,
Plaintiff was asked for and provided his cellphone number to the
restaurant.  The restaurant later sent the Plaintiff a text
message confirming his reservation.

In response, the Plaintiff filed the class-action lawsuit on July
13, 2017, alleging that the Defendant violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), by sending the text message.
The Plaintiff concedes that he likely provided express consent to
the Defendant to alert him when his dinner reservation was ready
but contends that this is insufficient to absolve the Defendant of
liability under the TCPA because the Defendant's message included
or introduced advertising which the Plaintiff did not consent to
receive in writing.

The Defendant moves to dismiss for failure to state a claim.  The
Plaintiff opposes.

Judge Mendez finds that that the Defendant's text message
confirming the Plaintiff's dinner reservation does not constitute
telemarketing or advertising because it is informative and non-
telemarketing in nature.  The Plaintiff received a text message
that confirmed a reservation for an upcoming dinner that he
initiated.  And the "View specials" link would have facilitated
the transaction that he initiated.  The Plaintiff's reliance on
Pedro-Salcedo as persuasive or binding authority is, therefore,
misplaced.

Because he finds that the Defendant's text message to the
Plaintiff was not an advertisement, the Judge says the Plaintiff's
written consent was not required before he received the text
message.  Instead, only the Plaintiff's express consent was
required.  The Plaintiff provided the Defendant with express
consent to receive a text message regarding his dinner reservation
by providing his phone number to the Defendant.

Since he has found that the Plaintiff's allegations establish that
he provided the requisite consent to receive the Defendant's text
message, the inquiry ends.  Judge Mendez needs not, and does not,
reach the issue of (i) whether the Defendant used an Automatic
Telephone Dialing System in sending the text message giving rise
to this lawsuit and (ii) whether the Plaintiff is within the zone
of interest that Congress intended to be protected by the TCPA.

Finally, the Plaintiff seeks leave to amend should the Court grant
the motion to dismiss.  The Judge explains that the Plaintiff has
pleaded no facts that legally support his TCPA claim.  And the
Plaintiff has not pointed to any additional facts showing that
amendment could save his claim.  The Judge will deny Plaintiff's
request.

For these reasons, Judge Mendez granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 28, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/QqAOyJ from Leagle.com.

Steve Mackinnon, Plaintiff, represented by Michael James
Aschenbrener -- masch@kamberlaw.com -- KamberLaw, LLC.

Steve Mackinnon, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Thomas Fraser -
- mfraser@thefraserlawfirm.net -- The Fraser Law Firm, P.C..

Hof's Hut Restaurants, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joshua
Briones -- JBriones@mintz.com -- Mintz Levin & Nicole V. Ozeran --
NVOzeran@mintz.com -- Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo,
PC.


HOME PERFORMANCE: "Kleeklamp" Sues to Recover Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
Maria Kleeklamp, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Home Performance Alliance, Defendant, Case
No. 17-cv-00660 (M.D. Fla., December 1, 2017), seeks overtime
compensation for hours rendered in excess of forty hours per work
week with corresponding liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's
fees and costs and expenses of the litigation, prejudgment
interest and any other further relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Home Performance is into the business of installing storm windows
and doors where Kleeklamp worked for the Defendant as a
salesperson. She was terminated in June 27, 2017 and she seeks to
recover her final pay and unpaid overtime wages. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bill B. Berke, Esq.
      BERKE LAW FIRM, P.A.
      4423 Del Prado Blvd. S.
      Cape Coral, FL 33904
      Telephone: (239) 549-6689
      Email: berkelaw@yahoo.com


HONDA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that consumers claim in a federal
class action that Honda Civic 2016-18 models with CVT
transmissions may not be in "park" when so indicated, making them
dangerous.

The case is HEATHER FLOYD, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO.,
INC., a California Corporation, and HONDA NORTH AMERICA, INC., a
Delaware Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-8744 (C.D.
Calif.).

Attorneys for Plaintiff, Heather Floyd:

     Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
     Theodore Maya, Esq.
     AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
     10728 Lindbrook Drive
     Los Angeles, CA 90024
     Tel: (310) 474-9111
     Fax: (310) 474-8585
     Email: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
            tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com

        -- and --

     Greg F. Coleman, Esq.
     GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
     800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
     Knoxville, TN 37929
     Tel: (865) 247-0080
     Fax: (865) 522-0049
     Email: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com

        -- and --

     Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
     J. Hunter Bryson, Esq.
     WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
     900 W. Morgan St.
     Raleigh, NC 27603
     Tel: 919-600-5000
     Fax: 919-600-5035
     Email: Dan@wbmllp.com
            Hunter@wbmllp.com


JUST FOR LAUGHS: Quebec Women Seek Class Action v. Co-Founder
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that several Quebec women are seeking
permission to file a class-action lawsuit against Just For Laughs
co-founder Gilbert Rozon for alleged sexual assault.

The women, who have created a group called "Les Courageuses" ("The
Courageous Ones"), issued a statement through one of the two legal
firms representing them.

They say they hope their action inspires other victims of sexual
assault to come forward, in Quebec and elsewhere.

In their statement, they allege Mr. Rozon abused at least 20 women
between 1982 and 2016, but they also believe that number is "just
the tip of the iceberg."

Mr. Rozon, 63, stepped down as president of Just For Laughs in
November following allegations from at least 10 women that he
either sexually harassed or sexually assaulted them.

Just For Laughs has mandated RBC Capital Markets to look into the
various possible options surrounding the sale of Mr. Rozon's
stake, a process that is ongoing.  The Just For Laughs Group has
said it intends to continue as normal with its projects. [GN]


KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Court Grants Dismissal of "Viggiano" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
issued an Opinion granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the
case captioned AMY VIGGIANO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORES,
INC., Defendant, Civ. Action No. 17-0243-BRM-TJB (D.N.J.).

Plaintiff Amy Viggiano asserts claims against Defendant for
alleged violations Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).  The
case arises from text messages Plaintiff received from Defendant
on her cellular phone in 2016.  Plaintiff initially consented to
receive the texts, but she later withdrew her consent by replying
to the automated texts with a variety of messages.  Defendant
continued to send texts to Plaintiff that indicated the only way
Plaintiff could opt out of the texts would be to text STOP to
Defendant.

Here, Plaintiff admits she "consented to receive automated
commercial text messages from Defendant."  Defendant does not deny
it used an ATDS to send texts to Plaintiff for a commercial
purpose.  The only issue, therefore, is whether Plaintiff has pled
facts that support a finding she revoked consent in a reasonable
manner such that Defendant's continued texts violated the TCPA.

In Epps v. Earth Fare, Inc., No. 16-8221, 2017 WL 1424637, (C.D.
Cal. Feb. 27, 2017), a case with nearly identical facts, the
Central District of California dismissed the complaint with
prejudice.  The Epps court found the plaintiff had failed to state
a valid TCPA claim because heeding Defendant's opt-out instruction
would not have plausibly been more burdensome on Plaintiff than
sending verbose requests to terminate the messages.  The Epps
court also found the plaintiff failed to allege the defendant made
it difficult or impossible to effectuate revocations.

The Court finds the Epps' court analysis and reasoning persuasive.
Plaintiff ignores the Epps court's reasoning that Epps failed to
allege the defendant deliberately designed a system that made it
difficult or impossible to opt out.  The Epps court's remark about
the comparative ease of texting STOP versus replying with several
sentences was not essential to its ruling.  The Court in this case
reaches the same conclusion in this matter.  Plaintiff does not
allege Defendant's purposefully made opting out difficult or
impossible.  Rather, Plaintiff bases her claim on the fact that
Defendant specified a means of opting out.  The FCC's ruling are
clear a caller may not designate a method of opting out in ways
that make it difficult or impossible to effectuate revocations.
Plaintiff's arguments to the contrary defy both the FCC's rulings
and common sense.

The Court has reviewed and taken notice of Plaintiff's
supplemental submissions, as well as her sur reply.  Nevertheless,
the Court finds Plaintiff has not plausibly pled a TCPA violation.
Therefore, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is granted.  Plaintiff's
Complaint is dismissed with prejudice.  As the Court finds
Plaintiff has not plausibly pled a TCPA violation, the Court need
not reach Defendant's arguments regarding the class allegations.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 27, 2017 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7yzmyz4 from Leagle.com.

AMY VIGGIANO, Plaintiff, represented by GERALD H. CLARK, Clark Law
Firm, PC, 811 Sixteenth Avenue. Belmar, NJ 07719

AMY VIGGIANO, Plaintiff, represented by MARK W. MORRIS, CLARK LAW
FIRM, 811 Sixteenth Avenue, Belmar, NJ 07719

KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORES, INC., Defendant, represented by JEFFREY
S. JACOBSON -- jjacobson@kelleydrye.com -- KELLEY DRYE & WARREN
LLP, LAURI A. MAZZUCHETTI -- lmazzuchetti@kelleydrye.com --
KELLEY, DRYE & WARREN, LLP & VINCENT P. RAO, II --
vrao@kelleydrye.com -- KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP.


LEMAN USA: Deprives Office Workers of Overtime, Malicki Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
JODIE L. MALICKI on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. LEMAN U.S.A., INC., a Domestic Corporation, Case No.
2:17-cv-01674 (E.D. Wisc., November 28, 2017), alleges that the
Defendant operates an unlawful compensation system that deprives
current and former non-exempt office and warehouse employees of
their wages earned for all compensable work performed each
workweek, including overtime.

Leman U.S.A., Inc., is a Sturtevant, Wisconsin corporation that
provides transportation and logistical services throughout the
United States.  The Company operates multiple locations throughout
the United States, in addition to its Wisconsin location,
including offices in Atlanta, Georgia; Charlotte, North Carolina;
Chicago, Illinois; Houston, Texas; Los Angeles, California; Miami,
Florida; and New York, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LITTLE CAESAR'S: "Ishaq" Labor Suit Claims Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
Ijaz Ishaq and Fehzen Khan, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Little Caesar's Northeast (3-
11), Inc., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-07009, (E.D. N.Y., December
1, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
compensatory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees
and prejudgment and post-judgment interest associated with the
bringing of this action, plus any additional relief pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

Defendants operate as a chain of pizzerias named "Little
Caesar's," where Plaintiffs worked as store staff in different
store locations. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Darren P. B. Rumack, Esq.
      THE KLEIN LAW GROUP
      11 Broadway Suite 960
      New York, NY 10004
      Tel: (212) 344-9022
      Fax: (212) 344-0301


M-I LLC: "Coder" Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------
Robert Coder, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Murray Alford, Craig Dawson, Michael Maloy, Robert
Theiss and Cory Veuleman v. M-I, LLC, Case No. 17-cv-15074 (E.D.
La., December 6, 2017), seeks to recover from the defendant unpaid
overtime compensation, an additional equal amount as liquidated
damages, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees under the
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant is supplier of drilling fluid systems used to improve
drilling performance by anticipating fluids-related problems,
fluid systems and specialty tools designed to optimize wellbore
productivity, production technology solutions to maximize
production rates and environmental solutions that safely manage
waste volumes generated in both drilling and production
operations. Coder worked for M-1 as a drilling fluid specialist.
He claims to have worked in excess of 40 hours per work week due
to on-call duties. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephen N. Elliott, Esq.
      Kenneth J. Deroche, Jr., Esq.
      BERNARD, CASSISA, ELLIOTT & DAVIS
      3838 N. Causeway Blvd., Suite 3050
      Metairie, LA 70002-8357
      Telephone: (504) 834-2612
      Fax: (504) 838-9438


M-I LLC: Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in FCRA Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Annica Bianco, Esq., of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, in an
article for Lexology, WROTE that on November 12, 2017, the U.S.
Supreme Court declined to hear a case that would have clarified an
important issue in Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) litigation, a
popular source of no-injury class action litigation.  The petition
sought review of a Ninth Circuit decision in a putative class
action holding that an "informational injur[y]" constitutes a
"real-world harm" sufficient to establish standing for purposes of
FCRA litigation. Petition for Writ of Certiorari at 4, M-I LLC v.
Syed, No. 16-1524 (June 19, 2017).

What constitutes an informational injury, practically speaking?
The answer is far from clear.  In Syed, the alleged "informational
injury" arose from the simple fact that the prospective employer
combined into one document the required FCRA disclosure with a
liability waiver. Syed v. M-I, LLC, 853 F.3d 492, 499 (9th Cir.
2017). Plaintiff's signature on that single document served as
both an authorization for the employer to procure his consumer
report and as a broad release of liability. Id. Plaintiff alleged
that the combination generated confusion concerning his rights and
that he would not have authorized the disclosure had it been a
standalone document. Id. The Ninth Circuit held those allegations
were sufficient to establish standing. Id. at 500.

Stated more generally, the Ninth Circuit found that an
informational injury can arise in the FCRA context "when
applicants are deprived of their ability to meaningfully authorize
[a] credit check." Id. at 499. In reaching this conclusion, the
court reasoned that FCRA's requirement that a job candidate
authorize the collection of consumer information by a prospective
employer creates a right to privacy because the candidate can
withhold permission. Id.

But the takeaway is broader: so-called "informational injuries"
can provide the requisite injury-in-fact to establish standing to
pursue a FCRA claim.  This is important because FCRA violations
can result in statutory penalties ranging from $100 to $1,000 per
violation, as well as punitive damages at the discretion of the
court, and attorneys' fees and costs.  On a class level, these
numbers add up.  In a 1,000 member class, for example, statutory
penalties alone can reach $1,000,000.

Syed broadened the universe of harms that may give rise to a FCRA
claim, and following the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari in
Syed, the concept of an "informational injury" will continue to be
subject to broad judicial interpretation.

The Supreme Court's decision not to hear Syed is also important
because it leaves intact the Ninth Circuit's ruling on the merits.
After finding the plaintiff had standing, the court went on to
hold that the prospective employer's combination of the required
FCRA disclosure with a liability waiver was not only a statutory
violation, but a willful violation of the statute. Id. at 503.
Effectively, the court held that the combination of the forms was
knowing or reckless. Id. (citing Safeco Insurance co. of America
v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47 (2007)). Under this precedent, employers will
continue to face the risk of FCRA liability from even technical
violations.

The landscape is different in other circuits. In August of this
year, for example, the Seventh Circuit considered an analogous
situation to Syed and came to the opposite conclusion. Groshek v.
Time Warner Cable, Inc., 865 F.3d 884 (7th Cir. 2017). In that
case, the plaintiff alleged that the prospective employer's
failure to provide a FCRA compliant disclosure constituted a
concrete informational injury. In Groshek, like Syed, the alleged
violation stemmed from the inclusion of "extraneous information"
in the disclosure. Id. at 885.  The Seventh Circuit found,
however, that while the plaintiff had alleged a statutory
violation, it was "completely removed from any concrete harm or
appreciable risk of harm." Id. at 887.

But Groshek distinguished Syed on the facts.  The Seventh Circuit
reasoned that Syed, unlike Groshek, presented factual allegations
plausibly suggesting that the disclosure, as structured, created
confusion, and that the plaintiff in Syed would not have signed
the disclosure had it been a standalone document, as required by
the FCRA. Id. at 889.

The Supreme Court's denial of certiorari preserves this arguable
split in circuit authority for now. But if the plaintiff in
Groshek has his way, the issue will be before the Supreme Court
soon.  On October 30, 2017, the Groshek plaintiff petitioned the
Supreme Court for certiorari.

Until the Supreme Court decides whether to hear the Groshek
appeal, employers concerned about potential FCRA liability should
give careful attention to their disclosure forms to ensure they
comply with the letter of the statute, to minimize the risk of
litigation.  If certiorari is granted, regardless of how the
Supreme Court decides the matter, the issue of FCRA standing and
injury could finally be clarified. [GN]


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Scheck Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LINDA SCHECK, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated
employees v. MAXIM HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., Case No. 5:17-cv-
02480-JRA (N.D. Ohio, November 27, 2017), seeks to recover alleged
unpaid wages, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest,
and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act and the Ohio
Prompt Pay Act.

Maxim Healthcare is a large and sophisticated corporation which,
through hundreds of office locations nationwide, provides in-home
personal care, management and treatment of a variety of conditions
by nurses, therapists, medical social workers, and home health
aides.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 N. Orange Ave., 16th Floor
          P.O. Box 4979
          Orlando, FL 32802-4979
          Telephone: (407) 420-1414
          Facsimile: (407) 425-8171
          E-mail: RMorgan@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Andrew Biller, Esq.
          MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO LLC
          Easton Town Center
          4200 Regent Street, Suite 200
          Columbus, OH 43219
          Telephone: (614) 604-8759
          Facsimile: (614) 583-8107
          E-mail: abiller@msdlegal.com

               - and -

          Andrew Kimble, Esq.
          MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO LLC
          3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
          Cincinnati, OH 45209
          Telephone: (513) 665-0213
          Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
          E-mail: akimble@msdlegal.com


MICHAEL FOODS: Judge Approves $75MM Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Angela Mueller, writing for Biz Journals, reports that a judge has
approved a $75 million settlement of a class action lawsuit
against Michael Foods, a subsidiary of St. Louis-based Post
Holdings Inc.  The suit, filed in 2008 in federal court in the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleged Michael Foods took part
in a price-fixing conspiracy. [GN]


MIDLAND CREDIT: "Gold" Suit Disputes Vague Collection Letter
------------------------------------------------------------
Libby Gold, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Midland Funding LLC, Midland Credit
Management, Inc. and Encore Capital Group, Inc., Defendants, Case
No. 17-cv-07048, (E.D. N.Y., December 4, 2017), requests statutory
damages, actual damages and attorney's fees and costs of suit
along with injunctive relief under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

On or about November 30, 2016, Defendants sent the Plaintiff a
collection letter seeking to collect a debt. Said latter failed to
clearly, explicitly and unambiguously convey the amount of the
debt and was void of an explanation about the "timing and system
limitations" as well as the amount of the "current balance." New
York City regulations require that a debt collector must provide a
consumer with specific information about the consumer's rights
regarding a time-barred account in every communication with the
consumer.

Midland Funding is engaged in the business of taking title to
charged-off consumer debts, including credit card, auto deficiency
and telecom receivables purchased from national financial
institutions, major retail credit corporations, telecom companies
and resellers of such portfolios. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Encore Capital Group, Inc. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam J. Fishbein, Esq.
      ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C. ATTORNEY AT LAW
      735 Central Avenue
      Woodmere, NY 11598
      Telephone: (516) 668-6945
      Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Can Arbitrate FDCPA Claims in "Thomas"
------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York issued a Memorandum of Decision and Order granting in part
and denying in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case
captioned NIEASHA THOMAS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC.,
Defendants, No. 2:17-cv-00523 (ADS)(ARL) (E.D.N.Y.).

The Plaintiff, Nieasha Thomas, commenced the action against the
Defendant Midland Credit Management, Inc., alleging violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).  The Plaintiff,
who is a New York resident, incurred a personal debt to Credit One
Bank, N.A., who is not a party to the action.  The Plaintiff fell
behind on her debt payments.  At some point, the debt was
transferred to the Defendant.  In an effort to collect the debt,
the Defendant sent a letter to the Plaintiff.

The Second Circuit has held that debt collectors are required to
disclose to consumers that their balance may increase due to
interest and fees.  In Avila v. Riexinger & Assocs., LLC, 817 F.3d
72, 76-77 (2d Cir. 2016), the court said that a "statement of an
amount due, without notice that the amount is already increasing
due to accruing interest or other charges, can mislead the least
sophisticated consumer into believing that payment of the amount
stated will clear her account."

Here, the Defendant argues that Avila is inapplicable because the
letter is clear that interest is not accruing.  The Court
disagrees.  First, the Plaintiff alleges that interest was
accruing during the relevant period.  The Court must accept the
Plaintiff's allegations as true at this stage of the litigation.
Second, while the letter states that interest and fees are zero at
the time the letter was sent, it does not state whether interest
would accrue at a later date.  This is further clouded by the fact
that the letter classifies the amount owed as the "current
balance," implying that interest may accrue.  The letter does not
clearly state that that the Plaintiff could resolve all of her
debt if she pays $633.56.  Instead, it leaves open the possibility
that interest would have accrued during the mailing of payment.

