CAR_Public/171221.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


          Thursday, December 21, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 252



                            Headlines

ALPI INTERNATIONAL: Alvarado Sues Over Missed Breaks, Paystubs
AMAZON.COM: "Weber" Sues Over Illegal Credit Card Charges
ASSOCIATED CREDIT: Faces "Strutynsky" Suit in E.D. of New York
BANK OF AMERICA: Court Narrows Claims in "Jackson" RESPA/GBL Suit
BED BATH: "Harvey" Action Seeks Suitable Seats in Workplace

BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: CMC in Securities Suit to Continue Jan. 9
CARY NELSON: "Sacchi" Sues Over Expired Probiotic Supplements
CEMEX INC: Faces "Nowakoski" Suit in Central District Calif.
COLFOR MANUFACTURING: Faces "Weidow" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
COMCAST CABLE: Court Stays "Wuest" Wire Tapping Suit

CONCORD HOSPITALITY: Faces "Flynn" Suit in W.D. Penn.
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Faces "Martin" Suit in E.D. New York
COUNTY OF INYO, CA: Court Certifies Class in "Wagner" FLSA Suit
COVERALL NA: Silva Sues Over Illegal Wage Deductions
CRUNCH LLC: "Saleh" Sues Over Unsolicited SMS Ads

CVS HEALTH: Ct. Won't Strike Affirmative Defenses in "Lindenbaum"
DAWKINS HOME: "Vida" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
DOLLAR TREE: Faces "Hessam" Suit in Eastern District New York
EQUIFAX INC: Faces State Employees Union Suit in N.D. Georgia
ESCALLATE LLC: Faces "Guzman" Suit in Eastern District of Penn.

EXPERIAN INFORMATION: "Chinitz" Suit Remanded to State Court
EXPRESS COURIER: Bid to Decertify FLSA Class in "Harris" Granted
FIELDTURF USA: Faces New Castle School Suit in District of NJ
FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Faces "Sanchez" Suit in E.D. New York
FRIENDLY HOME: Faces "Konstantynovska" Class Suit in New York

FRONTLINE ASSET: Faces "Suynov" Suit in E. Dist. New York
FUELCO ENERGY: Segovia Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Pay
GAF MATERIALS: Sauceda Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages, Penalties
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Faces "Hansen" Suit in District of Oregon
GREENBERG TRAURIG: Faces "Troice" Suit in 5th Cir. Ct.

HARTFORD FIRE: "Andreas-Moses" Suit Transferred to M.D. Florida
INNERVISION LLC: Faces "Aresu" Suit in S.D. New York
INVENTURE FOODS: Faces "Vana" Class Suit Over Proposed Utz Merger
IQ DATA: Faces "Ojukwu" Suit in S. Dist. Cal.
JPMORGAN CHASE: Summary Judgment in "Topchian" Suit Affirmed

KREATION JUICERY: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Product Labels
LADY M CONFECTIONS: Faces "Conner" Suit in E.D. New York
LOWELL, MA: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Minority Voters Suit
MACY'S WEST: Plaintiff Must Pay $7,511 Attys Fees for No-Show
MDL 1566: Court to Review Rulings in Natural Gas Antitrust Suit

MICHAEL & SON: "Aguilar" Class Suit Transferred to E.D. Virginia
MONSANTO COMPANY: "McNew" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
NAMOW INC: Faces T. Mina Supply Class Suit in New York
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Summary Judgment Bid in "Jordan" Partly OK'd
OSI SYSTEMS: Accused of Corruption, "Doyel" Hits Share Price Drop

OVASCIENCE INC: Sued in Mass. Over Misleading Financial Reports
PA ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION: "Seneca" Claims Overtime, Minimum Pay
PERCHERON FIELD: New Evidence in "Boyington" Re-Opens Discovery
PHILLIPS & COHEN: Faces "Polak" Suit in Eastern District of NY
POLLO OPERATIONS: Court Narrows "Longhini" ADA Violation Suit

RESONANT INC: Securities Class Suit Settlement Has Final Court OK
RETRIEVAL-MASTERS: Faces "Palermo" Suit in E. Dist. New York
RITUALS COSMETICS: Matzura Says Website Not Blind Accessible
SATELLITE AFFORDABLE: "Benton" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
SOLOMON & SOLOMON: Faces "Kantor" Suit in E. Dist. New York

SQUARE TRADE: Faces "Berger" Suit Over Breach of Contract
STATE FARM: MAO-MSO Class Suit Transferred to C.D. Illinois
STRAIGHT PATH: Delaware Court Stays Shareholder Litigation
TF FINAL: Can't Compel Arbitration in "Ouadani," 1st Cir. Says
TINTRI INC: "Golosiy" Securities Suit Remanded to State Court