In the Court's view, the Defendant did not meet the minimum
standard set out by Avila, because the letter does not state when,
if ever, the amount owed by the Plaintiff would increase.  The
Court is hard pressed to believe that the Defendant would deem the
Plaintiff's account satisfied in full if the Plaintiff paid
$633.56 two years after the letter was sent.

Therefore, the Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to plausibly
plead claims for relief under Sections 1692e and 1692g based on
the letter's failure to adequately convey the debt.  Accordingly,
the Defendant's motion to dismiss those claims pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6) is denied.

While the Court took issue with language contained elsewhere, it
did recognize that the language follows almost verbatim the
language of Section 1692g(a) -- that is, it does not indicate that
a writing is required to contest a debt, but rather only to
trigger the debt collector's obligations to obtain and provide
verification of the debt. Similarly, other courts in this circuit
have found that notices that track the statutory language comply
with the FDCPA.

Therefore, as the Defendant's letter tracks the statutory language
of Section 1692g, which was held by the Second Circuit to not be
misleading, it does not violate Section 1692g or Section 1692e. It
does not violate Section 1692g because the letter contemplates
allowing the Plaintiff to dispute the debt orally, and it does not
violate Section 1692e because it is not misleading as to whether a
dispute must be made in writing.  Nor does the Court find that,
when read as a whole, the debt letter is misleading.  While the
back of the letter encourages debtors to retain several addresses
for their records, including an address to which a debtor can mail
disputes, it also provides the phone number again and states that
"[t]his does not alter or amend your validation rights as
described on the front side of this letter."  Therefore, the
Plaintiff cannot sustain claims for violation of Sections 1692g or
1692e, and the Defendant's motion to dismiss those claims pursuant
to Rule 12(b)(6) is granted.

The Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint is
granted in part, and denied in part.

The Court finds that the case clearly falls within the scope of
the Arbitration Agreement. The relevant provision defines Claims,
which according to the Arbitration Agreement may be submitted to
mandatory, binding arbitration by either party, as including
"collections matters relating to your account. Unquestionably, the
Plaintiff's FDCPA claims arise out of the Defendant's attempts to
collect the Plaintiff's credit card account debt. In her briefing,
the Plaintiff has not advanced any arguments to the contrary.
Therefore, the Plaintiff's individual FDCPA claim clearly falls
well within the scope of the Arbitration Agreement.

Having determined that Plaintiff's remaining FDCPA claims are
within the scope of and subject to the broad arbitration clause of
the Credit Card Agreement, and because the Defendant has requested
a stay, section 3 of the FAA mandates that the court stay the
trial of the action until such arbitration has been had in
accordance with the terms of the agreement, providing the
applicant for the stay is not in default in proceeding with such
arbitration.

The Court finds that the Plaintiff's remaining claims are subject
to the arbitration clause in the applicable Credit Card Agreement,
and the proceedings in this action must therefore be stayed
pending the outcome of arbitration.

The Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and stay this matter
pending arbitration is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 27, 2017
Memorandum of Decision and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y74q2xyv from Leagle.com.

Nieasha Thomas, Plaintiff, represented by Craig B. Sanders --
csanders@barshaysanders.com -- Barshay Sanders, PLLC.

Nieasha Thomas, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Barshay --
dbarshay@barshaysanders.com -- Sanders Law, PLLC.

Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dana
Brett Briganti -- dbriganti@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson
LLP, Ellen Beth Silverman -- esilverman@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw
& Cullertson & Han Sheng Beh -- hbeh@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw &
Culbertson LLP.


MINEBEA MITSUMI: Feb. 28 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

In Re: AUTOMOTIVE PARTS
ANTITRUST LITIGATION
Case No. 12-md-02311
Honorable Marianne O. Battani
In Re: SMALL BEARINGS CASES
THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
ALL DIRECT PURCHASER ACTIONS
2:17-cv-04201-MOB-MKM
2:17-cv-10853-MOB-MKM

NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF DIRECT
PURCHASER CLASS ACTION WITH MINEBEA
DEFENDANTS AND HEARING ON SETTLEMENT APPROVAL

TO: ALL INDIVIDUALS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED SMALL BEARINGS IN
THE UNITED STATES DIRECTLY FROM A DEFENDANT DURING THE PERIOD FROM
JUNE 1, 2003, THROUGH FEBRUARY 15, 2017.

PLEASE READ THIS ENTIRE NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS MAY BE
AFFECTED BY LITIGATION NOW PENDING IN THIS COURT.

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS NOTICE AND WHY WAS IT SENT TO ME?
This Notice is given pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division.  The
purpose of this Notice is to inform you of a proposed settlement
with Defendants MINEBEA MITSUMI Inc., NMB (USA), Inc., and NMB
Technologies Corporation (collectively, "Minebea"). Under the
terms of the proposed settlement, Minebea has made a payment
in the amount of $9,750,000 (the "Minebea Settlement Fund"), and
will provide cooperation to assist Plaintiff in the
prosecution of the claims against the Defendants in a related
action.

This litigation is part of coordinated legal proceedings involving
a number of parts used in motor vehicles
and other products.  The litigation, and the proposed settlement,
relate solely to Small Bearings purchased directly
from a Defendant. These proceedings do not relate to, and have no
effect upon, cases involving any other product
or purchaser.

For purposes of the proposed settlement, "Small Bearings" refers
to bearings whose outer diameter is 30 millimeters or less. Small
Bearings are used in numerous applications, including but not
limited to the following automotive applications: air conditioning
compressors, alternators, anti-lock braking systems, cooling fans,
fuel pumps, motors for electric control systems, starters,
steering systems, transmissions, water pumps, wheels, and
windshield wiper motors.

If you purchased Small Bearings in the United States directly from
any of the Defendants identified below during the period from June
1, 2003, through February 15, 2017 (the "Class Period"), you are a
member of the Minebea Settlement Class and have the rights and
options summarized here:

   * You may remain in the Minebea Settlement Class and be
eligible to share in the Minebea Settlement Fund under a claims
procedure that will be instituted in the future;

   * You may exclude yourself from the Minebea Settlement Class,
in which case you will not be bound by
the settlement and will not be eligible to share in the Minebea
Settlement Fund;

   * If you do not exclude yourself from the Minebea Settlement
Class, you may object in writing to the proposed settlement or to
the request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
litigation costs and expenses, and appear at the hearing where the
Court will determine whether the proposed settlement
should be approved as fair, adequate and reasonable, and whether a
portion of the Minebea Settlement Fund may be used to pay for
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation costs and
expenses; and

   * You may enter an appearance in the litigation through your
own counsel at your own expense.

You do not need to take any action at this time if you wish to
remain in the Minebea Settlement Class. You should retain all of
your records of Small Bearings purchases for use in the claims
procedure that will be instituted at a later date.

WHO IS IN THE SETTLEMENT CLASS?
On May 23, 2017, the Court certified a Direct Purchaser Minebea
Settlement Class for purposes of disseminating notice of the
proposed settlement, defined as follows:

All individuals and entities (excluding any Defendants and their
present and former
parents, subsidiaries and affiliates) that purchased Small
Bearings in the United States directly from one or more Defendants
from June 1, 2003 through February 15, 2017.

For purposes of this Minebea Settlement Class definition, the
following entities are Defendants: MINEBEA MITSUMI Inc.; NMB
(USA), Inc.; NMB Technologies Corporation; NSK Ltd.; NSK Americas,
Inc.; and NSK Corporation.

Plaintiff McGuire Bearing Company has been appointed by the Court
to serve as the Class Representative for the Minebea Settlement
Class.  The Court has appointed the law firms of Freed Kanner
London & Millen LLC; Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C.; Preti, Flaherty,
Beliveau & Pachios LLP; Spector Roseman & Kodroff, P.C.; Cera LLP;
and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC to serve as Settlement
Class Counsel for the Minebea Settlement Class.

WHAT IS THIS LITIGATION ABOUT?
In 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of direct
purchasers of Small Bearings against Defendants NSK Ltd., NSK
Americas, Inc., and NSK Corporation (the "NSK Defendants") (the
"NSK Action").

In March 2017, Plaintiff McGuire Bearing Company filed a class
action complaint alleging that Minebea conspired with the NSK
Defendants to suppress and eliminate competition for Small
Bearings by agreeing to raise, fix, maintain, and stabilize
prices, and to allocate markets and customers, for Small Bearings
sold in the United States, in violation of federal antitrust laws.
Plaintiff further alleges that as a result of the conspiracy, it
and other direct purchasers of Small Bearings have been injured by
paying more for those products than they would have paid in the
absence of the alleged illegal conduct. Plaintiff seeks recovery
of treble damages, together with reimbursement of ligation costs
and expenses and an award of attorneys' fees.

Minebea denies Plaintiff's allegations, and has agreed to settle
this matter in order to avoid the expense and burden of further
litigation.  The Court has not issued any findings or rulings with
respect to the merits of Plaintiff's claims or Minebea's defenses.
This is a settlement with Minebea only. The litigation against the
NSK Defendants will continue.

WHAT RELIEF DOES THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT PROVIDE?
Plaintiff, on behalf of the Minebea Settlement Class, has entered
into a settlement agreement with Minebea dated February 15, 2017,
in which Minebea has agreed to pay $9,750,000 into an escrow
account.  The Settlement Agreement gives Minebea the right to
withdraw from the settlement based upon valid and timely requests
for exclusion by members of the Minebea Settlement Class if such
requests for exclusion exceed a specified threshold.
Minebea has also agreed to cooperate with Plaintiff in the
prosecution of the lawsuit against the NSK Defendants, by
providing the following cooperation: (a) production of documents,
data, and other information potentially relevant to Direct
Purchaser Plaintiff's claims; (b) assistance in understanding
information produced to Direct Purchaser Plaintiff and using such
information at trial; (c) meetings between Settlement Class
Counsel and Minebea's attorneys, to provide proffers of
information relevant to the NSK Action; (d) witness interviews;
(e) depositions; and (f) trial testimony.

Settlement Class Counsel agreed to the proposed settlement to
ensure a fair and reasonable resolution of Plaintiff's claims, and
to provide benefits to the members of the Minebea Settlement
Class, while recognizing the existence of complex, contested
issues of law and fact, the risks inherent in such complex
litigation (including the risk of no recovery), and the likelihood
that without a settlement, future proceedings would take several
years and be extremely costly. Settlement Class Counsel believe
that it is in the best interests of the Minebea Settlement Class
to enter into the proposed settlement and resolve this litigation
as to Minebea.

This Notice is only a summary of the terms of the proposed
settlement. The Settlement Agreement contains other important
provisions, including the release of certain claims against
Minebea.  A copy of the Settlement Agreement is on file with the
Clerk of Court and available online at
www.AutoPartsAntiTrustLitigation.com.  The proposed settlement
must receive final approval by the Court in order to become
effective.

If you are a member of the Minebea Settlement Class and the
proposed settlement is approved and becomes effective, you will be
bound by its terms, including the release provisions.  If you wish
to object to approval of the Minebea settlement, you may do so,
but only in accordance with the procedures set forth below. If you
do not object to the Minebea settlement, you do not need to take
any action at this time to indicate your support for, or lack of
objection to, the settlement.

HOW DO I REMAIN IN THE SETTLEMENT CLASS AND WHAT HAPPENS IF I DO?
If you are a member of the Minebea Settlement Class, you will
automatically remain in the Class unless you elect to be excluded.
If you wish to remain in the Class, you do not need to take any
action at this time; your interests will be represented by the
Class Representative and by Settlement Class Counsel. You will
have no responsibility to individually pay attorneys' fees or
expenses. Any attorneys' fees and expenses will be paid solely
from the Minebea Settlement Fund and must be approved by the
Court.  If you choose, you may also have your own attorney enter
an appearance on your behalf and at your expense.

If you remain in the Minebea Settlement Class and a final judgment
order dismissing Minebea from the litigation becomes final and
unappealable, you will be bound by that judgment.

As a member of the Minebea Settlement Class, you will be eligible
to share in the Minebea Settlement Fund pursuant to a claims
procedure that will begin at a later date.  Settlement Class
Counsel are not presently asking the Court to distribute any
Minebea Settlement Fund proceeds.  If you remain a member of the
Minebea Settlement Class, you will receive additional notice at a
later date and you will have an opportunity to object to and be
heard in connection with the proposed plan of distribution at that
time.

Do not dispose of any document that reflects your purchases of
Small Bearings in the United States directly from any Defendant
during the period from June 1, 2003, through February 15, 2017.
You may need those documents to complete a claim form in the
future, which would be subject to inquiry and verification if
the Minebea settlement is approved.

WHAT IF I DO NOT WANT TO REMAIN IN THE SETTLEMENT CLASS?
If you wish to exclude yourself from the Minebea Settlement Class,
you must send a request for exclusion, in writing, via certified
mail, return receipt requested, postmarked no later than January
8, 2018, to Settlement Class Co-Lead Counsel and to counsel for
Minebea, at the addresses set forth below, and to the following
address:

    Small Bearings Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation
    P.O. Box 3560
    Portland, OR 97208-3560

Your request for exclusion must include the full name and address
of the purchaser (including any predecessor or successor entities
and any trade names).  You are also requested to identify the
Defendant(s) from which you purchased Small Bearings during the
Class Period, the type of Small Bearings purchased, and the dollar
amount of those purchases.  If you validly exclude yourself from
the Minebea Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any
decision concerning the Minebea settlement and you may
individually pursue any claims you may have against Minebea at
your own expense, but you will not be eligible to share in the
Minebea Settlement Fund.

HOW WILL SETTLEMENT CLASS COUNSEL BE PAID?
The Court has appointed the law firms identified above as
Settlement Class Counsel.  These law firms and the other
Settlement Class Counsel will file a petition for an award of
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of their out-of-pocket costs and
expenses. The request of Settlement Class Counsel for attorneys'
fees will not exceed 33 and 1/3 percent of the Minebea Settlement
Fund.

The application for attorneys' fees and litigation costs and
expenses will be filed on or before December 18, 2017. If you
remain in the Minebea Settlement Class and you wish to object to
the requests for attorneys' fees and litigation costs and
expenses, you must do so in writing in accordance with the
procedures for objections set forth below. If you do not oppose
these requests, you do not need to take any action in that regard.

WHEN WILL THE COURT DECIDE WHETHER TO APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT AND
FEE REQUEST, AND HOW CAN I TELL THE COURT WHAT I THINK ABOUT THE
SETTLEMENT AND FEES?

The Court will hold a hearing on February 28, 2018, at 1:00 p.m.,
at the Theodore Levin United States Courthouse, 231 West Lafayette
Boulevard, Detroit, MI 48226, Courtroom 272, to determine whether
the proposed Minebea settlement should be approved as fair,
reasonable, and adequate.  The Court will also consider at the
hearing whether to approve Settlement Class Counsel's request for
an award of attorneys' fees and litigation costs and expenses from
the Minebea Settlement Fund. The hearing may be rescheduled
without further notice to you.

If you do not exclude yourself from the Minebea Settlement Class
and you wish to object to the Minebea settlement or to the request
for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation
costs and expenses, you must do so in writing.  Your objection
must include the caption of this litigation, must be signed, and
be filed no later than January 8, 2018, with the Clerk of Court,
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan,
Southern Division, Theodore Levin United States Courthouse, 231
West Lafayette Boulevard, Detroit, MI 48226, and mailed to the
following counsel, postmarked no later than January 8, 2018:

          Steven A. Kanner
          FREED KANNER LONDON
          & MILLEN LLC
          2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
          Bannockburn, IL 60015
          Telephone: (224) 632-4500

          Joseph C. Kohn
          KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
          One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 238-1700

          Gregory P. Hansel
          PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU
          & PACHIOS LLP
          One City Center, P.O. Box 9546
          Portland, ME 04112-9546
          Telephone: (207) 791-3000

          Eugene A. Spector
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.
          1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-0300

Co-Lead Counsel for the Direct Purchaser Minebea Settlement Class

          James L. Cooper
          ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
          601 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20014-3743
          Telephone: (202) 942-5014

Counsel for the Minebea Defendants

If you do not object to the proposed Minebea settlement or to the
request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
litigation costs and expenses, you do not need to appear at the
hearing or take any other action at this time.

WHAT SHOULD I DO IF I WANT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR IF MY ADDRESS
CHANGES? If this Notice reached you at an address other than the
one on the mailing label, or if your address changes,
please send your correct address to the address below.

   Small Bearings Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litgation
   P.O. Box 3560
   Portland, OR 97208-3560

The Settlement Agreement, Complaint, and other public documents
filed in this litigation are available for review during normal
business hours at the offices of the Clerk of Court, United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern
Division, Theodore Levin United States Courthouse, 231 West
Lafayette Boulevard, Detroit, MI 48226, and through the Court's
Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system after
registration and payment of a modest fee.  Copies of the
Settlement Agreement and certain other documents relevant
to this litigation are available at
www.AutoPartsAntiTrustLitigation.com.  Questions concerning the
proposed settlement, this Notice, or the litigation may be
directed to any of the Settlement Class Counsel identified above.
Please do not contact the Clerk of the Court or the Judge.

Dated: November 14, 2017

BY ORDER OF:
The United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division


MONSANTO COMPANY: Skundrick Sues Over Roundup(R)-Related Lymphoma
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PHILLIP SKUNDRICK v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 1:17-cv-01887-CL
(D. Ore., November 27, 2017), alleges that the Defendant's
Roundup(R) products and glyphosate are defective, dangerous to
human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in
commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the
dangers associated with its use.

Mr. Skundrick brings the action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to herbicide Roundup(R) containing the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine.  As a
direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, he
alleges that he developed Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, specifically
large B-cell lymphoma.

Monsanto is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of
business in St. Louis, Missouri.  Monsanto is a multinational
agricultural biotechnology corporation and is the world's leading
producer of glyphosate.  The Company is engaged in the business of
designing, developing, manufacturing, testing, packaging,
marketing, distributing, labeling, and selling of Roundup.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason Kafoury, Esq.
          KAFOURY & MCDOUGAL
          411 SW Second Avenue, Suite 200
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: (503) 224-2647
          Facsimile: (503) 224-2673
          E-mail: Kafoury@kafourymcdougal.com

               - and -

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


NALCOR ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over River Flooding
-----------------------------------------------------
The Telegram reports that a proposed class action lawsuit filed
against Nalcor Energy and the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador alleges the Muskrat Falls hydroelectric project caused
the flooding that led to the emergency evacuation of the Mud Lake
area and subsequent damage to properties.

The class action, which must be certified by the court before
advancing to trial, is being led by Wagners Law Firm of Halifax
and seeks to recover losses for the residents affected by the
flooding.

It alleges that the actions of government and the Crown
corporation in relation to the project constituted unreasonable
interference with residents' property rights and that their
actions have been negligent.

Last spring, Mud Lake suffered severe flooding after an ice jam
just downstream forced spring runoff water into the community.
Locals said that while the community has flooded before, they'd
never experienced anything like that.

Nalcor Energy said the Muskrat Falls hydroelectric dam wasn't to
blame, but persistent questions caused the government to
commission an independent study by Dr. Karl-Erich Lindenschmidt to
determine what happened.

The results of the study, released in October, concluded that the
project was not to blame.

"The high freshet discharge that occurred during May 2017 was
caused by natural events, particular the rain-on-snow event in the
middle basin of the Churchill River and the high rainfall event
just prior to and during the May 2017 flood,"
Mr. Lindenschmidt concluded in the report.

"The Muskrat Falls spillway was operated in such a manner as to
release the same amount of water through the spillway that was
flowing into the reservoir; hence, the ice-jam flood event of 17
May 2017 along the lower reach of the Churchill River cannot be
attributed to the operations of the spillway."

Raymond Wagner, lawyer for the residents, says the report was not
definitive.

"The consultants retained by the province and Nalcor received
preliminary data from the federal government and Nalcor.  We have
concerns with the integrity and completeness of the data they have
reviewed, and they themselves have reiterated their review is only
preliminary.  And even on the basis of their preliminary review,
they have pointed out that the flood forecasting system in place
is inadequate," Mr. Wagner stated in a new release announcing the
class action, noting that other experts' opinion will be consulted
as litigation advances. [GN]


NATIONAL OILWELL: "Esqueda" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT, Damages
---------------------------------------------------------
Marco Esqueda, on behalf of himself individually, and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. National Oilwell Varco, L.P.
Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-03687 (S.D. Tex., December 5, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime as well as other damages,
including damages for unlawful retaliation, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was hired and employed by National Oilwell Varco at its
Houston, Texas location as a welder. Esqueda claims he was denied
overtime wages for hours worked above forty. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Taft L. Foley, II, Esq.
      THE FOLEY LAW FIRM
      3003 South Loop West, Suite 108
      Houston, TX 77054
      Phone: (832) 778-8182
      Facsimile: (832) 778-8353
      Email: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com


NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: "Fennel" Sues Over Illegal Collection Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Fennel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-
situated, Plaintiff, v. Navient Solutions, LLC, Xerox Education
Services LLC, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-02083 (M.D. Fla., December
4, 2017), seeks compensatory damages including interest,
reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action, including
counsel fees and expert fees, rescission or a rescissory measure
of damages and such equitable/injunctive or other relief under the
Telephone Consumers Protection Act.

Defendants attempted to collect a debt incurred by Fennel arising
from a student loan. They placed unauthorized calls to Fennel's
cellular phone using an automatic telephone dialing system with a
pre-recorded or artificial voices. Plaintiff expressly revoked any
prior express consent to receive calls to her cellular phone. [BN]

Navient Solutions, Inc. -- https://www.navient.com/about --
provides loan management, servicing and asset recovery solutions
to clients in higher education and business clients, as well as
federal, state, and local governments. The company offers
financial services in the areas of education loan, private student
loan and asset recovery.

Xerox Education Services, now Conduent Education Services, --
https://www.conduenteducation.com -- is a business process
services company headquartered in New Jersey. It was formed in
2017 as a divestiture from Xerox and manages campus-based loans
and receivables in higher education institutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher W. Boss, Esq.
      BOSS LAW
      9887 4th St. North, Suite 202
      St. Petersburg FL 33702
      Telephone: (727) 471-0039
      Fax: (888) 503-2182
      Email: CPService@protectyourfuture.com

             - and -

      W. Craft Hughes, Esq.
      Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
      HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
      2700 Post Oak Blvd., Ste. 1120
      Galleria Tower I
      Houston, TX 77056
      Phone: (713) 554-2377
      Fax: (888) 995-3335
      Email: craft@hughesellzey.com
             jarrett@hughesellzey.com


NEVSUN RESOURCES: Loses Bid to Dismiss Eritreans' Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gabrielle Giroday, writing for Canadian Lawyer, reports that the
move by a British Columbia company to stop a class action on
behalf of Eritreans who say they were forced to work in a mine has
failed.

In Araya v. Nevsun Resources Ltd., 2017 BCCA 401, the Court of
Appeal for British Columbia has nixed the move by Nevsun to have
the action dismissed in British Columbia.

The plaintiffs in the class action are three Eritrean refugees who
allege they were forced to work in a gold mine in the country in
Northeast Africa.  According to the ruling, the mine is partially
owned by Nevsun and partially owned by Eritrean state companies.

"There is no doubt that in pursuing claims under [customary
international law], the plaintiffs face significant legal
obstacles, including states' legitimate concerns about comity and
equality and the role of the judiciary as opposed to that of the
legislature.  It is not necessarily the case, however, that the
recognition of a [customary international law] norm against
torture as the basis for some type of private law remedy in this
instance would bring the entire system of international law
crashing down," said the ruling by Justice Mary Newbury, with
justices Peter Willcock and Gail Dickson agreeing.

The class action is based on allegations by the former miners that
"international law norms against forced labour, slavery and
torture were violated during the construction of the mine,"
according to the ruling.  Efforts to sue the company are on behalf
of more than 1,000 people who allegedly "had been conscripted into
the military under the Eritrean National Service Program and
deployed at the mine," it said.

"The plaintiffs assert that Nevsun engaged the Eritrean military
and corporations controlled by it and by the [People's Front for
Democracy and Justice] to build the mine and related
infrastructure.  For this purpose, the military deployed or
provided forced labour, conscripted under Eritrea's National
Service Program," said the ruling.

"The plaintiffs say they were among those forced to work at the
mine in inhuman conditions and under the constant threat of
physical punishment, torture and imprisonment, even after they had
served their periods of conscription in the military."

In the proceeding, Nevsun had applied to have an earlier decision
of the Supreme Court of British Columbia overturned, Araya v.
Nevsun Resources Ltd., 2016 BCSC 1856.

Nevsun applied under the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings
Transfer Act to have the action stayed, arguing that Eritrea would
be the appropriate place for the dispute to be resolved.

"Most important for purposes of this appeal, Nevsun denies that
the courts of this province have, or should take, jurisdiction to
try the case at all. Although a British Columbia court has
territorial jurisdiction by virtue of the fact that the company is
"ordinarily resident" in the province. . . Nevsun submits that
British Columbia is not the most appropriate forum for the
determination of the plaintiffs' claims and that the forum
conveniens would be an Eritrean court or other tribunal," said the
ruling.

It also argued that the action should be stayed based on the act
of state doctrine, which limits courts from adjudicating matters
that involve other governments within their own respective
territory.  Lastly, it contended that any action based on
customary international law should be quashed, over the assertion
that no right to civil remedies in Canada for torture if an
incident occurs in a foreign country.

However, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia stated the case
could proceed.

"We have seen that international law is 'in flux' and that
transnational law, which regulates 'actions or events that
transcend national frontiers' is developing, especially in
connection with human rights violations that are not effectively
addressed by traditional 'international mechanisms'. . .," said
the ruling.

"Other jurisdictions have been willing to hold corporate actors
accountable for violations of jus cogens [compelling law]; and
over time, the doctrine of act of state has been limited by public
policy considerations said to be part of domestic law."

Arlene O'Neill -- aoneill@grllp.com -- partner at Gardiner Roberts
LLP, says the case is important when it comes to the standards
that private companies are going to be held to when they're
operating overseas.

"I think it's quite clear that the standards are going up, and
certainly, the standards is public opinion are going up," says Ms.
O'Neill, who was not involved in the case.

"Companies when they go overseas, and they go into these joint
ventures, they are in the court of public opinion -- in Western
countries -- you're not going to be able to dip down to local,
lower-level of law and say that somehow you're exempt, from
something that is well-accepted, as morally wrong." [GN]


NEW GENERATION: "King" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
KEANDRA KING, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v.
NEW GENERATION HEALTH SVCS, INC., A GEORGIA CORPORATION, Case No.
1:17-cv-04785-MHC (N.D. Ga., November 28, 2017), is brought under
the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover from the Defendant alleged
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs.

New Generation is a health care services company with its
principal place of business in Stockbridge, Georgia, which is in
Henry County, Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor
          P.O. Box 4979
          Orlando, FL 32802-4979
          Telephone: (407) 420-1414
          Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
          E-mail: RMorgan@forthepeople.com


NFL: Counsel's Ties to Litigation Funder Questioned
---------------------------------------------------
Max Mitchell, writing for Law.com, reports that a lead attorney in
the NFL concussion settlement has been very critical of numerous
third-party litigation funding companies that have loaned money to
retired players involved in the class action, but it is his
alleged failure to publicly disclose his history with another
litigation funding company that has raised some eyebrows recently.
[GN]


NOVAN INC: Pomerantz LLP Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Novan, Inc. ("Novan" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:NOVN) and
certain of its officers.  The class action, filed in United States
District Court, for the Middle District of North Carolina, and
docketed under 17-cv-01066, is on behalf of a class consisting of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Novan's stock: (1)
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 (the "IPO" or the "Offering"); and/or (2) on the open market
between September 26, 2016 and August 1, 2017, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused
by Defendants' violations of the Securities Act of 1933 (the
"Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Novan securities between
September 26, 2016, and August 1, 2017, both dates inclusive, you
have until January 2, 2018, to ask the Court to appoint you as
Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be
obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss this action,
contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and amount of shares purchased.

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

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.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and outlook, specifically regarding SB204.
Specifically, (i) Defendants repeatedly stated that Novan had
commenced and performed two identically designed Phase 3 clinical
trials of SB204; (ii) 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
(iii) 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, 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 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%.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida,
and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in
the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the
field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com

         CONTACT:
         Robert S. Willoughby, Esq.
         Pomerantz LLP
         Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]


OCERA THERAPEUTICS: "Franchi" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Franchi, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Ocera Therapeutics, Inc., Eckard Weber,
Linda S. Grais, Willard Dere, Steven P. James, Nina Kjellson, Anne
M. Vanlent, Wendell Wierenga, MAK LLC, MEH Acquisition Co., and
Mallinckrodt plc, Case No. 3:17-cv-06636 (N.D. Calif., November
17, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on
November 2, 2017, pursuant to which Ocera Therapeutics, Inc. will
be acquired by affiliates of Mallinckrodt plc.

The Plaintiff alleges that the solicitation statement omits
material information with respect to the proposed transaction,
which renders the solicitation statement false and misleading.

Plaintiff Anthony Franchi is the owner of Ocera common stock.

Defendant Ocera is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company
targeting acute and chronic orphan liver diseases. The Defendant
is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal executive
offices at 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 615, Redwood City, CA
94065. Ocera's common stock is traded on the NasdaqCM under the
ticker symbol "OCRX."

The Individual Defendants served as directors of Ocera.

Defendant Mallinckrodt plc is an Irish public limited company, the
ultimate parent entity of Parent and Merger Sub, and a party to
the Merger Agreement.

Defendant Parent is a Delaware limited liability company, an
indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Mallinckrodt plc, and a party
to the Merger Agreement.

Defendant Merger Sub is a Delaware corporation, a direct wholly-
owned subsidiary of Parent, and a party to the Merger Agreement.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
      WEISSLAW LLP
      9107 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 450
      Beverly Hills, CA 90210
      Tel: (310) 208-2800
      Fax: (310) 209-2348
      E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com


OMEGA PROTEIN: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., disclosed that it has filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Nevada on behalf of holders of Omega Protein Corporation ("Omega")
(NYSE:OME) common stock in connection with the proposed
acquisition of Omega by Cooke, Inc. and its affiliate ("Cooke")
announced on October 6, 2017 (the "Complaint").  The Complaint,
which alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Omega, its Board of Directors (the "Board"), and Cooke, is
captioned Franchi v. Omega Protein Corporation, Case No. 2:17-cv-
02805 (D. Nev.).

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
plaintiff's counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120, Wilmington,
DE 19803, by telephone at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail at info@rl-
legal.com, or at http://rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/.

On October 5, 2017, Omega entered into an agreement and plan of
merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Cooke.  Pursuant to the
Merger Agreement, shareholders of Omega will receive, for each
share of Omega they own, $22.00 in cash (the "Proposed
Transaction").

Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to
secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction,
defendants issued materially incomplete disclosures in a
Preliminary Proxy Statement (the "Proxy Statement") filed with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission.  The Complaint
alleges that the Proxy Statement, which recommends that Omega
stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits
material information necessary to enable shareholders to make an
informed decision as to how to vote on the Proposed Transaction,
including material information with respect to Omega's financial
projections, the analyses performed by Omega's financial advisor,
and the background of the Proposed Transaction.  The Complaint
seeks injunctive and equitable relief and damages on behalf of
holders of Omega common stock.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than January 26, 2018.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  Any member of the proposed class may move the Court
to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

With offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden City, New York,
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. -- http://www.rigrodskylong.com--
regularly prosecutes securities fraud, shareholder corporate, and
shareholder derivative litigation on behalf of shareholders in
state and federal courts throughout the United States. [GN]


PATIENT INNOVATION: Tomala Estate Seeks to Recover Wages and OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Estate of Alexandra Tomala, to be administered by
Boguslawa Tomala individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated as class representative under Illinois Law
and/or as members of the Collective as permitted under the Fair
Labor Standards Act v. Patient Innovation Center, NFP and
Christopher Gay and Angelica Magana Named as an Employers under
the FLSA and IWPCA, Case No. 1:17-cv-08530 (N.D. Ill., November
27, 2017), alleges that the Plaintiff and the proposed class
members are entitled to be paid at least minimum wage for all
hours worked and to receive time and half for all hours worked
over 40 hours per week pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act.

Patient Innovation Center is a corporation or business, which does
business in Illinois.  PIC is a provider of assistance to
customers seeking to register or use insurance.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John C. Ireland, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. IRELAND
          636 Spruce Street
          South Elgin, IL 60177
          Telephone: (630) 464-9675
          Facsimile: (630) 206-0889
          E-mail: attorneyireland@gmail.com


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: "Aikens" Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Leonard D. Wexler of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York dismissed without prejudice the case
captioned SHARON AIKENS, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. CV 16-1159 (E.D. N.Y.).

Aikens, owed a debt on a Capital One credit card, which was
subsequently purchased by the Defendant.  PRA then contacted the
Plaintiff in an attempt to collect on her debt.  On March 11,
2015, the Plaintiff and PRA entered into an oral agreement over
the telephone, whereby PRA would automatically debit the
Plaintiff's checking account each month in the amount of $32.91
until her debt was satisfied.  PRA began debiting her checking
account in April 2015 and continues to do so to date.

The Plaintiff commenced the within putative class action on March
8, 2016, alleging that PRA violated the Electronic Funds Transfer
Act ("EFTA") by failing to obtain her consent for the monthly
automated electronic transfers in writing.  She alleges that PRA
further violated the EFTA by failing to provide her with a copy of
her signed, written authorization.  The Plaintiff seeks statutory
damages, as well as attorney's fees and costs.

PRA now moves to dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint, pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), for lack of
jurisdiction, on the grounds that the Plaintiff does not have
standing to pursue the action because she has not suffered a
"concrete injury," as defined by the Supreme Court's holding in
Snokeo. Inc. v. Robins.  The Plaintiff opposes the motion.

Judge Wexler finds that the Plaintiff amassed a debt that she
failed to pay.  After acquiring that debt, PRA entered into a
monthly payment plan with her, which she authorized and agreed to,
whereby PRA would debit her checking account each month.  Now, the
Plaintiff seeks to obtain money damages from PRA for allegedly
violating the EFTA by not obtaining her agreement in writing.  The
Judge says there is no concrete injury here.  The Plaintiff
authorized PRA to withdraw money from her account to repay the
debt she owed.  PRA did not take more money than was agreed to.
Nor did they withdraw the money from any other account than that
which Plaintiff authorized.  The Judge fails to see how the
Plaintiff suffered any injury here whatsoever.

Since the Plaintiff has failed to establish standing to bring the
within action, Judge Wexler granted the Defendant's motion to
dismiss, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), and
the action is dismissed without prejudice.  He directed the Clerk
of the Court to enter an Amended Judgment consistent with the
Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 28, 2017 Amended Order is
available at https://is.gd/UkzJoz from Leagle.com.

Sharon Aikens, Plaintiff, represented by Justin Alan Auslaender --
jauslaender@consumerlawinfo.com -- The Aslaender Firm P.C..

Sharon Aikens, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Rolland --
mrolland@rollandlegal.com -- Thompson Consumer Law Group, PLLC,
pro hac vice.

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Defendant, represented by
David L. Hartsell -- dhartsell@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods
LLP, pro hac vice, Michael James Van Riper --
mvanriper@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP & Sarah Zielinski -
- szielinski@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac vice.


PPG ARCHITECTURAL: "Cortese" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert P. Cortese, on behalf of himself and similarly situated
employees v. PPG Architectural Coatings, N.A., Case No. 2:17-cv-
01501 (W.D. Pa., November 17, 2017), seeks to recover damages for
unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

Plaintiff Robert P. Cortese resides in Baldwin Township,
Pennsylvania. Plaintiff worked for Defendant from March 2004 until
on or about October 12, 2017.

Defendant PPG Architectural Coatings N.A. is a division of PPG
Industries, Inc. Defendant develops, manufactures, and sells
paints and stains to homeowners and professionals around the
country. Defendant maintains its principal place of business at
400 Bertha Lamme Drive, Cranberry Township, PA 16066. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph H. Chivers, Esq.
      First & Market Building
      Suite 650, 100 First Avenue
      Pittsburgh, PA 15222-1514
      Tel: (412) 227-0763
      Fax: (412) 774-1994
      E-mail: jchivers@employmentrightsgroup.com

          - and -

      John R. Linkosky, Esq.
      JOHN LINKOSKY & ASSOCIATES
      715 Washington Avenue
      Carnegie, PA 15106
      Tel: (412) 278-1280
      Fax: (412) 278-1282
      E-mail: linklaw@comcast.net


PRIME COMMUNICATIONS: "Gales" Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Gales, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Prime Communications Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 17-cv- 02528 (N.D. Ohio, December 4, 2017), seeks unpaid
wages, overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees
and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Prime Communications Inc. is an authorized reseller of electronic
equipment for AT&T. Defendant operates over 50 retail locations in
the State of Ohio where Gales was employed by Defendant as a
Retail Store Manager. Plaintiff claims to be denied overtime
compensation for all of the hours they worked over 40 each
workweek due to Defendant's failure to keep accurate time-keeping
records. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
      Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
      Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
      THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
      920 Rockefeller Building
      614 W. Superior Avenue
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Phone: (216) 696-5000
      Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
      Email: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
             chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com
             lori@lazzarolawfirm.com


PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND: Rob Ford Lawyer Joins E-Gaming Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Teresa Wright, writing for The Guardian, reports that a high-
profile Toronto lawyer whose former clients include the late Rob
Ford is now representing three people named in P.E.I.'s ongoing
$50 million e-gaming lawsuit.

Gavin Tighe has been retained to represent Bill Dow, Gary Scales
and Tracey Cutcliffe.

Tighe successfully defended Ford in a $6 million defamation
lawsuit in 2013 brought against him by a Toronto restaurateur. He
has also represented other high-profile clients and specializes in
professional liability at Gardiner Roberts LLP in Toronto.

He recently joined the team of lawyers involved in the P.E.I. e-
gaming lawsuit after the company suing the P.E.I. government -
Capital Markets Technologies (CMT) -- added a number of additional
defendants.

All of those in the long list of defendants named in the e-gaming
suit, who are currently or were formerly employed by the province,
are being represented by local lawyer Jonathan Coady, Esq. --
jcoady@stewartmckelvey.com -- of Stewart McKelvey.

Another defendant, private businessman Paul Jenkins, has retained
Ken Godfrey of Campbell Lea for legal representation in the case.

Tighe, meanwhile, will represent the three lawyers named in the
case.

The e-gaming suit and Tighe's role in it came up in the P.E.I.
legislature Friday, when Opposition MLA Steven Myers questioned
why "Rob Ford's 'crazy town' lawyer" was added to the case.

Myers also questioned why, eight months after the CMT lawsuit was
filed in court, government has not yet filed a statement of
defence or any other legal response.

The Guardian has confirmed the reason is due to a number of legal
procedures that have led to delays.

One of those procedures involved CMT having to retain a new legal
representation after its lawyer, John W. Findlay, was suspended
from practising law by the Law Society of Upper Canada in July. He
was also placed under investigation for $1.5 million missing from
a class action settlement fund involving a wholly unrelated case
Findlay was involved in dating back to 2006.

Another procedural delay was caused by CMT adding extra defendants
to the e-gaming suit after it was already filed it in court.

Doing this requires either the consent of the court or of the
defendants. Locating the new defendants and allowing them time to
get legal representation and determine their legal options takes
time.

"Given that the plaintiffs need to fix their claim to correct
errors and add more defendants, the government does not have any
obligation to file a defence at this time," Coady said in a
statement to The Guardian.

"When the claim is finally amended and fixed by the plaintiffs, we
will file a full defence. That is the usual -- and the most
efficient -- practice when dealing with corrections and
amendments."

The Guardian has also confirmed Tighe was retained to defend Dow,
Cutcliffe and Scales by the Canadian Legal Insurance Association
and that his legal fees will be covered by their insurance claims.