TITAN LOGISTICS: Faces "Johnston" Suit in W.D. of Pennsylvania
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Webber" Suit Over Security Breach
UNIQLO USA: Faces "Jorge" Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
UNITED STATES: Burns and Charest to Lead Hurricane Harvey Suit
UNITED STATES: Consovoy McCarty to Lead Hurricane Harvey Suit

UNITED STATES: Fleming Nolen to Lead in Hurricane Harvey Suit
UNITED STATES: Jenner & Block to Lead in Hurricane Harvey Suit
UNO RESTAURANT: Alvarez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
UPS INC: Vawter Sues Over Denied Breaks, Paystubs, Final Pay
UTILITY SERVICE: Court Awards $83K Atty Fees in "Verhulst"

VICTORIA'S SECRET: Settlement in "Casas" Suit Has Final Approval
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Powders Suit Transferred to N.D. California
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Schmidt" Suit Transferred to N.D. California
WAL-MART STORES: Court Enters Protective Order in "Prado" Suit
WEYERHAEUSER CO: Faces "Coleman" Suit in Colorado

YELP INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Curry" Securities Suit





                            *********



ALPI INTERNATIONAL: Alvarado Sues Over Missed Breaks, Paystubs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Alvarado, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff, v. ALPI
International Ltd. and Does 1-100, Case No. RG17885131 (Cal.
Super., December 7, 2017), seeks redress for Defendant's failure
to provide meal periods, rest periods, minimum wages, overtime,
complete and accurate wage statements resulting from unfair
business practices; waiting time penalties for unpaid wages due
upon termination and in violation of the California Labor Laws of
the Business and Professions Code including declaratory relief,
damages, penalties, equitable relief, costs and attorneys' fees
pursuant to the California Labor Code and Unfair Competition Law
and applicable rules and regulations of the Industrial Welfare
Commission.

ALPI is a promotional products supplier and importer where
Alvarado worked within the last four years as a non-exempt, hourly
warehouse worker in their Alameda facility. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      William Turley, Esq.
      David Mara, Esq.
      Jill Vecchi, Esq.
      Matthew Crawfors, Esq.
      THE TURLEY & MARA LAW FIRM, APLC
      7428 Trade Street
      San Diego, CA 92121
      Telephone: (619) 234-2833
      Facsimile: (619) 234-4048
      Email: bturley@turleylawfirm.com
             dmara@turleylawfirm.com


AMAZON.COM: "Weber" Sues Over Illegal Credit Card Charges
---------------------------------------------------------
Eric Weber and Bryan Rees, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Amazon.Com, Inc. and
Amazon Services LLC, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-08868, (C.D. Cal.,
December 8, 2017), seeks damages, restitution, and all other
relief resulting from unjust enrichment and violation of the
Electronic Funds Transfer Act and the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act.

Plaintiffs alleged that Audible, an Amazon.com audiobook company.
failed to disclose to consumers of the required "automatic
renewal" payment and cancellation terms at the point of sale. As a
result, Audible charged any credit card linked to a member's
separate Amazon account if the credit card given directly to
Audible is declined for any reason. In Weber's case, it was his
corporate credit card while in Rees' case, his girlfriend's
purchase from Audible was charged to his account. In both cases,
the transactions were unauthorized by the card holder. [BN].

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jamin S. Soderstrom, Esq.
      SODERSTROM LAW PC
      3 Park Plaza, Suite 100
      Irvine, CA 92614
      Tel: (949) 667-4700
      Fax: (949) 424-8091
      Email: jamin@soderstromlawfirm.com


ASSOCIATED CREDIT: Faces "Strutynsky" Suit in E.D. of New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Associated Credit
Services, Inc. The case is styled Volodymyr Strutynsky, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Associated Credit Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
07262 (E.D. N.Y., December 13, 2017).

Associated Credit Services, Inc. is a debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BANK OF AMERICA: Court Narrows Claims in "Jackson" RESPA/GBL Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Frank P. Geraci, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of New York granted in part and denied in part
the Defendant's motion to dismiss the case styled BOBBI JACKSON
and MATTHEW JACKSON, Plaintiffs, Case # v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
Defendant, Case No. 16-CV-787-FPG (W.D. N.Y.).

Plaintiffs Bobbi and Matthew Jackson filed a putative class action
complaint on Sept. 30, 2016 alleging that their mortgage loan
servicer, the Defendant, improperly and untimely processed their
mortgage assistance applications so that it could charge them
excessive loan delinquency fees.  Specifically, they allege the
Defendant violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act
("RESPA"), its implementing regulations, and Section 349 of New
York's General Business Law ("GBL").