A hearing will likely be held in the winter of 2018 to determine a
number of preliminary procedural issues regarding the case,
including a likely request for CMT to post additional security for
costs for the new defendants.

In their statement of claim filed in March, the plaintiffs (CMT
and a subsidiary numbered company) are seeking $50 million in
damages for allegations that include misfeasance in a public
office by several of the defendants, a breach of fiduciary duty
and wrongful acts of spoliation of documents said to be crucially
relevant to the case.

That court filing came after P.E.I. Supreme Court Justice Gordon
Campbell struck out a previous statement of claim in February
2016.

Campbell said in his decision it constituted an abuse of the
processes of the court. But the decision also allowed the
plaintiffs to file a new statement of claim.

Capital Markets Technologies was a shareholder in a company that
worked with the province and the Mi'kmaq Confederacy of P.E.I. in
2011-12 on a plan to make P.E.I. an internet gambling regulator
for the Country. The plan was abandoned after it was determined to
be illegal, but has been the focus of ongoing criticism and
scrutiny, including an investigation by the auditor general. [GN]


PROFESSIONAL TRANSPORTATION: Court Won't Certify Drivers Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois issued a Memorandum and Order denying Plaintiff's Motion
for Class Certification in the case captioned ROBERT MURPHY,
Individually and as the Representative of a Class of Similarly
Situated Persons, Plaintiff, v. PROFESSIONAL TRANSPORTATION, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 14-CV-378-SMY-DGW (S.D. Ill.).

PTI is a corporation that provides transportation services.
Plaintiff Robert Murphy and the putative class members were
employed by PTI as drivers assigned to provide ground
transportation services to the Union Pacific Railroad, allegedly
in connection with track replacement work on the Illinois High
Speed Rail Project. The crux of Murphy's claim is that this work
falls within the scope of the Illinois Prevailing Wage Act (IPWA),
but that he and the putative class members were paid less than the
applicable prevailing wage.

Murphy moves for class certification under Rules 23(a) and
23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. He seeks to
represent a class defined as follows:

     Current and former PTI employees who are or were employed by
defendant as drivers and provided ground transportation services
of train crews to the Union Pacific railroad in conjunction with
the construction of the Illinois High Speed Rail project and were
not paid the prevailing wage in accordance with Illinois law since
2010.

Murphy's assertion that there are 45 potential class members who
performed this type of work for PTI on the High Speed Rail Project
is supported only by the Declaration of Murphy's counsel.
Murphy has not proffered any facts or argument as to why or how
joinder would actually be impractical in this case. Rather, he
rests on the proposition that a proposed class of 40 members is
generally considered impractical for joinder.  But, actual rather
than presumed compliance with Rule 23(a) is required for class
certification.  This is especially the case when, as here, there
has been no showing that 45 is an accurate estimate of the
putative class size.  Because Murphy has failed to sufficiently
establish the number of potential class members or to show that
joinder would be impractical, he has failed to satisfy the
numerosity requirement.

In this case, the proposed class members' claims all arise under
the same statute and involve common legal issues.  In order to
determine whether PTI is liable to any putative class member, the
Court must determine whether the IPWA applies to the High Speed
Rail Project in general and whether the type of work performed by
the drivers on the project falls within the scope of the IPWA.
This meets the low threshold for commonality.

Murphy has made a sufficient showing that PTI had a policy of
paying its drivers based on a scale that was less than what might
have been dictated had the IPWA's provisions been applied.
Although Murphy may or may not have performed work as a blocker
while employed on the High Speed Rail Project, it appears that
this was secondary to his defined duties, and therefore does not
set him apart from the other putative class members so as to
render his claim atypical.  While a potentially unique defense and
credibility questions may apply to Murphy's claim as discussed in
the Court's adequacy analysis below, his claim clearly arises from
the same practice and course of conduct by PTI that gives rise to
the claims of the other putative class members. Thus, the
typicality requirement is satisfied.

Murphy's felony convictions are not a per se bar to being a class
representative.  In fact, it is unclear from the record whether
his convictions would ultimately be independently admissible under
Federal Rule of Evidence 609. What is problematic, however, is
Murphy's failure to disclose the convictions in discovery. Taking
an active and honest and attentive and role in discovery is one of
the hallmarks of an otherwise adequate class representative.  If
he intentionally did not tell class counsel about his past
convictions in an attempt to conceal them, then he lacks the basic
honesty required of the position. If, as he claims, Murphy missed
the glaring inaccuracy in his sworn statement because he "breezed
through it and did not really read the responses before signing,
then he failed his obligation to be active and attentive."
Similarly, his failure to correct the inaccuracy after he fully
read his responses also sheds a questionable light on his
willingness and ability to meet his fiduciary obligations to the
class.

Murphy's failure to disclose his convictions in discovery
potentially raises a question regarding his credibility. That
issue, coupled with PTI's potential defense to Murphy's claim may
significantly hamper his ability to meet his fiduciary obligations
to the class. For these reasons, the Court concludes that Murphy
is not an adequate class representative.

Here, Murphy proceeds under Rule 23(b)(3), which allows for
certification upon a finding that questions of law or fact common
to members of the class predominate over any questions affecting
only individual members, and that a class action is superior to
other available methods for resolving the controversy.

Rule 23(b)(3) also requires that a class action be superior to
other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating
the controversy. Rule 23(b)(3) was designed for situation in which
the potential recovery is too slight to support individual suits,
but injury is substantial in the aggregate.

Conversely, class treatment may be rejected when, as is true in
this case, all or almost all of the claims are likely to be large
enough to justify individual litigation Murphy estimates damages
of $835,373.53 -- $412,921.16 in unpaid wages and $422,452.37 in
statutory damages. Accepting for the sake of analysis Murphy's
estimate of 45 class members, this averages out to over $18,000
per class member, although each member's share of the recovery
would vary based upon how many hours they worked.

Additionally, the IPWA contains a provision for payment of
attorneys' fees in a successful suit, making it more economically
feasible for individual plaintiffs to bring suit than in many
class action contexts. These factors suggest that individual
litigation is the superior method for resolving these claims.

As Plaintiff Robert Murphy has failed to meet his burden under
F.R.C.P. 23(a) and 23(b) with respect to numerosity, adequacy of
representation and predominance, his Motion for Class
Certification is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 27, 2017
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycg3evvs
from Leagle.com.

Robert Murphy, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph H. Cassell  --
jhcassell@eronlaw.net -- Eron Law Office, P.A.

Robert Murphy, Plaintiff, represented by Mark M. Silvermintz,
Kunin Law Offices, LLC, 412 Missouri Avenue, East St. Louis, IL
62201 & Terry D. Smith, Law Office of Terry D. Smith, 13509 W 10th
Ct N Wichita, KS, 67235-7031

Professional Transportation, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Meredith A. Lopez -- meredith.lopez@ogletree.com -- Ogletree
Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC, Robert W. Stewart --
robert.stewart@ogletree.com- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart
PC & Michael D. Ray -- michael.ray@ogletree.com -- Ogletree,
Deakins et al. Generally Admitted.


PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Sued by Johnson for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jenny M. Johnson, individually and on behalf of a class of persons
similarly situated, and on behalf of the Providence Health &
Service 403(b) Value Plan v. PROVIDENCE HEALTH & SERVICES,
PROVIDENCE HEALTH & SERVICES HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE, and JOHN
AND JANE DOES #1-25, Case No. 2:17-cv-01779 (W.D. Wash., November
28, 2017), is brought for alleged breach of fiduciary duty and
prohibited transactions under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974.

The Defendants, who during the Class Period are or were
fiduciaries of the Providence Health & Services 403(b) Value Plan
(the "Plan"), have violated their fiduciary duties owed to the
Plan and its participants, including her, Ms. Johnson contends.

Providence Health & Services, the Plan Sponsor, is a health care
system operating in approximately 900 locations across the western
United States, with its principal place of business in Renton,
Washington.

Providence Health & Services Human Resources Committee is
comprised of employees of Providence.  The Committee has the
authority to determine the investment funds made available under
the Plan and to develop and oversee the implementation of any
investment education program.  The Doe Defendants are members of
the Committee and/or Providence executives in charge of Human
Resources during the Class Period, who are unknown to the
Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael L. Murphy, Esq.
          Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
          Mark G. Boyko, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 463-2101
          Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
          E-mail: mmurphy@baileyglasser.com
                  gporter@baileyglasser.com
                  mboyko@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Robert A. Izard, Esq.
          Mark P. Kindall, Esq.
          Doug P. Needham, Esq.
          IZARD KINDALL & RAABE LLP
          29 South Main Street, Suite 305
          West Hartford, CT 06107
          Telephone: (860) 493-6292
          Facsimile: (860) 493-6290
          E-mail: rizard@ikrlaw.com
                  mkindall@ikrlaw.com
                  dneedham@ikrlaw.com

               - and -

          Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 822-0268
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: mgyandoh@ktmc.com


QUIK NOTARY SERVICES: "LaBorde" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Greta A. LaBorde, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Quik Notary Services, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-14086 (E.D. La., December 1, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, post-
judgement interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and any and all other
damages allowed under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Quik Notary operated a private automobile license bureau or tag
agency under contract with the state of Louisiana, preparing and
notarizing home and property contracts. LaBorde was employed by
Defendant as notary and public tag agent. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brett M. Powers, Esq.
     DUBOSE LAW FIRM, PLLC
     4310 N. Central Expressway
     Dallas, TX 75206
     Telephone: (504) 581-9322
     Facsimile: (504) 324-0155
     Email: bpowers@duboselawfirm.com


RACING INDUSTRIES: "Garcia" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------
Jose Garcia, Porfirio Garcia and Enio Garcia, on behalf of
themselves and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. Racing Industries, Inc. and Ameet Bhambhani, Defendants, Case
No. 17-cv-07089, (E.D. N.Y., December 5, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, and statutory damages under
the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Racing Industries, Inc. is engaged in the manufacture of catalytic
converters for passenger cars and industrial vehicles where
Plaintiffs worked at its facilities located at 901 Scott Avenue,
Calverton, New York 11933, regularly working more than forty hours
in a workweek, but were not paid overtime. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Peter A. Romero, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
     103 Cooper Street
     Babylon, NY 11702
     Tel. (631) 257-5588
     Email: promero@romerolawny.com


RECOVER HEALTH: Accused by "Marrero" Suit of Not Paying Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
SARAH MARRERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RECOVER HEALTH, INC., Case No. 0:17-cv-05236-DSD-TNL
(D. Minn., November 28, 2017), alleges that the Plaintiff and
others were paid per client visit and were not paid overtime wages
for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek.

Ms. Marrero and members of the putative classes provided medical
care for Recover Health clients in their homes, coordinated care
with the clients' doctors, and charted and recorded the care
provided.

Recover Health, Inc., is a business corporation incorporated in
Florida with a registered office in Minnetonka, Minnesota.
Recover Health provides home care and support services to
children, adults, and seniors in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and
Nebraska.  The Company provides skilled nursing services, mental
health services, 24-hour private duty nursing services, therapy
services (physical, occupational, speech, and respiratory),
personal care services, homemaker services, and independent living
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David C. Zoeller, Esq.
          Caitlin M. Madden, Esq.
          HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
          409 East Main Street
          Madison, WI 53703
          Telephone: (608) 257-0040
          E-mail: dzoeller@hq-law.com
                  cmadden@hq-law.com

               - and -

          Adam Hansen, Esq.
          APOLLO LAW LLC
          400 South 4th Street, Suite 401M - 250
          Minneapolis, MN 55415
          Telephone: (612) 927-2969
          E-mail: adam@apollo-law.com


ROBERT BOSCH: Must Face Volkswagen Dealers' Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a
class-action lawsuit against the Robert Bosch company filed by
Volkswagen dealers concerning the role Bosch played in
Volkswagen's emissions scheme won't be dismissed by a federal
judge.

Judge Charles Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California approved the $1.67 billion settlement for
hundreds of VW dealerships that sued the automaker.

The dealer lawsuit alleges that Bosch worked with Volkswagen to
sell as many of the "clean-diesel" vehicles as possible by
misrepresenting the diesel vehicles as good for the environment
and in compliance with federal laws.

The dealers said Bosch worked with Volkswagen to equip diesel
vehicles with emissions "defeat devices" that caused the cars to
pass emissions tests in the lab, but were illegal to drive on the
roads.

Franchise dealers across the country purchased diesel vehicles
from Volkswagen and sold those vehicles to consumers, unaware of
the defeat devices.  Dealers didn't learn the cars sitting on
their lots were useless until the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) announced the fraud.

The judge said in court documents the actions of VW and Bosch made
the diesel vehicles "unsaleable."

Based on the lawsuit, the defeat devices in the diesel cars are
part of the electronic control units which controls engine and
emission controls known as EDC17.  But Bosch and Volkswagen worked
together to turn the EDC17 into a defeat device, something VW
couldn't have modified without Bosch's involvement.

In fact, the lawsuit says Bosch typically locked the EDC17 to
prevent customers from making significant changes on their own.

Bosch tried to convince the judge the ruling wasn't fair, but the
judge upheld all claims that the company was a knowing participant
in a scheme to defraud dealers and customers.

The lawsuit includes internal VW emails that reference Bosch in
the illegal activity. A n email from 2006 is a good example, in
which Dieter Mannigel, of the U.S. diesel engines division,
emailed Hanno Jelden, head of Volkswagen's powertrain electronics
division, about the "US07" project.

"Have you spoken with Bosch about the issue of US07 . . .?
This issue is slowly becoming critical . . . .
I came away from our meeting with Mr. Krebs [who joined Volkswagen
from Audi in 2005] with the following:
When we use the 'acoustic function,' it should have an appearance
that won't get us in trouble . . . .
He is very skeptical about its implementation on the U.S. market:
for one thing due to the very critical liability situation . . . .
In my opinion, the requirement of 'nondiscoverability' has neither
been met for the Nov. 27 function nor the planned expansion.

The FP sheet for the expansion has been submitted to Bosch.
How do we proceed?"

In relation to the email, the judge wrote:

"The express references in this email to the 'acoustic function,'
the 'US07' project, and the importance of not getting caught
illustrate Volkswagen's deception in undertaking the emissions
scheme.  But the email also casts Bosch as a strategic partner in
the scheme.  The 'issue' discussed appears to be how to implement
the 'acoustic function' in the U.S. without being discovered. And
Mannigel asks if Jelden has 'spoken with Bosch about the issue,'
suggesting that Bosch might be able to help hide the "acoustic
function" from U.S. regulators." [GN]


RYB EDUCATION: Jan. 26 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against RYB Education, Inc. ("RYB" or the "Company") (NYSE:RYB)
and certain of its officers.  The class action, filed in United
States District Court, for the Southern District of New York, and
docketed under 17-cv-09261, is 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 (the "IPO"
or the "Offering"); and/or (2) on the open market between
September 27, 2017 and November 22, 2017, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by
defendants' violations of the Securities Act of 1933 (the
"Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased RYB securities between
September 27, 2017, and November 22, 2017, both dates inclusive,
you have until January 26, 2018, to ask the Court to appoint you
as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be
obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.  To discuss this action, contact
Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529
(or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980.  Those who inquire by e-
mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone
number, and amount of shares purchased.

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.

The Complaint alleges that 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 to 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.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.  Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.  The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members. [GN]


SERVCO SUBARU: Distributor Sued Over Soy-Based Auto Parts
---------------------------------------------------------
US News reports that a Maui resident has filed a class-action
lawsuit against a Hawaii Subaru distributor, claiming soy-based
insulation in wiring and fuel hoses attracted rats that damaged
her car.

In the lawsuit filed against Servco Subaru Inc., attorneys
representing Diane Shuey claim the car company changed their
products to use a material that attracts rodents, Hawaii News Now
reported .

Shuey bought a new Subaru Forester in 2015 and started
experiencing damage from rats a couple of months later.

"It was a nightmare after just two months of driving this thing,
and it has continued for two years," Shuey said. "I love my
Subaru. I'm so frustrated and I'm very disappointed in Subaru
Corporation."

Shuey said the rat-related issues were not covered by the warranty
and cost her more than $3,000 in repairs.

Chris Bouslog, Esq. an attorney representing Shuey, said say
rodent damage on cars is not uncommon. The lawsuit seeks a full
refund for the cars.

"Cars have been coming in for this kind of repair and this kind of
obvious rodent damage," Bouslog said.

Company officials declined to comment on the specifics of the
suit, but provided a statement.

"Our customers and their safety are our priority and, as we do
with all vehicle complaints, our policy is to work with each
customer to try to reach a mutually agreeable resolution," the
company said in the statement. [GN]


SHAUN'S TOWING: "Durrant" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Durrant, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff, v. Shaun's Towing And Recovery, LLC and Shaun
Healy, Individually, Defendants, Case 17-cv-02932 (D. Colo.,
December 6, 2017), seeks all unpaid overtime and other damages,
all available relief, including compensation, liquidated damages,
statutory penalties, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act, Colorado Wage Claim Act and the Colorado
Minimum Wage Act.

Shaun's is towing company currently serves Aspen, Snowmass
Village, Woody Creek, Old Snowmass, Carbondale, Redstone and
Glenwood Springs CO. Durrant worked for Shaun's as a driver. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brian D. Gonzales, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC
     242 Linden Street
     Fort Collins, CO 80524
     Tel: (970) 214-0562
     Email: BGonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com

            - and -

      Clif Alexander, Esq.
      Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
      ANDERSON2X, PLLC
      819 N. Upper Broadway
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Tel: (361) 452-1279
      Fax: (361) 452-1284
      Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
             lauren@a2xlaw.com


SHOWTIME NETWORKS: Mayweather-McGregor Suit Sent to Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Marrocco, writing for MMA Junkie, reports that a fan who
sued Showtime over technical difficulties concerning "The Money
Fight" is stuck in the fine print.

A federal judge has ordered to arbitration a class-action lawsuit
over the Aug. 26 boxing match between Floyd Mayweather and Conor
McGregor, granting a motion filed by Showtime. The premium cable
channel was hit with multiple class-action lawsuits because of the
event, which encountered widespread delays and outages due to high
demand.

Denise Cote, a U.S. District Judge in the Southern District of New
York, argued the plaintiff, Victor Mallh, agreed to resolve
disputes outside the courtroom when he agreed to Showtime's terms
of service before buying the event, which cost $99.95 to purchase
in high definition via online and broadcast pay-per-view. Cote was
unconvinced by claims from Mallh's attorneys that Showtime didn't
properly notify fans of their rights.

"Because notice of the arbitration clause and class-action waiver
was reasonably conspicuous and Mallh unambiguously manifested
assent, Showtime's motion to compel arbitration is granted," she
wrote.

Mallh is one of several fight fans suing Showtime, claiming the
network promoted and made money from the event despite delivering
a faulty product. One suit named UFC corporate parent Zuffa and
William Morris Endeavor (WME) as co-defendants. Several suits
claim the class-action damages are in excess of $75,000 and "the
amount in controversy" is over $5 million.

Shortly after the first suit was filed, Showtime told MMAjunkie it
had received a "a very limited number of complaints" and offered a
refund to any of its customers who'd couldn't watch the event. UFC
President Dana White also promised refunds to those who purchased
the event on UFC Fight Pass and ran into trouble as the online
digital network was overwhelmed by traffic.

White later claimed the spectacle showdown between UFC lightweight
champ McGregor (21-3 MMA, 9-1 UFC, 0-1 boxing) and boxing king
Mayweather (50-0 boxing) set a record for the most lucrative pay-
per-view event in history, drawing 6.7 million worldwide buys to
beat Mayweather's "Fight of the Century" against Manny Pacquiao.

For complete coverage of "The Money Fight," check out the UFC
Events section of the site. [GN]


SOUTHERN STAR: "Evans" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Angela Evans, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Southern Star Restaurant Management,
Inc., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-02918, (M.D. Fla., December 6,
2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and damages resulting from violations of the Family
and Medical Leave Act of 1993.

Southern Star operates Dunkin Donuts and Baskin Robbins franchise
restaurants in Tampa and Hillsborough County where Evans worked as
a shift leader. She seeks overtime pay for her hours above 40 per
week. When Evans requested time off to care for her ailing father,
her work hours were cut off. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher J. Saba, Esq.
      WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
      1110 N Florida Ave., Ste. 300
      Tampa, FL 33602-3343
      Tel: (813) 224-0431
      Fax: (813) 229-8712
      Email: csaba@wfclaw.com


STAFFMARK HOLDINGS: Court OKs $5.6MM Settlement in "Fronda" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order granting Plaintiff's Motion for
Settlement Approval in the case captioned  EARL FRONDA, Plaintiff,
v. STAFFMARK HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-
02315-MEJ (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff asks the Court to (1) preliminarily approve the proposed
settlement, (2) certify for settlement purposes a settlement
class, (3) appoint Plaintiff as class representative, (4) appoint
class counsel and settlement administrator, (5) direct the
dissemination of the notice of settlement to the class, and (6)
schedule a final approval hearing and hearing on class counsel's
motion for attorneys' fees and incentive award.

Plaintiff was jointly employed by Staffmark, CBS Personnel, and
CEVA Logistics U.S., Inc.  Plaintiff filed the operative TAC and
asserts eight claims based on California state law: (1) Failure to
Provide Meal Periods, (2) Failure to Provide Rest Periods, (3)
Failure to Pay Hourly Wages, (4) Failure to Provide Accurate
Written Wage Statements, (5) Failure to Timely Pay All Final
Wages, (6) Failure to Pay Wages without Discount, (7) Unfair
Competition, and (8) Civil Penalties under the Private Attorneys
General Act (PAGA).

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

The Settling Defendants agree to pay a maximum Settlement Sum of
$5,600,000.  This figure includes (1) payments to Class Members,
(2) Class Counsel's attorneys' fees and costs, (3) administration
costs, (4) any enhancement award to Plaintiff, and (5) payment to
the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA).

The Settlement provides for all Class Counsel's attorneys' fees
and costs to be paid from the Settlement Sum.  Class Counsel will
seek up to one-third of the Settlement Fund, that is,
$1,866,666.67.

Enhancement awards will be deducted from the Settlement Sum.
Plaintiff will seek an enhancement award of no more than $10,000.

The Settlement provides for $100,000 as payment for the PAGA
claims.  Pursuant to California Labor Code section 2699(i),
$75,000 will be paid to the LWDA.

The Court certifies for settlement purposes the Class as defined
in section 1.1(b)(12) of the Settlement.  The Court noted that
Plaintiff estimates there are approximately 4,407 Class Members.
Given the size of the class, joinder is impracticable.  Like other
Class Members, Plaintiff worked for the CBS Defendants during the
Class Period and in a warehouse position that is at issue in this
litigation and included in the Class.  Thus, Plaintiff was subject
to the same allegedly unlawful employment practices and policies
as other Class Members.  Plaintiff raises the same claims as other
Class Members; he does not assert any individual claims or
defenses. The Court therefore finds Plaintiff satisfies Rule
23(a)(3).

Moreover, the Court noted that nothing in the record indicates
Plaintiff has a conflict of interest or antagonism with Class
Members. On the contrary, Plaintiff has actively worked to
prosecute this action on behalf of the Class. He has engaged in
ongoing communications with his Counsel, including providing
Counsel with background information, assisting with responses to
written discovery, participating in two days of mediation, and
reviewing the Settlement Agreement.  Accordingly, the Court finds
Plaintiff adequately represents the Class' interests. Rule
23(a)(4) is satisfied.

The Court is satisfied the Settlement is the product of serious,
informed, non-collusive negotiations. The parties negotiated the
Settlement under the guidance of a mediator. The use of a
mediator, though not dispositive, supports a finding that the
Settlement is not the product of collusion.  In light of the
potential risks of continued litigation, the Court finds these
factors favor preliminary approval.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 27, 2017
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybf4hb76
from Leagle.com.

Earl Fronda, Plaintiff, represented by Chaim Shaun Setareh --
shaun@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group.

Earl Fronda, Plaintiff, represented by Howard Scott Leviant --
scott@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group & Thomas Alistair Segal
-- thomas@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group.

Staffmark Holdings, Inc., Defendant, represented by Susan
McClellan Steward -- ssteward@aalrr.com -- Atkinson, Andelson,
Loya, Ruud and Romo, Barbara Shellem Van Ligten --
bvanligten@aalrr.com -- Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo &
Timothy Michael Wojcik -- twojcik@aalrr.com -- Atkinson Andelson
Loya Ruud Romo.

CEVA Logistics U.S., Inc., Defendant, represented by Douglas G.A.
Johnston -- douglas.johnson@mindbodyonline.com -- Jackson Lewis
P.C., Nicole Elizabeth Forde -- Nicole.forde@jacksonlewis.com --
Jackson Lewis P.C. & Fraser Angus McAlpine --
Fraser.McAlpine@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C..
CBS Personnel Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Susan
McClellan Steward, Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud and Romo.


STATE FARM: "Davis" Suit Says Insurance Fund Illegally Siphoned
---------------------------------------------------------------
Theresa L. Davis, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. State Farm & Casualty Company,
Case No. 17-cv-08773 (C.D. Cal., 2017, December 5, 2016), seeks to
recover amounts that Defendant has charged and collected in excess
of amounts authorized by the express terms of their policies;
compensatory, punitive and exemplary damages; injunctive relief;
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and such other relief
resulting from breach of contract.

Plaintiff purchased from Defendant a flexible premium adjustable
insurance policy. Davis accuses the Defendant of improperly
draining monies they have accumulated in the Account Values under
her policies.

State Farm Life Insurance Company is a life insurance company
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Illinois,
and maintains its principal place of business in Bloomington,
Illinois.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
      Elizabeth A. Kramer, Esq.
      Angelica M. Ornelas, Esq.
      GIRARD GIBBS LLP
      601 California Street, 14th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94108
      Tel: (415) 981-4800
      Fax: (415)981-4846
      Email: dcg@girardgibbs.com
             eak@girardgibbs.com
             amo@girardgibbs.com.

             - and -

      Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
      Patrick J. Stueve, Esq.
      Ethan Lange, Esq.
      STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
      460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
      Kansas City, MO 64112
      Telephone: (816) 714-7100
      Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
      Email: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
             stueve@stuevesiegel.com
             lange@stuevesiegel.com

             - and -

      John J. Schirger, Esq.
      Matthew W. Lytle, Esq.
      Joseph M. Feierabend, Esq.
      MILLER SCHIRGER, LLC
      4520 Main Street, Suite 1570
      Kansas City, MO 64111
      Telephone: (816) 561-6500
      Facsimile: (816) 561-6501
      Email: jschirger@millerschirger.com
             mlytle@millerschirger.com
             jfeierabend@millerschirger.com


STEPS IN HOME CARE: "Diaz" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
Teresa Fuentes Diaz, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiffs, v. Steps in Home Care Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-09459 (S.D. N.Y., December 1, 2017),
seeks unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, unpaid spread-of-
hours and split-shift premiums pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Labor Laws.

Steps in Home Care Inc. is a home health care provider located at
3 Barker Avenue, 2nd Floor, White Plains, New York 10601. Diaz
worked as a Home Health Aide working in excess of 40 hours per
week. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin Weisenberg, Esq.
      THE OTTINGER FIRM, P.C.
      401 Park Avenue South
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 571-2000
      Fax: (212) 571-0505
      Email: benjamin@ottingerlaw.com


TANGOE INC: March 8 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. and Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP disclosed
that the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut has approved the following announcement of a proposed
class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of
securities of Tangoe, Inc. (OTCMKTS:TNGO):

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

TO:     ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED TANGOE,
INC. ("TANGOE") SECURITIES FROM MAY 10, 2013 THROUGH JUNE 16,
2017, INCLUSIVE.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut, that a hearing
will be held on March 8, 2018, at 9:30 a.m. before the Honorable
Vanessa L. Bryant, United States District Judge of the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut, Abraham A.
Ribicoff Federal Building, 450 Main Street, Annex 135, Hartford,
Connecticut, 06103, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether
the proposed Settlement of the claims in the above-captioned
Action for consideration including the sum of $2,550,000 should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2)
whether the proposed plan to distribute the Settlement proceeds is
fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the application of Co-
Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees of up to one-third of
the Settlement Amount, reimbursement of expenses of not more than
$125,000, and an incentive payment of no more than $10,000 to Lead
Plaintiff, should be approved; and (4) whether this Action should
be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement dated October 2, 2017 (the "Settlement
Stipulation").

If you purchased Tangoe securities during the period from May 10,
2013 through June 16, 2017, both dates inclusive (the "Settlement
Class Period"), your rights may be affected by this Settlement,
including the release and extinguishment of claims you may possess
relating to your ownership interest in Tangoe securities. If you
have not received a postcard, providing instructions for receiving
a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class
Action ("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release
Form, you may obtain copies by writing to or calling Tangoe, Inc.
Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, 600 N.
Jackson St., Ste. 3, P.O. Box 230, Media, PA 19063; (Tel) (866)
274-4004; (Fax) (610) 565-7985; info@strategicclaims.net, or going
to the website, www.strategicclaims.net.  If you are a member of
the Settlement Class, to share in the distribution of the Net
Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release Form
postmarked no later than February 22, 2018, to the Claims
Administrator, establishing that you are entitled to recovery.
Unless you submit a written exclusion request, you will be bound
by any judgment rendered in the Action whether or not you make a
claim.

If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
submit a request for exclusion so that it is received no later
than February 8, 2018, in the manner and form explained in the
detailed Notice to the Claims Administrator.  All members of the
Settlement Class who have not requested exclusion from the
Settlement Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the
Action pursuant to the Settlement Stipulation.

Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Co-Lead
Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses and award to Lead Plaintiff must be in
the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice and received
no later than February 15, 2018 by each of the following:

Clerk of the Court
United States District Court
District of Connecticut
Abraham A. Ribicoff Federal Building
450 Main Street
Hartford, CT 06103

CO-LEAD COUNSEL:

Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440
Jenkintown, PA  19046

Jeffry Krinsk, Esq.
David J. Harris, Jr., Esq.
FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK LLP
550 West C Street, Suite 1760
San Diego, CA 92101

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS:

William H. Paine, Esq.
Dan Willey, Esq.
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
60 State Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02109

If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or
write to Lead Counsel:

Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440
Jenkintown, PA 19046
Tel.: 215-600-2817

Jeffry Krinsk, Esq.
David J. Harris, Jr., Esq.
FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK LLP
550 West C Street, Suite 1760
San Diego, CA 92101
Tel.: (619) 238-1333

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

Dated: November 13, 2017

BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT [GN]


TD BANK: "Lawrence" Sues Over Illegal Overdraft Charges
-------------------------------------------------------
Britney Lawrence, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TD Bank, N.A., Defendant, Case
No. 17-cv-12583 (D. N.J., December 5, 2017), seeks actual and/or
statutory damages, all recoverable compensatory and other damages
sustained, restitution and disgorgement of all illegally-obtained
amounts, refund of all overdraft fees charged on one-time debit
card transactions for Uber and/or Lyft rides, statutory
prejudgment and post-judgment interest on any amounts, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs and such other relief resulting from
breach of contract and violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Plaintiff alleges TD Bank of charging standard overdraft fees on
one-time debit card transactions with Uber and/or Lyft, in
violation of its contracts with accountholders. Lyft and Uber are
not subscription services wherein customers pay a monthly fee and
such transactions do not occur automatically.

TD Bank is a national bank providing retail banking services
through the State of New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
      Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
      MCCUNEWRIGHT, LLP
      1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
      Berwyn, PA 19312
      Telephone: (610) 200-0580
      Email: jgs@mccunewright.com
             mds@mccunewright.com

             - and -

      Richard D. McCune, Esq.
      Jae (Eddie) K. Kim, Esq.
      Michele M. Vercoski, Esq.
      McCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP
      3281 East Guasti Road, Suite 100
      Ontario, CA 91761
      Telephone: (909) 557-1250
      Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
      Email: rdm@mccunewright.com
             jkk@mccunewright.com
             mmv@mccunewright.com

             - and -

      E. Adam Webb, Esq.
      G. Franklin Lemond, Jr., Esq.
      WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC
      1900 The Exchange, S.E., Suite 480
      Atlanta, GA 30339
      Tel: (770) 444-9325
      Fax: (770) 444-0271
      Email: Adam@WebbLLC.com
             Franklin@WebbLLC.com

             - and -

      Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq.
      Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
      KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
      1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 525-4100
      Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
      Email: streisfeld@kolawyers.com
             ostrow@kolawyers.com

             - and -

      Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
      TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
      2000 L Street, N.W., Suite 808
      Washington, DC 20036
      Tel: (202) 973-0900
      Email: hzavareei@tzlegal.com

             - and -

      Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
      KALIEL PLLC
      1875 Connecticut Avenue NW, 10th Floor
      Washington, DC 20009
      Tel: (202) 615-3948
      Email: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com


             - and -

      Taras Kick, Esq.
      THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC
      201 Wilshire Boulevard
      Santa Monica, CA 90401
      Telephone: (310) 395-2988
      Facsimile: (310) 395-2088
      Email: Taras@kicklawfirm.com

             - and -

      Francis J. Flynn, Jr., Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF FRANCIS J. FLYNN, JR.
      6220 West Third Street, #415
      Los Angeles, CA 90036
      Tel: (314) 662-2836
      Email: francisflynn@gmail.com

             - and -

      Corey D. Sullivan, Esq.
      SULLIVAN LAW & ASSOCIATES
      1336 E. Allendale Drive
      Bloomington, IN 47401
      Tel: (314) 971-9353
      Email: sullivcd@gmail.com

             - and -

      Tiffany M. Yiatras, Esq.
      CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGAL, LLC
      308 Hutchinson Road
      Ellisville, MO 63011
      Tele: (314) 541-0317
      Email: tiffany@consumerprotectionlegal.com


TENNESSEE: Hepatitis C-Infected Inmates' Class Action Okayed
------------------------------------------------------------
Robin Bull, writing for USA Herald, reports that in 2016, two
Tennessee inmates with hepatitis c filed a lawsuit after an
investigation by USA Today Network revealed that close to 3,500
inmates had been diagnosed, but only eight had received treatment.
As of 2017, Neysa Taylor, spokesperson for the Tennessee
Department of Corrections, stated that there are now approximately
4,116 infected with the fatal condition.  A total of 25 inmates
have received treatment in the last year, and six are currently
undergoing treatment.

Federal Judge Grants Class Action Status

In May 2017, U.S. District Chief Judge Waverly Crenshaw granted
Tennessee inmates class action status.  If the inmates are
successful in their federal lawsuit, all inmates in Tennessee with
hepatitis c would be able to receive the life-saving treatment.
The average price for hepatitis c treatment in the United States
is close to $1,000 per day.  The total cost is around $90,000.

Florida Judge Recently Ruled Not Treating Inmates for Hep C
Violates Their Constitutional Rights

On November 17, 2017, U.S. District Judge Mark Walker issued an
order in a lawsuit filed by Tampa inmates that the Florida
Department of Corrections weren't upholding their Constitutional
obligation of inmates with hepatitis c.  Judge Walker wrote that
"Here, FDC's history of past misconduct leads this court to
believe that future injury is imminent.  Specifically, this court
finds that FDC will not treat HCV-infected inmates in an
appropriate and timely manner." Judge Walker also wrote that he
believed FDC's decision to not treat inmates with hepatitis c was
because of budgetary concerns from private companies running the
prisons.  He also wrote that the court would not tolerate any
"foot dragging" and gave Florida DOC until December 1, 2017 to
come up with a plan and to start treating the most severely ill
inmates first.

Between the rulings of both U.S. District Chief Judge Waverly
Crenshaw and U.S. District Judge Mark Walker, inmates around the
nation affected with hepatitis c may be able to get treatment for
the often deadly liver disease. [GN]


TESLA INC: Black Workers Sue Over Racial Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------
Democrat Now reports that black workers at Tesla's Fremont,
California factory have filed a class-action lawsuit accusing
Tesla of being a "hotbed for racist behavior."  A former African
American worker at Tesla says he was routinely called the N-word
while working at the factory, and that after he complained, he was
fired for not having a positive attitude.  Tesla is also facing
lawsuits accusing the company of discriminating against LGBT
workers and older workers. [GN]


TEXAS FARM: "English" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
--------------------------------------------------
Heather English, Joe Hawley, and Robin Broussard, and other
similarly situated employees v. Texas Farm Bureau Business
Corporation, Texas Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, Texas
Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, Texas Farm Bureau
Underwriters, Farm Bureau County Mutual Insurance Company of
Texas, Southern Farm Bureau Life Insurance Company, and Texas Farm
Bureau, Case No. 6:17-cv-00323 (W.D. Tex., November 17, 2017), is
brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs are residents of Texas and worked as insurance
agents for the Defendants.

The Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees have all been
victimized by Defendants' common policy and plan to violate their
rights under the FLSA by denying them proper overtime
compensation.

The Defendants operate a business enterprise selling insurance-
related services and products, including auto, home/property,
farm/ranch, life, and health insurance. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      John Eddie Williams, Jr., Esq.
      Brian A. Abramson, Esq.
      Sean M. McCarthy, Esq.
      WILLIAMS KHERKHER HART BOUNDAS, LLP
      8441 Gulf Freeway, Suite 600
      Houston, TX 77017
      Tel: (713) 230-2200
      Fax: (713) 643-6226
      E-mail: jwilliams@williamskherkher.com
              babramson@williamskherkher.com
              smccarthy@williamskherkher.com

          - and -

      Daniel O. Goforth, Esq.
      Ryan D. King, Esq.
      Avi Moshenberg, Esq.
      GOFORTH KING MOSHNEBERG LLP
      1900 Pennzoil South Tower
      711 Louisiana Street
      Houston, TX 77002
      Tel: (713) 650-0022
      Fax: (713) 650-1669
      E-mail: dangoforth@goforthlaw.com
              ryanking@goforthlaw.com
              avimoshenberg@goforthlaw.com

          - and -

      Kelly E. Cook, Esq.
      Warren A. Berlanga, Esq.
      WYLY & COOK, PLLC
      4101 Washington Ave. 2 nd Floor
      Houston, TX 77007
      Tel: (713) 236-8330
      Fax: (713) 863-8502
      E-mail: kcook@wylycooklaw.com
              wberlanga@wylycooklaw.com


TEZOS: Faces Securities Class Action in California
--------------------------------------------------
Sophia Morris, writing for Law360, reports that an investor in the
Tezos blockchain network accused the company's executives of
offering the cryptocurrency as securities in its initial coin
offering without first registering with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, according to a proposed class action filed on
Nov. 26 in California federal court.

GGCC LLC and its managing member Brian Beeman accused Arthur and
Kathleen Breitman, founders of Dynamic Ledger Solutions Inc.,
which owns the Tezos source code, of violating federal securities
laws by misleading investors about the status of the Tezos
network. [GN]


TEZOS: Faces Third Class Action Over ICO
----------------------------------------
Rachel McIntosh, writing for Finance Magnates, reports that the
Tezos ICO, which raked in a whopping $400 million, has been the
subject of much controversy in recent weeks.  Following a highly
publicized spat between the individuals at the core of the Tezos
project, not one, not two, but three separate class-action
lawsuits are seeking the return of the ETH and BTC contributed to
the ICO.

The latest lawsuit, which is being brought by the Restis Law Firm,
P.C. and Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC, echoes the arguments of the
two that preceded it: the Tezos tokens, which were marketed to ICO
participants as securities, were never legally registered as such.

The suit seeks to "recover bitcoin and ethereum contributed to the
Tezos ICO, along with any corresponding appreciation in value of
those invested assets, or the equivalent in monetary damages or
restitution" for its plaintiffs.

The initial lawsuit was filed on October 25, just a few days after
Tezos caught a wave of negative attention for a public dispute
between its founding members and the Tezos Foundation head.  The
suit was brought by the Taylor-Copeland Law firm, and accused
Gevers, the Breitmans, and Dynamic Ledger Solutions, Inc., of
"selling unregistered securities, committing securities fraud,
false advertising and unfair competition," according to a report
from CoinDesk.