The Plaintiffs purchased their home in 2007.  Their initial
monthly mortgage payment was $609.44, and the Defendant
subsequently became their servicer.  In 2009, they fell behind on
their mortgage payments after Plaintiff Matthew Jackson's employer
laid him off.  In 2010, after Mr. Jackson found a new job, the
Plaintiffs attempted to make partial payments on the overdue
amount they owed Defendant.  The Defendant rejected the partial
payments, demanding instead that they pay the overdue amount in a
single lump sum or face foreclosure.

The Plaintiffs could not afford to pay a lump sum, and repeatedly
requested mortgage assistance from the Defendant.  Because the
Defendant would not grant the Plaintiffs mortgage assistance and
rejected their partial payments, the outstanding amount they owed
on their mortgage continued to grow, and the Defendant assessed
late fees, property inspection fees, fees for mortgage insurance
and other charges to the balance of what the Jacksons owed.

At the beginning of 2014, regulations requiring servicers to
comply with certain procedures when processing borrowers' mortgage
assistance applications went into effect.  The Plaintiffs
subsequently applied for mortgage assistance on Jan. 28, 2014.  On
Jan. 30, 2014, the Defendant acknowledged receipt of their
application.

The Defendant sent the Plaintiffs a letter on Feb. 1, 2014
claiming that it could not complete its review because it needed
copies of IRS Form 4506-T, which would allow Defendant to request
a transcript of Plaintiffs' tax return.  It sent them a letter on
June 28, 2014 stating that it had not received the documentation
requested in its May 20, 2014 letter, and informed the Plaintiffs
that it was no longer reviewing their application.

Fearing foreclosure, Plaintiffs had no choice but to submit
another application for mortgage assistance in August 2014.  While
the Plaintiffs experienced the same communication issues with
Defendant that they experienced months earlier, this time they
were successful in receiving a loan modification.  On Sept. 9,
2014, the Defendant approved the Plaintiffs for a trial period
payment plan under the Federal Housing Administration's Home
Affordable Modification Program (FHA-HAMP), but denied them for
other mortgage assistance programs.

Finally, on Dec. 20, 2014, the Defendant notified them that they
had completed their trial period payment plan, and had therefore
qualified for a permanent loan modification.  However, under the
terms of their loan modification agreement, their monthly
principal and interest payment increased from $609.44 to $712.44.
In addition, the Defendant increased their total unpaid principal
balance from $90,347.53 to $142,691.86.  It claimed there was a
total delinquency amount of $52,676.87, which was composed
primarily of delinquent interest that the Jacksons were unable to
pay because the Defendant had been rejecting their payments, as
well as an additional $3,559.00 in unspecified fees.

The Plaintiffs followed their new loan modification agreement for
a few months, but fell behind when Mr. Jackson's employer changed
his salary payment schedule.  On Oct. 18, 2015, they again applied
for mortgage assistance.  Finally, the Defendant approved them for
an FHA Formal Forbearance plan in March of 2016.  They next day,
the Defendant sent them a bill for $9,906.70 in unspecified fees
and charges.

The Plaintiffs' experience with the Defendant is not unique -- the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ("CFPB") has received
hundreds of complaints from consumers with regard to the
Defendant's mishandling of loan modification applications.  The
Plaintiffs' pleadings highlighted five of these complaints, which
detailed frustrations similar to theirs about Bank of America's
confusing and conflicting correspondence with borrowers.

Presently before the Court is the Defendant's motion to dismiss
the Plaintiffs' complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.

Judge Geraci granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss.  The Motion is denied with respect to the
Plaintiffs' 1024.41(b) claims for actual and statutory damages
resulting from the Defendant's processing of their January 2014
application.

The Judge finds that for the first half of 2014, the Defendant
kept the Plaintiffs in default by simultaneously rejecting their
mortgage payments and refusing to accept their application for
mortgage assistance.  And because they remained in default, the
Defendant continued to assess various delinquency fees to the
balance of their loan.  The Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged
that, had the Defendant complied with RESPA, they would have been
approved for a modification earlier, and would owe the Defendant
less in fees.

The Plaintiffs also allege a sufficient number of Section
1024.41(b) violations to establish that the Defendant had a
pattern or practice of not complying with the statute.  They
allege that hundreds of consumers like Plaintiffs complained to
the CFPB about the Defendant's mishandling of their mortgage
assistance applications, and share five of these grievances in
detail in their complaint.  At the pleadings stage, these
allegations are sufficient to establish that the Defendant
violated RESPA in servicing a class of similarly situated
individuals.