David Silver, a partner at the Florida-based SilverMiller firm,
filed the second suit in mid-November.  The language in the second
suit was a bit more direct in its accusation of the Breitmans and
the Tezos Foundation of outright deception:

"Notwithstanding the defendants' attempts to avoid governmental
and private scrutiny, it is clear that the financiers were indeed
profit-seeking investors in a security and that Defendants
promoted and conducted an unregistered offering of securities, not
a charitable fundraiser."

The reference to a charitable fundraiser is related to the
language of the Tezos ICO, which described contributions as "non-
refundable donations".

The Tezos drama has a few main characters.  First, there are
Kathleen and Arthur Breitman, owners of Dynamic Ledger Solutions,
Inc., and founders of the Tezos blockchain project.  In the
opposing corner is Johann Gevers, who founded the Switzerland-
based non-profit, the Tezos Foundation.

The story goes something like this: after starting the Tezos
project, Kathleen and Arthur wanted to shift the ownership of
Tezos' intellectual property to the Tezos Foundation, a move that
allegedly would have allowed them to take a $20 million pay-out
"without getting their hands dirty in Switzerland", according to a
report from Finews.

The real trouble began when the network's founding couple,
Kathleen and Arthur Breitman, accused the head of the Tezos
Foundation, Johann Gevers, of deceptively arranging a $1.5 million
bonus for himself.  Additionally, the Breitmans did not have many
kind things to say about Gevers as the leader of the foundation;
in an emailed statement to Fortune, Kathleen Breitman said that
Johann was an incompetent "roadblock" who failed to fulfill the
basic duties required of his position.

The accusations were formally laid out in a 9-page letter saying
that Gevers was guilty of "self-dealing, self-promotion and
conflicts of interest."  In an interview with Reuters, Gevers
fired back at the Breitmans, accusing them of organizing an
illegal coup to oust him from the foundation.  "This is attempted
character assassination," said Gevers "It's a laundry list of
misleading statements and outright lies."

The drama surrounding the accusations sent the price of Tezos
token futures spiraling.  The tokens, which have been
affectionately named 'Tezzies', dropped roughly 60% in the wake of
the drama. Kathleen Breitman told Fortune that the company's plans
to release the Tezzies to ICO participants in February remained
unchanged.

On October 25, the same day that the first class-action suit was
filed, the Breitmans took the stage at the Money2020 conference in
Las Vegas.  "This will blow over once the board meets in a few
days," said Kathleen.  She was mistaken. [GN]


TOTAL CARD: "Cooper" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------
Christopher Cooper, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Total Card, Inc., a South Dakota
corporation, Case No. 1:17-cv-04306 (S.D. Ind., November 17,
2017), is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

Plaintiff, Christopher Cooper is a citizen of the State of
Indiana, residing in the Southern District of Indiana, from whom
Defendant attempted to collect a delinquent consumer debt, which
was allegedly owed to United Consumer Financial Services.

Defendant Total operates a nationwide debt collection business and
attempts to collect debts from consumers in virtually every state,
including consumers in the State of Indiana. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David J. Philipps, Esq.
      Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
      Angie K. Robertson, Esq.
      PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
      9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
      Palos Hills, IL 60465
      Tel: (708) 974-2900
      Fax: (708) 974-2907
      E-mail: davephilipps@aol.com
              mephilipps@aol.com
              angiekrobertson@aol.com


TRAVELPORT: Settles Antitrust Class Action in New York
------------------------------------------------------
Tnooz reports that Travelport reached a settlement agreement in an
antitrust lawsuit charging the three western GDS companies with
conspiring to avoid competing with each other.

Sabre and Amadeus remain defendants in the class action lawsuit,
filed in 2015 in the U.S. District Court in New York City.
In submissions requesting approval of the settlement, the
plaintiffs said it provides for Travelport's cooperation in the
ongoing prosecution of the case.

They said Travelport also agreed to authenticate the vast number
of documents it has already produced and to pay $117,000 to their
lawyers for litigation expenses.

In a statement, Travelport made it clear that the settlement was
not prompted by the merits of the case but by a desire to make it
go away:

"Travelport acknowledges that it has reached a settlement with the
plaintiffs in the matter of Gordon, et al. v. Amadeus IT Group,
S.A., which, if approved by the court, would resolve all pending
claims against Travelport in the case.  As noted in the settlement
agreement itself, Travelport denies that it committed any
violations of law or engaged in any unlawful act or conduct, nor
is Travelport aware of any evidence to the contrary.

Travelport, to avoid the legal expense and distraction of ongoing
litigation, agreed to settle the case on terms that will allow the
company to focus on continuing to provide a transparent,
pro-competitive platform to connect travel buyers and travel
sellers."

The complaint is unusual in that it was brought by a group of 21
consumers and "all others similarly situated," who presumably
would have had little or no direct contact with GDS companies.
The class action seeks to represent "all U.S. residents who
purchased a ticket on American, Continental, Delta, Northwest,
United, US Airways, AirTran, Alaska or JetBlue between June 1,
2006 [the year full-content agreements were introduced], and the
present."

The plaintiffs claim that the GDS companies' practices have kept
air fares artificially high by forcing airlines to accept to
accept a nearly identical contract provision prohibiting the
airlines from offering different content or lower prices through
other distribution channels.

It was part of a plan "to strangle airlines' ability to negotiate
fees and offer differentiated content," they said.

Much of the material in the original complaint was similar to
verbiage used in US Airways' lawsuit vs. Sabre.

It also appeared to borrow heavily from American Airlines' 2011
lawsuits against Sabre and Travelport, which were settled.
The case is currently in the discovery phase.  Judge Katherine
Polk Failla has not yet set a trial date. [GN]


TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: Feb. 9 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
The following is being released by Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc.
pursuant to an Order of the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware:

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

CITY OF MONROE EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, derivatively on
behalf of TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY FOX, INC.,
Plaintiff,

v.

RUPERT MURDOCH, LACHLAN MURDOCH, JAMES MURDOCH, CHARLES G. CAREY,
DAVID F. DEVOE, RODERICK I. EDDINGTON, ROGER S. SILBERMAN, JACQUES
A. NASSER, JAMES W. BREYER, JEFFREY W. UBBEN, VIET DINH, DELPHINE
ARNAULT, TIDJANE THIAME, AND THE ESTATE OF ROGER AILES,
DEFENDANTS,

and

TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY FOX, INC.,
Nominal Defendant.

C.A. No.  2017-0833-AGB

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF DERIVATIVE ACTION, PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT OF DERIVATIVE ACTION, SETTLEMENT HEARING AND RIGHT TO
APPEAR

TO:   ALL RECORD AND BENEFICIAL HOLDERS OF THE COMMON STOCK OF
TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY FOX, INC. ("FOX" OR THE "COMPANY") AS OF THE
CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON NOVEMBER 20, 2017.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY.
YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE ACTION.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23.1 of the Delaware
Court of Chancery and a Scheduling Order of the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware (the "Court"), of the pendency of the
above-captioned stockholder derivative action (the "Action"),
which was brought by plaintiff City of Monroe Employees'
Retirement System ("Plaintiff") on behalf of and for the benefit
of the Company.

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that the Parties have reached a proposed
settlement of the Action (the "Settlement"), subject to Court
approval, as provided in the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement, Compromise, and Release, dated as of November 20, 2017
(the "Stipulation").  Pursuant to the Stipulation, as
consideration for the Settlement, the Director and Officer
Defendants and the Ailes Estate will cause their insurers to make
a payment of $90 million in cash, less the amount of any
attorneys' fees and expenses awarded by the Court to Plaintiffs'
Counsel, to the Company, and the Company shall implement the
corporate and compliance enhancements set forth in Exhibit A to
the Stipulation.

A more detailed description of the Settlement terms, as well as a
description of the history of the Action and an explanation of
stockholders' legal rights with respect to the Settlement, is
provided in the full Notice of Pendency of Derivative Action,
Proposed Settlement of Derivative Action, Settlement Hearing, and
Right to Appear (the "Notice").  Each of the Notice and the
Stipulation has been filed as an exhibit to a Current Report on
Form 8-K filed by the Company with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 30, 2017, and the Notice and
Stipulation are available for review in the "Governance" section
of the Company's website, www.21cf.com.

A hearing will be held before the Court on February 9, 2018, at
2:00 p.m., in the Delaware Court of Chancery, New Castle County,
Leonard L. Williams Justice Center, 500 North King Street,
Wilmington, Delaware 19801 (the "Settlement Hearing").  At the
Settlement Hearing, the Court will, among other things: (a)
determine whether the Settlement should be approved by the Court
as fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the
Company and its stockholders; (b) determine whether the Court
should enter a Final Order and Judgment, substantially in the form
attached as Exhibit E to the Stipulation, dismissing the Action
with prejudice, and settling, releasing, and enjoining prosecution
of any and all Released Plaintiff's Claims (as defined in the
Stipulation) against the Released Defendants' Parties (as defined
in the Stipulation); (c) consider the application by Co-Lead
Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and litigation expenses;
(d) hear and determine any objections to the Settlement or Co-Lead
Counsel's fee and expense application; and (e) rule on such other
matters as the Court may deem appropriate.  Stockholders do not
need to attend the Settlement Hearing.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement or Co-Lead Counsel's fee
and expense application must be filed with the Court and delivered
to Co-Lead Counsel and Defendants' counsel such that they are
received no later than January 26, 2018, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice.

Please Note:  Because the Action was brought as a derivative
action, which means that it was brought on behalf of and for the
benefit of the Company, the benefits from the Settlement will go
to the Company.  Individual Fox stockholders will not receive any
direct payment from the Settlement.  Also, please note that there
is no proof of claim form for stockholders to submit in connection
with this Settlement, and stockholders are not required to take
any action in response to this notice.

DO NOT CALL OR WRITE THE COURT OR THE OFFICE OF THE REGISTER IN
CHANCERY REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

All questions regarding this notice and the Settlement should be
made to Co-Lead Counsel:

Mark Lebovitch, Esq.
Bernstein Litowitz Berger
& Grossmann LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
(800) 380-8496
www.blbglaw.com

Michael J. Barry, Esq.
Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.
123 S. Justison Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
(302) 622-7000

www.gelaw.com

Dated: November 30, 2017
By Order of the Court

SOURCE Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc.

Related Links
http://www.21cf.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: More Suits After Data Breach Cover Up
--------------------------------------------------------
The Washington Post reports that after Uber revealed that it paid
hackers $100,000 to keep quiet about stealing the personal
information of 57 million customers and drivers, the company is
now facing at least three potential class-action lawsuits --
including in Oregon -- and separate investigations by the
attorneys general of New York, Missouri, Massachusetts,
Connecticut, and Illinois.

The company said it also has been contacted by the Federal Trade
Commission.

The legal action against Uber comes as the beleaguered ride
hailing company is still reeling from high-profile sexual
harassment complaints and ongoing federal probes of possible
bribery, theft of trade secrets, and discriminatory pricing.

Uber waited more than a year to disclose the massive data breach.
Hackers accessed the names, email addresses and phone numbers of
millions of passengers, and about 600,000 drivers had their
license numbers compromised. Adding to concerns about the sizable
delay in notifying the public, elected officials and security
experts are scrutinizing Uber's decision to pay a ransom to the
hackers in exchange for deleting the stolen data and keeping the
incident secret.

Since Uber first disclosed the data breach earlier this week, five
attorneys general have launched investigations into the company.
"We have serious concerns about the reported conduct," said
Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, Esq. in a statement.

Beyond Healey's probe, attorneys general Eric Schneiderman, Esq.
of New York, Lisa Madigan, Esq. of Illinois and George Jepsen,
Esq. of Connecticut are also looking into the matter. Though these
three have not revealed the exact nature of their investigations,
many state laws require that companies notify customers when their
data has been stolen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, another state
attorney general who has opened an investigation into Uber,
recently also announced a probe into Google's handling of consumer
data and potential anti-competitive behavior as a dominant search
engine.

The Uber data breach has also prompted individual customers to
action. Plaintiffs have filed three separate lawsuits in
California and Oregon that allege Uber was negligent in its
failure to protect consumer data. The suits also claim that
consumers were harmed by having their data compromised without
being notified in a timely manner. In each case, the plaintiffs
are seeking to sue Uber as part of a class action.

"None of this should have happened, and I will not make excuses
for it," said Uber Chief Executive Dara Khosroshahi in a blog post
detailing the data breach. "While I can't erase the past, I can
commit on behalf of every Uber employee that we will learn from
our mistakes." The two individuals who led the company's response
to the data breach have been removed, he said.

In response to the investigations, an Uber spokesman said in a
statement November 24, "We've been in touch with several Attorney
General Offices and the (Federal Trade Commission) to discuss this
issue, and we stand ready to cooperate with them going forward."

A spokesman for the FTC told the Washington Post in a statement,
"We are aware of press reports describing a breach in late 2016 at
Uber and Uber officials' actions after that breach. We are closely
evaluating the serious issues raised."

As the nation's top consumer privacy watchdog, the FTC can take
law enforcement action against companies to ensure that they live
up to their privacy and security promises. The commission has
previously gone after businesses that have misled consumers by
failing to safeguard sensitive information. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Court Enjoins ICE From Removing Indonesian Aliens
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
issued a Memorandum and Order granting Plaintiff's Motion to Stay
Removal in the case captioned LIA DEVITRI, et al.,
Petitioners/Plaintiffs, v. CHRIS CRONEN, et al.,
Respondents/Defendants, Civil Action No. 17-11842-PBS (D. Mass.).

Petitioners seek stays of their removal so that they are not
removed before they have the opportunity to file motions to reopen
based on changed country conditions.

Petitioners are 51 Indonesian Christians who fear religious
persecution in Indonesia and are subject to final Orders of
Removal.  All Petitioners reside in New Hampshire.  In 2010, the
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) instituted a
humanitarian program called Operation Indonesian Surrender,
through which Petitioners were granted Orders of Supervision,
allowing them to seek employment and subjecting them to certain
mandatory conditions.  Petitioners also received temporary stays
of removal that were renewed over multiple years.

In the summer of 2017, these individuals were informed that they
would be removed from the United States.  They filed this habeas
petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2241, raising claims under
the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the United Nations
Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment (CAT), and the Due Process Clause of the
Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

The only issue before the Court is whether the Court has subject-
matter jurisdiction.

Petitioners assert that the Court has habeas jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. Section 2241(c).  Here, Petitioners challenge a condition
of their custody, specifically, ICE's abrupt change in policy
regarding participants in Operation Indonesian Surrender' and the
unfairly compressed timetable of the issuance of the Denials of
Stays and/or Notices of Revocation of Release. Essentially,
Petitioners argue that the sudden policy change, combined with the
30-30 order, is preventing them from exercising their due process
rights" and their statutory right to move to reopen.

Since Petitioners' challenge is tied to a term of their Orders of
Supervision (OSUPs) habeas jurisdiction is proper.

Petitioners concede, as they must, that the Court has no
jurisdiction to review the decision to execute their removal
orders, but they argue that they have a statutory right to move to
reopen based on changed country conditions that arose after the
Orders of Removal became final.

The Suspension Clause of the United States Constitution dictates
that the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be
suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the
public Safety may require it. Congress may decide to create
adequate and effective alternatives to habeas corpus relief
without offending the Suspension Clause.

Despite the jurisdiction-stripping language of 8 U.S.C. Section
1252(g), the Court concludes that it has subject-matter
jurisdiction under both 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 and 28 U.S.C.
Section 1331 to ensure that there are adequate and effective
alternatives to habeas corpus relief in the circumstances of this
case. If the jurisdictional bar in 8 U.S.C. Section 1252(g)
prevented the Court from giving Petitioners an opportunity to
raise their claims through fair and effective administrative
procedures, the statute would violate the Suspension Clause as
applied.

The Court finds that it has subject-matter jurisdiction over
Counts I and II in the SAC.  The Court dismisses without prejudice
Count III addressed in the companion case.  The government is
hereby temporarily enjoined from removing all Petitioners named in
the SAC until the Court rules on the motion for preliminary
injunction or until further order of the Court.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 27, 2017 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybf4hb76 from Leagle.com.

Lia Devitri, Plaintiff, represented by Ronaldo Rauseo-Ricupero --
rrauseoricupero@nixonpeabody.com -- Nixon Peabody, LLP.

Lia Devitri, Plaintiff, represented by Sydney Pritchett --
spritchett@nixonpeabody.com -- Nixon & Peabody, LLP, W. Daniel
Deane -- ddeane@nixonpeabody.com -- Nixon Peabody LLP, Adriana
Lafaille, American Civil Liberties Union, Anand Balakrishnan,
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, pro hac vice, Gilles R.
Bissonnette, American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire, Judy
Rabinovitz, American Civil Liberties Union, pro hac vice, Lee
Gelernt, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, pro hac vice,
Matthew Segal, American Civil Liberties Union, 211 Congress St.,
Boston, MA, 02110-2410 & Nathan P. Warecki --
nwarecki@nixonpeabody.com -, Nixon Peabody LLP.

Eva Grasje, Plaintiff, represented by Adriana Lafaille, American
Civil Liberties Union, Anand Balakrishnan, American Civil
Liberties Union Foundation, pro hac vice, Gilles R. Bissonnette,
American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire, Judy Rabinovitz,
American Civil Liberties Union, pro hac vice, Lee Gelernt,
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, pro hac vice, Matthew
Segal, American Civil Liberties Union, Nathan P. Warecki, Nixon
Peabody LLP, Ronaldo Rauseo-Ricupero, Nixon Peabody, LLP, Sydney
Pritchett, Nixon & Peabody, LLP & W. Daniel Deane, Nixon Peabody
LLP.

Syane Kaloh, Plaintiff, represented by Adriana Lafaille, American
Civil Liberties Union, Anand Balakrishnan, American Civil
Liberties Union Foundation, pro hac vice, Gilles R. Bissonnette,
American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire, Judy Rabinovitz,
American Civil Liberties Union, pro hac vice, Lee Gelernt,
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, pro hac vice, Matthew
Segal, American Civil Liberties Union, Nathan P. Warecki, Nixon
Peabody LLP, Ronaldo Rauseo-Ricupero, Nixon Peabody, LLP, Sydney
Pritchett, Nixon & Peabody, LLP & W. Daniel Deane, Nixon Peabody
LLP.

John Londa, Plaintiff, represented by Adriana Lafaille, American
Civil Liberties Union, Anand Balakrishnan, American Civil
Liberties Union Foundation, pro hac vice, Gilles R. Bissonnette,
American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire, Judy Rabinovitz,
American Civil Liberties Union, pro hac vice, Lee Gelernt,
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, pro hac vice, Matthew
Segal, American Civil Liberties Union, Nathan P. Warecki, Nixon
Peabody LLP, Ronaldo Rauseo-Ricupero, Nixon Peabody, LLP, Sydney
Pritchett, Nixon & Peabody, LLP & W. Daniel Deane, Nixon Peabody
LLP.

Meldy Lumangkun, Plaintiff, represented by Adriana Lafaille,
American Civil Liberties Union, Anand Balakrishnan, American Civil
Liberties Union Foundation, pro hac vice, Gilles R. Bissonnette,
American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire, Judy Rabinovitz,
American Civil Liberties Union, pro hac vice, Lee Gelernt,
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, pro hac vice, Matthew
Segal, American Civil Liberties Union, Nathan P. Warecki, Nixon
Peabody LLP, Ronaldo Rauseo-Ricupero, Nixon Peabody, LLP, Sydney
Pritchett, Nixon & Peabody, LLP & W. Daniel Deane, Nixon Peabody
LLP.

Martin Lumingkewas, Plaintiff, represented by Adriana Lafaille,
American Civil Liberties Union, Anand Balakrishnan, American Civil
Liberties Union Foundation, pro hac vice, Gilles R. Bissonnette,
American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire, Judy Rabinovitz,
American Civil Liberties Union, pro hac vice, Lee Gelernt,
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, pro hac vice, Matthew
Segal, American Civil Liberties Union, Nathan P. Warecki, Nixon
Peabody LLP, Ronaldo Rauseo-Ricupero, Nixon Peabody, LLP, Sydney
Pritchett, Nixon & Peabody, LLP & W. Daniel Deane, Nixon Peabody
LLP.

Meive Lumingkewas, Plaintiff, represented by Adriana Lafaille,
American Civil Liberties Union, Anand Balakrishnan, American Civil
Liberties Union Foundation, pro hac vice, Gilles R. Bissonnette,
American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire, Judy Rabinovitz,
American Civil Liberties Union, pro hac vice, Lee Gelernt,
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, pro hac vice, Matthew
Segal, American Civil Liberties Union, Nathan P. Warecki, Nixon
Peabody LLP, Ronaldo Rauseo-Ricupero, Nixon Peabody, LLP, Sydney
Pritchett, Nixon & Peabody, LLP & W. Daniel Deane, Nixon Peabody
LLP.

Terry Rombot, Plaintiff, represented by Adriana Lafaille, American
Civil Liberties Union, Anand Balakrishnan, American Civil
Liberties Union Foundation, pro hac vice, Gilles R. Bissonnette,
American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire, Judy Rabinovitz,
American Civil Liberties Union, pro hac vice, Lee Gelernt,
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, pro hac vice, Matthew
Segal, American Civil Liberties Union, Nathan P. Warecki, Nixon
Peabody LLP, Ronaldo Rauseo-Ricupero, Nixon Peabody, LLP, Sydney
Pritchett, Nixon & Peabody, LLP & W. Daniel Deane, Nixon Peabody
LLP.

Agus Setiawan, Plaintiff, represented by Adriana Lafaille,
American Civil Liberties Union, Anand Balakrishnan, American Civil
Liberties Union Foundation, pro hac vice, Gilles R. Bissonnette,
American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire, Judy Rabinovitz,
American Civil Liberties Union, pro hac vice, Lee Gelernt,
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, pro hac vice, Matthew
Segal, American Civil Liberties Union, Nathan P. Warecki, Nixon
Peabody LLP, Ronaldo Rauseo-Ricupero, Nixon Peabody, LLP, Sydney
Pritchett, Nixon & Peabody, LLP & W. Daniel Deane, Nixon Peabody
LLP.

Freddy Sombah, Plaintiff, represented by Adriana Lafaille,
American Civil Liberties Union, Anand Balakrishnan, American Civil
Liberties Union Foundation, pro hac vice, Gilles R. Bissonnette,
American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire, Judy Rabinovitz,
American Civil Liberties Union, pro hac vice, Lee Gelernt,
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, pro hac vice, Matthew
Segal, American Civil Liberties Union, Nathan P. Warecki, Nixon
Peabody LLP, Ronaldo Rauseo-Ricupero, Nixon Peabody, LLP, Sydney
Pritchett, Nixon & Peabody, LLP & W. Daniel Deane, Nixon Peabody
LLP.

Chris M. Cronen, Defendant, represented by Rayford A. Farquhar,
United States Attorney's Office, Michael A. Celone, United States
Department of Justice; Civil Division Office of Immigration
Litigation-District Court Section, Michael P. Sady, United States
Attorney's Office, Vinita B. Andrapalliyal, United States
Department of Justice & William C. Silvis, United States
Department of Justice.

Timothy Stevens, Defendant, represented by Rayford A. Farquhar,
United States Attorney's Office, Michael A. Celone, United States
Department of Justice; Civil Division Office of Immigration
Litigation-District Court Section, Michael P. Sady, United States
Attorney's Office, Vinita B. Andrapalliyal, United States
Department of Justice & William C. Silvis, United States
Department of Justice.

Elaine C. Duke, Defendant, represented by Rayford A. Farquhar,
United States Attorney's Office, Michael A. Celone, United States
Department of Justice; Civil Division Office of Immigration
Litigation-District Court Section, Michael P. Sady, United States
Attorney's Office, Vinita B. Andrapalliyal, United States
Department of Justice & William C. Silvis, United States
Department of Justice.

Pro Se Party John A. Hawkinson, Intervenor, Pro Se.


UNIVERSAL HANDICRAFT: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Mollicon" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida denied Defendants Universal
Handicraft and Shay Sabag Segev's motions to dismiss the case,
Lisa Mollicone, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Universal Handicraft d/b/a Deep Sea
Cosmetics d/b/a Adore Organic Innovations, and others, Defendants,
Civil Action No. 17-21468-Civ-Scola (S.D. Fla.).

The consolidated action began as two cases -- one filed by
Plaintiff Mollicone in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, and the other filed by Plaintiff Millie
Land in this district before Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga, in which
the Plaintiffs assert claims against the Defendants based upon
allegedly false and misleading representations with respect to the
anti-aging properties of cosmetics manufactured, marketed and sold
by the Defendants.  Before Mollicone's case was transferred to
this Court from California, the District Judge ruled upon the
Defendants' previous motions to dismiss, in which Universal
challenged the court's subject matter jurisdiction and the
sufficiency of the allegations in the first amended complaint,
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.

Specifically, Universal argued that Mollicone lacked standing (i)
to seek injunctive relief because she failed to demonstrate that
she is threatened with a concrete and particularized injury; (ii)
to assert claims regarding products she did not buy; and (iii) to
assert claims based on laws of states outside California and New
Jersey.  In addition, and relevant to the Court's consideration of
the present motion, Universal argued that Mollicone failed to
plead her fraud-based claims with particularity and that her
allegations supported only a claim for lack of substantiation
under California law.

In her order, Judge Christina Snyder denied Universal's motion on
these grounds.  Thereafter, Mollicone filed a second amended
complaint, which Universal answered.  Subsequently, pursuant to
Universal's motion, Judge Snyder transferred Mollicone's case to
this district.  Upon the parties' stipulation, this Court
consolidated Mollicone's case with Plaintiff Land's case, and
required the Plaintiffs to file a third amended complaint.

In response to the third amended complaint, the Defendants have
filed the instant motions to dismiss.  Universal also moves, in
the alternative, to strike certain allegations in the third
amended complaint, and for a more definite statement.  Judge Scola
denied Universal Handicraft's motion to dismiss and its
alternative relief.

Judge Scola explains that while he recognizes that the substantive
counts in the third amended complaint are not a model of drafting
and reincorporate the allegations preceding them, he does not find
that such a technical violation alone renders the third amended
complaint so confusing as to justify dismissal in the case.  Also,
the Plaintiffs have not yet sought class certification in the
case, thus, whether or not a particular class should be certified
is an inquiry better reserved after full briefing of a motion for
class certification, and a full consideration of the relevant
factors under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Moreover, the Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that Land
relied on any advertising, label, or statement prior to purchasing
the Defendants' product.  Finally, the allegations and attachments
that Universal now seeks to strike, or that Universal contends
require a more definite statement, are identical to allegations
and attachments to the first and second amended complaints, and
which Universal did not challenge.

Because he finds the Plaintiffs' allegations to be sufficient, the
Judge denied Segev's motion.  With respect to the allegations of
corporate officer liability and alter ego, he finds the third
amended complaint to be sufficient to withstand dismissal.
Whether the Plaintiffs will ultimately be able to prove that Segev
should be held liable pursuant to these theories is a
determination for another day.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 28, 2017 Omnibus Order is
available at https://is.gd/vxtTdn from Leagle.com.

Lisa Mollicone, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Houchin --
mike@consumersadvocates.com -- Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron,
pro hac vice.

Lisa Mollicone, Plaintiff, represented by Ronald Marron --
ron@consumersadvocates.com -- Law Office of Ronald A. Marron,
APLC, pro hac vice & Cullin Avram O'Brien --
cullin@cullinobrienlaw.com -- Cullin O'Brien Law, P.A..

Universal Handicraft, Inc., Defendant, represented by Anna L.
Heller -- jimheller@cozen.com -- Cozen O'Connor, Brett Nicole
Taylor -- btaylor@cozen.com -- Cozen O'Connor, Jeffrey David
Feldman -- jfeldman@cozen.com -- Cozen O'Connor & Nathan Dooley --
ndooley@cozen.com -- Cozen O'Connor.

Universal Handicraft, Inc., Defendant, represented by Susan Joy
Latham -- slatham@cozen.com -- Cozen O'Connor.

Shay Sabag Segev, Defendant, represented by Anna L. Heller, Cozen
O'Connor, Brett Nicole Taylor, Cozen O'Connor, Jeffrey David
Feldman, Cozen O'Connor, Nathan Dooley, Cozen O'Connor & Susan Joy
Latham, Cozen O'Connor.


UNIVERSITE LAVAL: Judge Rejects Motion to Stay Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action continues.  On November 27, 2017, Justice Simon
Hebert has rendered his decision regarding the motion for a stay
of proceeding filed by Universite Laval in September.

The judge rejected the University's request for a suspension of
the class action proceedings until the Federal Court of Appeal
releases its ruling in the case opposing Access Copyright to York
University.  In his judgment, the judge states that the court has
not been satisfied that the savings that may emanate from the
decision in the case in the Federal Court would be important
enough as to suspend this class action which started more than
three years ago, in November 2014.

Copibec also takes this opportunity to correct inaccurate
information that has been published after the release of the class
action notice in September.

Copibec wishes to recall that:

Copibec is not a "publishers' cartel".

Copibec is a non-profit social enterprise created by the author
and publisher community.  Authors and publishers are represented
equally on our Board of Directors, with a director from each
category alternating as Chair. Daniele Simpson, from the Union des
ecrivaines et des ecrivains du Quebec (UNEQ) representing Quebec
writers, is Copibec Chair this year.  The very first agreements
governing the content reproduced by educational institutions were
in fact negotiated by UNEQ.

Copibec licences do not "duplicate existing expenditures" by
universities.

Every year, thousands of copy log entries (content uses) are
compiled by Copibec under the university licences.  Most of those
uses relate to pages in monographs (non-serial publications)
rather than serial publications such as scientific journals.
Content from books actually represents 79% of the uses reported
annually by universities with licences.  And of course, Copibec
licences do not require users to report content reproduced under a
separate publisher's licence.

Copibec licences reflect how universities operate today.

The royalty payable to authors, visual artists and their
publishers by universities has been reduced by nearly 50% since
2012, falling to $13.50 per student for the 2017-2021 period. This
substantial decline amply reflects evolving practices within
universities, which are now benefiting from a very advantageous
royalty rate for the millions of copies they make each year.

The purpose of the class action against Universite Laval is to
protect the rights of authors and publishers.

The class action has been launched by and on behalf of authors,
publishers and their representatives, including Copibec.  The
decision to go ahead with the action was made by our Board of
Directors, which has as many directors from the author category as
the publisher category.  Various individual authors and publishers
have also signed statements as members of the class. The action is
not intended to protect Copibec's business model but rather to
ensure that authors and publishers receive compensation when their
works are used.

On behalf of the members of the class action, Copibec is therefore
pleased with the decision rejecting Laval University's application
for stay.  A new deadline in this collective action whose first
request dates from November 2014 has been avoided and Copibec
hopes that hearings will take place as soon as possible.

To stay up to date on developments in the class action, please go
to the Copibec website or contact us at
actioncollective@copibec.ca

                         About Copibec

Copibec is a non-profit social enterprise created in 1998 by the
Union des ecrivaines et des ecrivains quebecois (UNEQ) and the
Association nationale des editeurs de livres (ANEL) to manage the
reproduction rights for content in paper and digital formats.  It
has the authority to manage reproduction rights for thousands of
Quebec authors and publishers as well as the authors and
publishers represented by reproduction rights organizations in
about 30 countries, including the United States, France and
Belgium. [GN]


UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS: Lawsuits Over Sexual Assaults Resolved
------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Margolies, writing for KCUR, reports that two former student
athletes who sued the University of Kansas after claiming they
were sexually assaulted on campus have dismissed their Title IX
cases against the university.

Both lawsuits were dismissed with prejudice, meaning they can't be
refiled.  Typically, such dismissals mean the cases have been
settled out of court.

Dan Curry, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, would say only that the
cases had been "resolved."

A spokesman for KU could not immediately be reached for comment.

The separate lawsuits by Daisy Tackett and Sarah McClure, both
former varsity rowers, alleged that KU was indifferent to their
reports of harassment and retaliated against them after they
reported being assaulted by a football player in Jayhawker Towers,
a KU residence hall.

Ms. Tackett claimed she was raped by the football player in the
fall of 2014.  Ms. McClure claimed she was sexually assaulted by
the same player in August 2015.

Ms. Tackett and Ms. McClure both sought damages under Title IX,
the federal law that bars sex discrimination in education.  A
federal judge declined to dismiss their lawsuits after ruling that
the dismissal of a separate class action lawsuit against KU over
sexual assaults on campus did not preclude their individual
claims.

The class action case alleged that KU's residence halls had for
years been "home to a known, persistent and growing problem of
instances of sexual assault."  KU termed those allegations
"baseless."

In her lawsuit, which was filed in March 2016, Ms. Tackett alleged
that at least four other sexual assaults had been reported at
Jayhawker Towers before she was allegedly raped and two others
assaults after that.

The Kansas City Star reported that the university in March 2016
recommended that the football player be expelled after finding he
had engaged in "non-consensual sex" with Ms. Tackett and violated
KU's sexual harassment policy in McClure's case.  The player,
Jordan Goldenberg Jr., is no longer at the university.

Ms. Tackett also claimed that the rowing team coach retaliated
against her after she reported what happened, telling her she
couldn't attend a training trip in December 2015 in Florida.

Ms. Tackett withdrew from KU in January 2016 and moved to Florida
to be with her parents.  Ms. McClure quit the rowing team and KU
canceled her athletic grant the next day.  Before that
Ms. McClure alleged, she and other members of the rowing team were
regularly berated by the team's coach, Rob Catloth, about their
weight and, in her case, her medical condition. [GN]


US BANK: "Guiette" TCPA Suit Transferred to D. Colo.
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Virginia Guiette, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. U.S. Bank National
Association, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-01859 (D. Minn., June 1,
2017), was transferred to the U.S. District Court of Colorado on
December 4, 2017 under Case No. 17-cv-02915.

Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages including interest,
reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action, including
counsel fees and expert fees, rescission or a rescissory measure
of damages and such equitable/injunctive or other relief under the
Telephone Consumers Protection Act (TCPA).

Defendant is a major bank and financial service provider for
consumer accounts. It used an automatic telephone dialing system
when it made the phone calls promoting their services with pre-
recorded or artificial voices on Plaintiff's phone without her
express consent, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony P. Chester, Esq.
      Robert L. Hyde, Esq.
      HYDE & SWIGART
      120 South 6th Street, Suite 2050
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (952) 225-5333
      Facsimile: (800) 635-6425
      Email: tony@westcoastlitigation.com

Defendant is represented by:

      Bryan C. Keane, Esq.
      DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
      50 S 6th St Ste 1500
      Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498
      Tel: (612) 492-6638
      Fax: (952) 516-5608
      Email: keane.bryan@dorsey.com

             - and -

      Divya Shenoy Gupta, Esq.
      Eric J. Troutman, Esq.
      Plaza Tower
      600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 2000
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Tel: (714) 800-1493
      Email: gupta.divya@dorsey.com


WELLS FARGO: Faces New 401(k) Fiduciary Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
John Sullivan, writing for 401K Specialist Mag, reports that the
perennial political pi§ata that is Wells Fargo finds itself in the
litigation line of fire once again, as a proposed class action
suit was filed against the use of certain investments in its
employee 401k plan.

"The lawsuit, filed Nov. 17 in a Minnesota federal court, accuses
the banking giant of filling its 401(k) plan with expensive and
poorly performing investment funds that earned fees for Wells
Fargo," according to Bloomberg BNA. "The company is also accused
of failing to use its 'enormous size' as the third-largest 401(k)
plan in the country -- with nearly $40 billion in assets at one
point -- to negotiate for lower fees."

The news service notes that the claims echo "those in a 2016
lawsuit that Wells Fargo defeated when a federal judge determined
that the company couldn't be liable under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act for "failing to choose the cheapest fund" for
its 401(k) plan.

"This newer lawsuit against Wells Fargo also attacks the company's
decision to keep a money market fund in its 401(k) plan when a
"cheaper and better performing stable value fund" was already in
the plan."

High fees, proprietary funds and overall fiduciary failure are of
course a major focus if industry, legal and regulatory attention,
especially in light of the ongoing drama and "will it, won't it"
questions surrounding the DOL's implementation of it's Conflict of
Interest Rule (known colloquially as the fiduciary rule). Gucci
and DST are just two recent cases to be filed alleging a fiduciary
breach.

Additionally, a number of the nation's most well-known and
respected colleges and universities have been the subject of legal
action over the 403b plans offered to their employees. University
of Pennsylvania, Duke University, John Hopkins, Vanderbilt,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, New York University, Yale
and Columbia, were all subjects of such suits. [GN]


WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC: Massey Files Adversary Suit Under WARN Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Elton Massey, Kirt Hurlburt, Patricia Adams, John Jennings,
Johnnie Hogll, and Katrina Baker, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC,
WECTEC LLC, WECTEC Staffing Services, LLC, and WECTEC Global
Project Services, Inc., Case No. 17-01215-mew (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.,
November 9, 2017), was filed as a class action adversary
proceeding in the bankruptcy case of Westinghouse Electric
Company, LLC, et al., Case No. 17-10751 (MEW).

The complaint is brought for alleged violation of the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act and the South Carolina
Payment of Wages law.

The Plaintiffs and the proposed class are employees of the
Defendants, who worked at or reported to the Virgil C. Summer
Nuclear Station, located in Jenkinsville, South Carolina, until
their employment was terminated without cause on their part in
violation of the WARN Act on July 31, 2017, or within 30 days of
that date, or as the reasonably expected consequence of the mass
layoffs or plant closing at the VC Summer Location, that occurred
on July 31.

WEC is a Delaware limited liability company, with its headquarters
located in Cranberry Township, Pennsylvania.  WEC owns 100% of
Defendant WECTEC.  WECTEC is a Delaware limited liability company,
with its principal office located in Cranberry Township.  WECTEC
owns 100% of Defendants WECTEC Staffing and WECTEC Global.

WECTEC Global is a Louisiana corporation, with its principal
office located in Cranberry Township.  WECTEC Staffing is a
Delaware limited liability company, with its principal office
located in Cranberry Township.  WECTEC Global and WECTEC Staffing
ran the "service business" of WEC and WECTEC.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Raymond Lemisch, Esq.
          Charles A. Ercole, Esq.
          Lee D. Moylan, Esq.
          KLEHR HARRISON HARVEY BRANZBURG LLP
          1835 Market Street, Suite 1400
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 569-2700
          E-mail: rlemisch@klehr.com
                  cercole@klehr.com
                  lmoylan@klehr.com


WOODFORD TRANSPORTATION: Water Outage Class Settlement Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
WSAZ.com reports that a West Virginia judge has given preliminary
approval to a $4 million class action settlement over a January
2015 tanker truck diesel spill that briefly shut down tap water
supplies.

According to The Register-Herald, Greenbrier County Judge Robert
Richardson gave initial approval November 20 in the lawsuit
against Kenneth Pritt, Woodford Transportation and Woodford Oil
Company.

The spill occurred when a tanker truck went into a tributary near
Neola that feeds Anthony Creek.

A news release says contaminants entered the Greenbrier River and
caused Lewisburg officials to shut down water treatment plants.
Water supplies were exhausted the next day. Officials began
restoring water service the day after that.

Businesses, schools and daycares were ordered closed.

Affected residents and owners or workers of businesses are
eligible to collect. [GN]


WOODLAKE CC: Attorney General Pledges to Uphold Action
------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Baxley, writing for The Pilot, reports that State Attorney
General Josh Stein says his office is continuing to monitor the
situation at the troubled Woodlake Resort and Country Club near
Vass.

Woodlake CC Corp., the company that owns the gated subdivision,
was sued by the state Attorney General's Office in January for
repeatedly failing to follow through on promises to repair the dam
at Lake Surf, which was drained last year amid concerns about the
dam's stability in the wake of Hurricane Matthew. An agreement to
dismantle the dam's deteriorated spillway was later reached in
court between the state and Julie Watson, vice president of
Woodlake CC Corp.