Judge Geraci granted the Motion to Dismiss with respect to all of
the Plaintiffs' remaining RESPA claims, as well as their New York
GBL claim.  He finds that the Plaintiffs' accusations concerning
the GBL are conclusory.  They allege the Defendant violated the
GBL by offering loss mitigation options to consumers without
intending to provide them as offered, refusing to process
consumers' loss mitigation applications in a manner that will
ensure fair review, and by improperly assessing various fees on
borrowers while their loss mitigation application is under review.
Missing from these accusations is any well-pled allegation that
the Defendant deceived or mislead them and the public at large.

The Judge granted the Plaintiffs' request that in the event the
Court deems their claims to be inadequately pleaded, they be given
leave to file an amended complaint to cure any pleading
deficiencies.  He says the Court should freely give leave when
justice so requires.

By separate order, the case will be referred to a U.S. Magistrate
Judge for pretrial proceedings.  The Defendant must serve its
answer to the Plaintiffs' complaint by Dec. 5, 2017. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(a)(4)(A).  If the Plaintiffs file an amended complaint, the
Defendant must respond within 14 days after it is served.

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

Bobbi Jackson, Plaintiff, represented by Catherine Creighton --
ccreighton@cpjglaborlaw.com -- Creighton Johnsen & Giroux.

Bobbi Jackson, Plaintiff, represented by Geoffrey G. Bestor --
gbesq@bestorlaw.com -- The Bestor Law Firm & Jonathan K. Tycko --
jtycko@tzlegal.com -- Tycko & Zavareei LLP.

Matthew Jackson, Plaintiff, represented by Catherine Creighton,
Creighton Johnsen & Giroux, Geoffrey G. Bestor, The Bestor Law
Firm & Jonathan K. Tycko, Tycko & Zavareei LLP.

Bank of America, N.A., Defendant, represented by Keith E.
Levenberg -- klevenberg@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP,
Courtney L. Hayden -- chayden@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter
LLP & James W. McGarry -- jmcgarry@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin
Procter LLP.


BED BATH: "Harvey" Action Seeks Suitable Seats in Workplace
-----------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Harvey, an individual, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bed Bath & Beyond of California,
and Does 1 thru 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. RG17885153
(C.D. Cal., December 7, 2017), seeks damages resulting from
failure to provide suitable seating in the workplace pursuant to
the California Labor Code and applicable Industrial Welfare
Commission work orders.

Plaintiff worked as a cashier in a Bed, Bath and Beyond store in
Alameda County.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Emil Davtyan, Esq.
      DAVTYAN PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
      21900 Burbank Blvd., Suite 300
      Woodland Hills, CA 91367-7418
      Telephone: (818) 992-2935
      Email: emil@davtyanlaw.com


BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: CMC in Securities Suit to Continue Jan. 9
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division, issued an Order continuing
Case Management Conference in the case captioned In re BROCADE
COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION. This Document
Relates To: ALL ACTIONS, Case No. 3:16-cv-07081-EMC, (N.D. Cal.)
to January 9, 2018.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 20, 2017 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9xe55as from Leagle.com.

Chaile Steinberg, Plaintiff, represented by Evan Jason Smith --
esmith@brodsky-smith.com -- Brodsky & Smith LLC.

Giulio D. Cessario, Lead Plaintiff, Plaintiff, represented by
Danielle Suzanne Myers denim@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP.

Giulio D. Cessario, Plaintiff, represented by David Todd
Wissbroecker -- dwissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP.

Melvin Gross, Plaintiff, represented by David Eldridge Bower --
dbower@monteverdelaw.com -- Monteverde & Associates PC.

Anjani Kumar Jha, Plaintiff, represented by Joel E. Elkins --
jelkins@weisslurie.com -- WeissLaw LLP.

Elizabeth Chuakay, Plaintiff, represented by Rosemary M. Rivas --
rrivas@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky LLP, Donald E. Enright --
denright@zlk.com -- Levin & Korinsky LLP, Elizabeth K. Tripodi --
etripodi@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky LLP & Quentin Alexandre
Roberts -- qroberts@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky LLP.

Douglas Bragan, Plaintiff, represented by Evan Jason Smith,
Brodsky & Smith LLC.

Bobby M. Mathew, Plaintiff, represented by David Todd
Wissbroecker, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & William Scott
Holleman, Johnson Fistel, LLP.

Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Aaron Jedidiah Benjamin -- abenjamin@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich and Rosati, Boris Feldman -- boris.feldman@wsgr.com --
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Professional Corporation & Gideon
A. Schor -- isalceda@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati,
pro hac vice.