But the company failed to comply with construction deadlines
established in the agreement, forcing the state to step in to
perform the work. In a recent interview with The Pilot, Stein said
he will lead the effort to recoup the costs associated with the
project after a series of inspections have been completed and the
final bill is sent to Woodlake CC Corp.

"My job at the Attorney General's Office is to represent (the
state Department of Environmental Quality) in this litigation and
make sure that the work is done properly and to try to collect on
the cost of that work," Stein said.

The cost of the project is expected to exceed $1 million,
according to some estimates.

The agreement between the state and Woodlake CC Corp. was
authorized in the form of a consent judgment signed by Judge James
Webb in Moore County Superior Court. The judgment clearly stated
that Watson could be held in contempt of court if Woodlake CC
Corp. failed to hold up its end of the deal.

"Throughout the process, contempt has remained on the table as an
option," said Laura Brewer, communications director for the
Attorney General's Office. "But collection hasn't officially
started because construction's not complete."

The value of waterfront homes in Woodlake fell sharply after the
state drained the 1,200-acre lake. A class action lawsuit against
Woodlake CC Corp. was announced in October, with the plaintiffs
blaming the company for causing property values to be slashed by
50 percent after a review by the county tax department.

The plaintiffs also claim the company's continued collection of
membership dues is part of "a scheme to coerce members to continue
paying fees even though WLCCC was not providing the promised
amenities," according to a civil summons delivered to Watson.

Hope Carmichael, Esq. an attorney with Jordan Price Law Offices in
Raleigh, is representing the homeowners. During a town hall-style
meeting on Oct. 25, Carmichael said the plaintiffs would receive a
default judgment if Woodlake CC Corp. failed to respond to the
civil complaint within 30 days.

David Watterson, one of the lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit and the
president of a committee that wants to restore water to the empty
lake, said in an email November 24 it was not yet clear if Watson
or any other representative of Woodlake CC Corp. had met the
deadline.

"We are still waiting to hear from our attorney as to whether
Woodlake responded to our complaint," Watterson said.

The Pilot was unable to obtain the latest information about the
case from the Moore County Clerk of Court's Office, which was
closed November 23 and 24 in observance of Thanksgiving.

Two classes are being represented in the lawsuit. The first class
consists of Woodlake residents whose property values have been
adversely affected by the loss of the lake -- or, as Watterson put
it during last month's meeting, "virtually everyone who lives at
Woodlake."

The second class consists of residents who have paid membership
dues to use the lake, golf courses and other amenities at the
resort since May 29, 2015. In the civil summons, the plaintiffs
claim Woodlake CC Corp. "offered memberships to property owners
living within the Woodlake subdivision at levels ranging from
$1,944.21 to $2,955.48, depending on the level of amenity access
desired."

The company allegedly "did not allow members to reduce their level
of membership, even when the amenities for which they were paying
were unavailable," according to the summons. "Members were unable
to simply stop paying due to the threat that Woodlake CC Corp.
would terminate their club membership entirely, thus requiring an
additional $25,000 new member fee in the future should they ever
wish to rejoin."

Indeed, the website for Woodlake Resort and Country Club still
advertises the empty lake as the development's "centerpiece . . .
offering members boating, swimming, fishing and water skiing."

In addition to the forthcoming bill from the state, Woodlake CC
Corp. owes money to several businesses, including two engineering
firms that claim to be owed more than $367,000 for unpaid
services.

Because of the company's debts, Carmichael said the lawsuit is not
likely to win payouts for Woodlake residents.

"If we thought the defendant had $20 million sitting in the bank,
the $20 million diminution of property value that you've all
suffered might result in checks coming," she said during the
meeting in Vass.

According to Carmichael, a judgment against Woodlake would instead
allow homeowners to take control of the dam and lake through a
foreclosure auction. Watterson and the other plaintiffs hope to
eventually refill the lake, which should restore value to their
property and bring back the amenity they say attracted them to the
subdivision in the first place.

Stein says he's sympathetic to the plight of residents at
Woodlake.

"It's a real problem, and we're working it out," he said. "We want
to do everything we can to look out for the people there, but as I
said, our top priority has to be public safety." [GN]


WORK OUT WORLD: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Susinno" TCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Peter G. Sheridan of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss
the case styled NOREEN SUSINNO, Plaintiff, v. WORK OUT WORLD,
INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-cv-5881 (PGS) (D.
N.J.).

The Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint ("FAC")
individually and behalf of a putative class of people who received
phone calls from Defendant Work Out World ("WOW"), contrary to the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").  According to the
Complaint, in July 28, 2015, WOW used an automatic dialing system
that left a pre-recorded message in the Plaintiff's voicemail
system.

The following month, WOW served the Plaintiff an Offer of
Judgment, pursuant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68, in the
amount of $1,501 and provided a proposed Order for a Stipulated
Permanent Injunction in full satisfaction of her claims.  The
Plaintiff rejected this offer.  However, on March 30, 2016, WOW
deposited the $1,501 amount, arising from the TCPA violation, into
the Plaintiff's credit card account ending in 6716.  The Plaintiff
claims to have never received payment; instead, she maintains that
WOW deposited funds into her employer's credit card account, not
her own.

Relying on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68, WOW argues the
Court should enter a final judgment, over the Plaintiff's
objections, since it has tendered all available relief.  The
Plaintiff responds, contending that a tender of complete relief of
her individual claims does not render the class action claim moot,
nor has WOW properly tendered payment to her, which may negate her
individual cause of action.

Judge Sheridan denied the WOW's motion to dismiss.  He identifies
two major problems with WOW's motion, both of which provide a
basis for denial.  First, there is a disputed fact.  WOW claims it
has deposited the $1,501 into an account payable to the Plaintiff,
while she maintains that the said amount was transferred to a
credit card that belongs to her employer.

As such, there is clearly a material issue as to whether the
Plaintiff has properly tendered payment such that would render her
individual claims moot.  Moreover, WOW's assertion that it has
offered the entire class complete relief finds no support in the
record.  Not only did the Plaintiff rejected this offer, but WOW's
offer did not provide any monetary relief to the putative class
under 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(3). As such, since WOW has failed
to offer complete relief on the Plaintiff's class-wide claims,
judgment is not warranted.

Second, the Judge says, guided by Richardson v. Dir. Fed. Bureau
of Prisons, even if the Plaintiff's individual claims were moot,
she is entitled to seek class certification, under both the
relation back doctrine and the picking off exception to mootness.
Here, it is apparent that WOW sought settlement with the
Plaintiff, in an attempt to thwart class certification.  However,
to deny class certification at this point, based solely on the
Plaintiff's moot individual claim, would be to deprive her of a
fair opportunity to show that certification is warranted.  In sum,
the Judge says the Plaintiff may have a personal stake in the
present matter, and she has a right to seek class certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 28, 2017 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/aTOVMh from Leagle.com.

NOREEN SUSINNO, Plaintiff, represented by ARI HILLEL MARCUS --
ari@marcuszelman.com -- MARCUS ZELMAN LLC.

NOREEN SUSINNO, Plaintiff, represented by YITZCHAK ZELMAN --
Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com -- Marcus Zelman, LLC.

WORK OUT WORLD, INC., Defendant, represented by JOSHUA S. BAUCHNER
-- jb@ansellgrimm.com -- ANSELL GRIMM & AARON.


* Fight to Preserve Mandatory Arbitration Is Bad Policy
-------------------------------------------------------
Scott McCleskey, writing for Reuters, reports that those who fight
against regulation for a living routinely trot out a few
fundamental principles to fortify their arguments.  One is that
consumers should have free choice: the government should not
prohibit products or services on the presumption that it knows
better than the customer.  Another is that "one-size-fits-all"
solutions are bound to fail and should not be imposed on the
industry or its customers.

A judge wearing white gloves stands before a special session of
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on the occasion of the 225th anniversary of the first
session of the court in New York November 4, 2014.

Following these principles is wise, and helps keep free markets
fair and efficient.  So, it's ironic and disturbing that these
principles were ignored when the financial industry and its
supporters in Congress rushed through a resolution which reversed
a ban on mandatory arbitration clauses in the financial industry.
Reversing the ban leaves financial institutions free to impose
closed-door arbitration on all future disputes with customers,
blocking recourse to the civil court system regardless of the
circumstances.

A bit of background: for years, it has been industry practice that
when you open a bank or brokerage account, you agree to take
disputes with the bank to arbitration, surrendering your right to
participate in a class-action lawsuit.

Last July, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), much
maligned by regulation opponents, banned these mandatory
arbitration clauses on the grounds that they are unfair to
consumers.  But with last year's elections there's a new sheriff
in town, and Congress managed to squeak out a revocation of the
CFPB rule (with a tie vote broken by Vice President Mike Pence),
which was duly signed by President Donald Trump.

The industry's public posture is that arbitration is good for
consumers and class-action lawsuits are bad.  This is in fact
true, in most circumstances.  The Alternative Dispute Resolution
service offered by the Financial Industry Regulation Authority
(FINRA) is a model of efficient and fair dispute resolution that
provides small investors an alternative to settling disputes,
faster and cheaper than hiring a lawyer and going to court.

In most cases, arbitration is undeniably the best course for the
aggrieved investor.  But not always.

Singing the virtues of arbitration would have been a compelling
argument against the CFPB rule if it sought to ban arbitration.
But it did no such thing.  Instead, it prohibited firms from
requiring customers to waive their right to pursue litigation, by
embedding it in a contract whose terms they cannot negotiate. That
means that arbitration is not really Alternative Dispute
Resolution, since there's nothing for it to be an 'alternative'
to.  This is Substitute Dispute Resolution.

So if arbitration is usually in the customer's best interest, why
get all worked up about prohibiting litigation?

The plain answer is that in some cases class-action suits are more
appropriate.  Class-action suits have a public image roughly on
par with opioids and bump-stocks on rifles, but their value comes
clear in cases where customer abuse is widespread. Pick a
financial industry scandal over the past five years and there's a
good chance that thousands of customers were victim to the same
pattern of abuse.

Unpopular as they are, class-action suits are a legitimate avenue
for pursuing civil justice and should not be limited in this way.
Blocking their use deprives the customer of an important path to
redress, and this is no more appropriate when done by a commercial
enterprise than by a government body.

The right to litigate in court is something worth defending.
Important matters of principle are at stake, and they are the very
principles espoused by advocates of free markets: freedom of
choice, level playing fields, no one-size-fits-all regulation. But
mandatory arbitration runs counter to all these principles: it is
a one-size-fits-all solution that reduces consumer freedom of
choice and assumes that the firms know what is best for their
customers better than the customers themselves.

Moreover, the financial industry will now have difficulty fighting
future rules by invoking the principles they now find convenient
to ignore. A less diplomatic writer would put it this way: it
smacks of hypocrisy.

This abandonment of principle is compounded by Congress rushing
the resolution through without the same level of consideration and
analysis that is invariably demanded of new regulations (the CFPB
spent five years studying the issue before issuing its rule).  The
weapon of choice was the Congressional Review Act (CRA), a little
gem of partisanship that allows Congress to overturn new
regulations by federal agencies and bar their reinstatement, but
only within a short window of time.  Passed in 1996, the CRA had
only been used once (16 years ago) until this year: it has been
used fifteen times since February to revoke Obama-era rules before
the window closed.

So the fight to preserve mandatory arbitration is bad policy,
contrary to free market principles, and was rushed through without
the same level of scrutiny required of new rules. It's also one
more thing: bad for business.

Firms spend good money persuading clients and potential clients
that the firm and its employees are trustworthy advisors whose
main interest is their clients' financial well-being.  But an
uninterrupted chain of scandals has given the industry the burden
of proving its trustworthiness.

Lobbying to preserve the industry's right to limit a wronged
client's options does not reinforce the image the industry needs
to maintain.  The move also threatens to undercut industry efforts
to roll back so-called fiduciary rules which seek to formalize the
duty of financial firms with respect to how they treat their
customers. In effect, the industry is saying "we'll act in our
customers' best interests, and when we don't we'll decide which
path they should take to take action against us."

Underlying in the industry's argument is that class-action
litigation is expensive for the firm and the costs will be passed
on to customers.  But this argument rests on the implicit
assumption that eliminating mandatory arbitration clauses will
lead to a flood of class-action suits, and that's not likely. It
takes time, effort, and money to establish a class-action suit,
which must then be certified by the courts as eligible for class-
action status.  They really only make sense when arbitration
doesn't make sense, when the conduct in question is widespread.

Financial institutions could take a less coercive approach to
encourage, but not mandate, the use of arbitration.  They do a lot
of customer education already, and could extend this to the merits
of arbitration.  They could also provide an incentive for
customers to voluntarily waive their right to civil litigation,
for instance by giving better terms for accounts opened with an
agreement to settle disputes through arbitration.

Surely that fits better with a client-centered culture than
dictating the rules of a divorce on the way to the altar.

In the end, arbitration is usually the best course for the client,
but the CFPB failed in its bid to ban mandatory arbitration
agreements and now it's up to financial firms to disavow them.
[GN]


* Illinois Employers Face Class Actions Over BIPA Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel B. Pasternak, Esq., of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, in an
article for The National Law Review, wrote that Illinois enacted
its Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA") in 2008 to
regulate, among other things, employer collection and use of
employee biometric information.  Biometrics is defined as the
measurement and analysis of physical and behavioral
characteristics.  This analysis produces biometric identifiers
that include things like fingerprints, iris or face scans, and
voiceprints, all of which can be used in a variety of ways,
including for security, timekeeping, and employer wellness
programs.

Illinois is not the only state with a biometrics privacy law on
its books, however, its version is considered the nation's most
stringent.  BIPA requires a business that collects and uses
biometric data to protect the data in the same manner it protects
other sensitive or confidential information; to establish data
retention and destruction procedures, including temporal
limitations of three years; to publish policies outlining its
biometric data collection and use procedures; and to obtain prior,
informed consent from any individuals from whom it plans to obtain
and use biometric data.   The statute also requires  businesses to
notify employees in the event of a data breach.

Protection of biometric data is viewed as critical because, unlike
passwords comprised of letters, numbers, or typographical
characters, biometric data is unique and cannot be replaced or
updated in the event of a breach.  Technology now allows biometric
data to be captured surreptitiously, such as recording a voice
over the phone, or face mapping individuals in a crowd or through
photographs, increasing the risk for its theft or unauthorized or
at least, unknown, use.  In fact, these more furtive methods of
collecting and using biometric data is what led to the filing of
five BIPA class action lawsuits in 2015 -- four against Facebook,
and one against online photo website Shutterfly -- that alleged
these companies used facial recognition software to analyze online
posts, but did not comply with BIPA's consent or other procedural
requirements.  These first lawsuits brought attention to the
private right of action authorized under BIPA, which provides that
any "aggrieved" person may sue and recover $1,000 for each
negligent violation and $5,000 for each intentional or reckless
violation, or, in both circumstances, actual damages if greater
than the statutory damages.  Prevailing parties may also recover
their attorneys' fees and costs.

The plaintiffs' employment bar recently has gotten seriously into
the BIPA class action game; since August 2017, approximately 30
lawsuits have been filed in Cook County, Illinois (where Chicago
is), alone.  These putative class actions have been filed against
employers in many industries including gas stations, restaurants,
and retail, and typically involve the employer's use of
fingerprint operated time clocks.  The cases allege that the
defendant employers failed to obtain proper informed consent or
fail to maintain and inform employees about policies on the
company's use, storage, and destruction of biometric data.  Many
of these lawsuits also allege the employer companies have
improperly shared employee biometric data with third-party time
clock vendors, and some even name the vendor as a defendant.

In addition to the obvious cost of class action litigation, these
suits present additional legal challenges because many aspects of
BIPA remain untested.  For example, the statutory term "aggrieved"
person leaves open the question whether a plaintiff must be able
to prove actual harm in order to recover.  The U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois and U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York both have dismissed BIPA suits
for lack of standing where the plaintiffs did not allege actual
harm.  The latter case, Santana v. Take-Two Interactive Software,
is currently before the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, which heard oral argument in October 2017, but has
not yet issued its ruling.   Other aspects of BIPA also remain in
flux -- such as whether facial recognition through photography is
biometric data, as defined under the statute, and what forms of
consent are compliant.  On the other side, defendants are
challenging the constitutionality of the damages provisions,
arguing that their potentially disproportionate nature to any
actual harm violates due process.  As these issues are flushed out
under BIPA, they are certain to affect other states who have
already enacted, or may seek to enact, laws regarding use of
biometric data. [GN]


* Vaginal Mesh May Be Banned in Britain Due to Complications
------------------------------------------------------------
Kate Sheridan, writing for Newsweek, reports that a type of mesh
used in the vagina and linked to serious and painful complications
may be banned in the United Kingdom.  According to the BBC, the
U.K.'s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)
may recommend the devices be used only in research.

The mesh is intended to help keep women's pelvic organs in place
inside their bodies.  The problem may sound extreme, but it is
both real and common.  The condition, known as pelvic organ
relapse, or POP, happens because organs move around during
pregnancy and delivery.

As a result, the muscles that keep a woman's uterus and bladder in
place can weaken, causing the organs to drop down.  The shift can
be uncomfortable and make it difficult for women to control their
bladders.  Some organs may even start to poke out from the vaginal
opening.  An estimated 200,000 American women undergo surgery
following childbirth to treat POP.

But for some women, the mesh has caused more problems than it has
solved.  The plastic mesh meant to secure the placement of their
organs began to cut into their tissue instead, causing extreme
pain. About one in 15 women who had the mesh implanted in the U.K.
eventually had it taken out, The Guardian reported in August.

These mesh implants have also been controversial in the United
States.  One woman, Ella Ebaugh, 51, was awarded $57 million in
damages after she sued the manufacturer of the mesh used to treat
her urinary incontinence.  In the U.S., nearly 55,000 people are
suing Johnson & Johnson, a major manufacturer of the product,
according to the company's 2016 annual report.  Class-action
lawsuits against the company have also been filed in Israel and
Canada.  Other class-action lawsuits over the mesh are ongoing in
the U.S. and Australia, The Guardian reported in September.

In April, Johnson & Johnson was ordered to pay $20 million to a
woman in New Jersey for mesh-related damages, Bloomberg reported.
In 2016, California, Washington and Kentucky sued the company over
its marketing of the device, alleging that the company didn't
provide enough information about the mesh's possible side effects.
(The company told Reuters that the subsidiary that marketed the
mesh, Ethicon, "acted appropriately and responsibly.")

Many of the lawsuits emphasize the extraordinary pain linked with
the mesh.  One woman told the BBC that she had to quit her job;
another said she considered suicide and that she and her husband
haven't been able to have sex in four years.  One woman, writing
about her experience in an opinion piece for The Guardian, said a
lawyer had contacted her about women who say the mesh eventually
forced them to have their bladders removed.

Britain's national healthcare system, the NHS, isn't obliged to
follow NICE's recommendations, the BBC noted.  The U.S. Food and
Drug Administration does not regulate doctors' medical decisions
directly, but if the agency were to take the extraordinary step of
mandating a recall of the devices, that could be binding on
manufacturers.

The FDA has known for several years about the hazards of this
product, first approved to treat POP in 2002.  By 2010, the FDA
had already received nearly 4,000 reports of adverse events
associated with the mesh, according to documents from a meeting
held in 2011 to review the use of the device; three people died
because of complications after the mesh-placing surgery between
2008 and 2010.

After that meeting, the agency concluded that serious
complications were "not rare" and that there wasn't "conclusive
evidence" that the mesh actually made surgeries more effective for
patients.

Short of a recall, the FDA has done other things to address the
issues with the mesh, reclassifying both the product and the
instruments used with it to categories that give the agency more
oversight.  The agency also asked companies with instruments used
with the mesh that are already on the market to go back to the FDA
for clearance by January 2018, according to the Federal Register.
However, no steps to outright ban vaginal mesh in the U.S. have
yet been taken. [GN]

                             *********


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  * * *