Judy Bruner, Defendant, represented by Aaron Jedidiah Benjamin,
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati, Boris Feldman, Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati Professional Corporation & Gideon A. Schor,
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, pro hac vice.

Lloyd A. Carney, Defendant, represented by Aaron Jedidiah
Benjamin, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati, Boris Feldman,
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Professional Corporation &Gideon
A. Schor, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, pro hac vice.

Renato A. DiPentima, Defendant, represented by Aaron Jedidiah
Benjamin, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati, Boris Feldman,
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Professional Corporation & Gideon
A. Schor, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, pro hac vice.

Alan L. Earhart, Defendant, represented by Aaron Jedidiah
Benjamin, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati, Boris Feldman,
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Professional Corporation &Gideon
A. Schor, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, pro hac vice.

John W. Gerdelman, Defendant, represented by Aaron Jedidiah
Benjamin, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati, Boris Feldman,
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Professional Corporation & Gideon
A. Schor, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, pro hac vice.

Kim C. Goodman, Defendant, represented by Aaron Jedidiah Benjamin,
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati, Boris Feldman, Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati Professional Corporation &Gideon A. Schor,
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, pro hac vice.

David L. House, Defendant, represented by Aaron Jedidiah Benjamin,
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati, Boris Feldman, Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati Professional Corporation &Gideon A. Schor,
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, pro hac vice.

L. William Krause, Defendant, represented by Aaron Jedidiah
Benjamin, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati, Boris Feldman,
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Professional Corporation & Gideon
A. Schor, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, pro hac vice.

David E. Roberson, Defendant, represented by Aaron Jedidiah
Benjamin, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati, Boris Feldman,
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Professional Corporation & Gideon
A. Schor, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, pro hac vice.

Sanjay Vaswani, Defendant, represented by Aaron Jedidiah Benjamin,
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati, Boris Feldman, Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati Professional Corporation &Gideon A. Schor,
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, pro hac vice.


CARY NELSON: "Sacchi" Sues Over Expired Probiotic Supplements
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Sacchi, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Cary Nelson, M.D., Probiotic America, LLC,
and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-12868
(D. N.J., December 10, 2017), seeks damages, restitution,
statutory damages, punitive damages, sanctions, interest, court
costs, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief pursuant to the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act for breach of contract.

Dr. Cary Nelson owns and operates Probiotic America, LLC, a
supplier of probiotic supplements. Sacchi claims to have received
shipments of their products that had already passed their twelve-
month expiration period that had been ordered on Defendants'
website and on E-Bay.com. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephen J. Simoni, Esq.
      SIMONI CONSUMERS CLASS ACTION LAW OFFICES
      c/o Jardim, Meisner & Susser, P.C.
      30B Vreeland Road, Ste. 201
      Florham Park, NJ 07932
      Telephone: (917) 621-5795
      Email: StephenSimoniLAW@Gmail.com


CEMEX INC: Faces "Nowakoski" Suit in Central District Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cemex Inc. The case
is styled Eric Nowakowski as an individual and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Cemex Inc, a Louisiana
corporation, Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-02475 (C.D. Cal., December 12, 2017).

CEMEX, Inc. is a global building materials company that provides
products and services to customers and communities throughout the
Americas, Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


COLFOR MANUFACTURING: Faces "Weidow" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steffanee Weidow, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Colfor Manufacturing, Inc., Case No. 5:17-cv-02445
(N.D. Ohio, November 22, 2017), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Colfor Manufacturing, Inc. owns and operates a manufacturing
facility located at 4400 Easton Commons Way, Suite 125 Columbus,
Ohio 43219. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
      Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
      Michaela M. Calhoun, Esq.
      NILGES DRAHER, LLC
      7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D
      Massillon, OH 44646
      Telephone: (330) 470-4428
      Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
      E-mail:  sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
               hans@ohlaborlaw.com
               mcalhoun@ohlaborlaw.com

         - and -

      Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
      Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
      Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
      THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
      920 Rockefeller Building
      614 W. Superior Avenue
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Telephone: (216) 696-5000
      Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
      E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
              chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com
              lori@lazzarolawfirm.com


COMCAST CABLE: Court Stays "Wuest" Wire Tapping Suit
----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Stay
Pending Appeal the case captioned RICHARD WUEST, Plaintiff, v.
COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 17-cv-04063-JSW (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff filed the action in California state court alleging that
Defendants violated California Penal Code Section 632.7, which
prohibits the recording of telephone conversations without all
parties' consent.  After removal, Defendants moved to stay the
action and to compel arbitration pursuant to an arbitration
provision contained in Defendants' Residential Subscriber
Agreement.

The Court denied Defendants' motion to compel arbitration.  The
Defendants filed a timely notice of appeal of this order, and now
seek to have this case stayed pending the outcome of that appeal.

The Court finds that Defendants have raised serious legal
questions regarding whether its Residential Subscriber Agreement
unambiguously delegates questions of arbitrability to the
arbitrator.  The Court also finds that Defendants would be
irreparably injured if the Court did not stay this action pending
appeal. The Court also notes that Plaintiff has brought this case
as a class action, thus increasing the expense Defendants will
incur.  The Court next finds that granting Defendants' motion to
stay will not substantially injure Plaintiff or the putative class
he seeks to represent.  Plaintiff has not pointed to any specific
witness or documentary evidence in this case that is at risk of
being lost.  The Court finds that the public interest is in
equipoise. The Court therefore finds that there is an equally
strong countervailing public interest in seeing California's
privacy laws enforced.

Accordingly, the Court grants Defendants' motion for a stay
pending the appeal of the Court's order denying arbitration.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 20, 2017 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycxx2lpb from Leagle.com.

Richard Wuest, Plaintiff, represented by Eric A. Grover --
eagrover@kellergrover.com -- Keller Grover LLP.

Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC, Defendant,
represented by Matthew Jacob Adler -- matthew.adler@dbr.com --
Drinker Biddle Reath LLP & Michael James Stortz -- michael.stortz
dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP.

Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Matthew Jacob Adler, Drinker Biddle Reath LLP & Michael James
Stortz, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP.


CONCORD HOSPITALITY: Faces "Flynn" Suit in W.D. Penn.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Concord Hospitality
Enterprises Company. The case is styled Gertrude Mae Flynn,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Concord Hospitality Enterprises Company, Defendant,
Case No. 2:17-cv-01618-LPL (W.D. Penn., December 14, 2017).

Concord Hospitality Enterprises Company operates as a hotel
development, ownership, and management company in the United
States and Canada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
   Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP
   1133 Penn Avenue
   5th Floor
   Pittsburgh, PA 15222
   Tel: (412) 322-9243
   Email: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com


CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Faces "Martin" Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Convergent
Outsourcing, Inc.  The case is styled as Jacqueli Martin,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-07281 (E.D. N.Y., December 14, 2017).

Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. is an IT service management
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

COUNTY OF INYO, CA: Court Certifies Class in "Wagner" FLSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
THE United States District Court for THE Eastern District of
California issued an Order granting conditional certification of
collective action and ordering notice facilitation in the case
captioned AMANDA WAGNER and HEATHER LIND, Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF
INYO, Defendant, No. 1:17-cv-00969-DAD-JLT (E.D. Cal.).

The parties filed a stipulation in the action seeking conditional
certification of a collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and facilitated notice to be sent to
prospective members of the FLSA class.

The complaint alleges that this suit is brought on behalf of all
of defendant's employees who were deprived of their full overtime
compensation over the prior three years because defendant did not
include compensation in lieu of health care coverage in the
regular rate of pay used to calculate overtime. Therefore, it
appears notice is appropriate, and any claims of the putative
class members concerning this issue are the result of a single
policy.

The court finds this facilitated notice to be appropriate.

The court grants conditional certification of this collective
action under the FLSA.  Plaintiffs Wagner and Lind will represent
the class members and Mastagni Holstedt APC will serve as counsel
for the collective class.  The parties will coordinate notice to
be sent to the class pursuant to their stipulation.

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

Amanda Wagner, Plaintiff, represented by David Emilio Mastagni --
davidm@mastagni.com -- Mastagni Holstedt, APC.

Amanda Wagner, Plaintiff, represented by Isaac Sean Stevens --
istevens@mastagni.com -- Mastagni Holstedt, APC, Ace Thomas Tate -
- atate@mastagni.com -- Mastagni Holstedt, APC & Ian Barclay
Sangster -- isangster@mastagni.com -- Mastagni Holstedt, APC.

Heather Lind, Plaintiff, represented by David Emilio Mastagni,
Mastagni Holstedt, APC, Isaac Sean Stevens, Mastagni Holstedt,
APC, Ace Thomas Tate, Mastagni Holstedt, APC & Ian Barclay
Sangster, Mastagni Holstedt, APC.

County of Inyo, Defendant, represented by Barbara Van Ligten --
banligten@aalrr.com -- Atkinson Andelson Loya Ruud and Romo & Nate
J. Kowalski, Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo.


COVERALL NA: Silva Sues Over Illegal Wage Deductions
----------------------------------------------------
Ericka Richardson and Luis A. Silva, on behalf of themselves and
all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. Coverall
North America, Inc., Sujol, LLC and ABC Corps. 1-10 and Jane &
John Does 1-10,  Defendants, Case No. MID-L-007250-17, (N.J. Sup.,
December 8, 2017), seeks monetary damages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, civil penalties and costs, including
reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Coverall is a staffing and janitorial company with franchisee
operating in their behalf all over the country. Plaintiffs
performed cleaning work for Sujol, a coverall franchisee.
Richardson and Silva claim to be misclassified as independent
contractors, hence denied various benefits given to employees
under New Jersey Law. Their pay was subjected to numerous
deductions Defendant deemed as fees and losses in the conduct of
their business. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ravi Sattiraju, Esq.
      Anthony S. Almeida, Esq.
      THE SATTIRAJU LAW FIRM, P.C.
      116 Village Boulevard, Suite 200
      Princeton, NJ 08540
      Tel: (609) 799-1266
      Fax: (609) 228-5649
      Email: rsattiraju@sattirajulawfirm.com

             - and -

      Anthony L. Marchetti, Jr., Esq.
      MARCHETTI LAW, P.C.
      900 N. Kings Hwy., Suite 306
      Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
      Tel: (856) 824-1001
      Fax: (267) 219-4838
      Email: amarchetti@marchettilawfirm.com

             - and -

      Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
      Adelaide H. Pagano, Esq.
      LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
      729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
      Boston, MA 02116
      Tel: (617) 994-5800
      Fax: (617) 994-5801
      Email: sliss@llrlaw.com


CRUNCH LLC: "Saleh" Sues Over Unsolicited SMS Ads
-------------------------------------------------
Bilal Saleh, individually and on behalf of a class of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Crunch, LLC, Crunch Franchising,
LLC and Deliu, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-62416 (S.D. Fla.,
December 8, 2017), seeks statutory damages and an injunction
prohibiting Defendants from making illegal telemarketing calls in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

On or about November 29, 2017, Bilal Saleh began receiving
unsolicited autodialed text messages on his cellular telephone,
which were placed by or on behalf of Crunch, LLC, Crunch
Franchising, LLC, and DeLiu, LLC as part of their marketing
campaign.

Defendants Crunch and Crunch Fitness run a chain of fitness clubs
located in and around numerous major cities where DeLiu is a
franchisee located at 3500 North Andrews Avenue, Oakland Park, FL
33309. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

       Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
       THE LAW OFFICE OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC
       110 SE 6th Street
       Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
       Telephone: (954) 907-1136
       Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
       Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com


CVS HEALTH: Ct. Won't Strike Affirmative Defenses in "Lindenbaum"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
issued an Opinion and Order denying Plaintiff's Motion to Strike
Affirmative Defenses in the case captioned SHARI LINDENBAUM,
Plaintiff, v. CVS HEALTH CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-CV-
1863 (N.D. Ohio).

Plaintiff moves to strike 15 of 22 affirmative defenses under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f).

Plaintiff Shari Lindenbaum sues Defendant CVS Health Corporation
(CVS) for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA). She sues on behalf of herself and a class to be
certified.1 Plaintiff alleges that CVS made at least six pre-
recorded calls to Plaintiff's cellphone without her consent.  In
its answer to the complaint, Defendant CVS raises twenty-two
affirmative defenses.

The Court finds no basis to strike Defendant's affirmative
defenses.

First, affirmative defenses (2-a); (5)-(7); (10)-(12); and (18)-
(20) all involve factual determinations that the Court can more
appropriately consider on summary judgment. Defendant was not
required to specifically plead any of the facts supporting these
defenses.

For affirmative defenses (9), (13), (15), and (21), Plaintiff
fails to show that they have no possible relation to the
controversy. Plaintiff fails to cite binding Circuit or Supreme
Court precedent that would clearly preclude Defendant from raising
these defenses.

For affirmative defense (2-b) lack of subject matter jurisdiction,
Plaintiff will not suffer any prejudice if the Court does not
strike it. Even if Defendant had not included the defense, the
Court can sua sponte review its subject matter jurisdiction at any
point.18

Lastly, the Court reads affirmative defense (22) as a reservation
of rights.19 Plaintiff therefore lacks any ground to strike this
defense.

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

Shari Lindenbaum, Plaintiff, represented by Adam T. Savett --
adam@zagrans.com

CVS Health Corporation, Defendant, represented by Esteban Morales
Fabila -- emorales@mintz.com -- Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris,
Glovsky & Popeo, Los Angeles, Joshua Briones -JBriones@mintz.com -
- Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo, Los Angeles & Julie
L. Juergens -- jjuergens@gallaghersharp.com -- Gallagher Sharp,
Cleveland


DAWKINS HOME: "Vida" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Vida, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
Dawkins Home, Inc. and Michael Dawkins, Case No. 1:17-cv-24250-FAM
(S.D. Fla., November 22, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs and reasonable
attorneys' fees under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Dawkins Home, Inc. owns and operates an interior design business
selling home furnishings, accessories, and art in Miami, 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
      Telephone: (305) 901-1379
      Facsimile: (561) 288-9031
      E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com
              hsolis@workingforyou.com


DOLLAR TREE: Faces "Hessam" Suit in Eastern District New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dollar Tree Stores,
Inc. The case is styled Sayed Hessam, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dollar Tree Stores,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07255 (E.D. N.Y., December 13,
2017).

Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. operates retail stores throughout the
United States, including approximately 360 stores in California
where Plaintiffs worked as store staff.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


EQUIFAX INC: Faces State Employees Union Suit in N.D. Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Inc. The
case is styled as State Employees Federal Credit Union,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated credit
unions and Wisconsin Credit Union League as an association on
behalf of its members, Plaintiffs v. Equifax Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:17-cv-05109-TWT (N.D. Ga., December 12, 2017).

Equifax Inc. operates a global credit reporting agency that
collects, stores, organizes, analyzes and disseminates data on
millions of consumers. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   David Alan Reed, Esq.
   Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP - ATL
   1100 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 2800
   Atlanta, GA 30309-4528
   Tel: (404) 815-6500
   Fax: (404) 815-6555
   Email: dreed@kilpatricktownsend.com

      - and -

   James A. Kitces, Esq.
   Robins Kaplan Miller &Ciresi, LLP-MA
   25th Floor
   800 Boylston Street
   Boston, MA 02199
   Tel: (617) 267-2300
   Fax: (617) 267-8288
   Email: jakitces@rkmc.com

      - and -

   Mary C. Turke, Esq.
   Turke & Strauss, LLP
   613 Williamson Street, Suite 201
   Madison, WI 53703
   Tel: (608) 237-1776
   Email: mary@turkestrauss.com

      - and -

   Michael Ram, Esq.
   Robins Kaplan LLP -MV CA
   2440 West El Camino Real, Suite 100
   Mountain View, CA 94040
   Tel: 650-7084-4007

      - and -

   Sam E. Khoroosi, Esq.
   Robins Kaplan, LLP MN
   800 LaSalle Plaza, Suite 2800
   Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015
   Tel: (612) 349-8500
   Fax: (612) 339-4181

      - and -

   Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
   Turke & Strauss, LLP
   613 Williamson Street, Suite 201
   Madison, WI 53703
   Tel: (608) 237-1775
   Fax: (608) 509-4423

      - and -

   Stacey P. Slaughter, Esq.
   Robins Kaplan, LLP MN
   800 LaSalle Plaza, Suite 2800
   Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015
   Tel: (612) 349-8500
   Fax: (612) 339-4181

      - and -

   Susan Brown, Esq.
   Robins Kaplan LLP -MV CA
   2440 West El Camino Real, Suite 100
   Mountain View, CA 94040
   Tel: (650) 784-4007

      - and -

   William Henry Stanhope, Esq.
   Robins Kaplan, LLP MN
   800 LaSalle Plaza, Suite 2800
   Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015
   Tel: (612) 349-8500
   Fax: (404) 233-1267
   Email: WStanhope@RobinsKaplan.com


ESCALLATE LLC: Faces "Guzman" Suit in Eastern District of Penn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Escallate, LLC. The
case is styled Javier Guzman, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Escallate, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:17-cv-05588-MAK (E.D. Penn., December 13, 2017).

Escallate LLC is a collection agency located in North Canton,
Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   CARY L. FLITTER, Esq.
   FLITTER MILZ, P.C.
   450 N. NARBERTH AVE, SUITE 101
   NARBERTH, PA 19072
   Tel: (610) 822-0782
   Fax: (610) 667-0552
   Email: cflitter@consumerslaw.com


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: "Chinitz" Suit Remanded to State Court
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, issued an Order remanding the case
captioned RONALD CHINITZ, on behalf of himself and all others
similar situated, Plaintiff, v. SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 5:17-cv-06515-EJD (N.D. Cal.), to the Santa Cruz County
Superior Court.

After reviewing the Complaint, the court was left with serious
doubt that Plaintiff's causes of action would, in fact, implicate
a substantial federal question and ordered Defendant show cause
why the action should not be summarily remanded.

The instant putative class action was removed to the District
Court by the Defendant on the grounds of federal question in that
Plaintiff's claims substantially implicate the laws of the United
States, and the Plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends on
resolution of substantial questions of federal law.

Defendant responded to the order by filing an amended Notice of
Removal.

The Court finds that there is no basis to invoke the artful
pleading doctrine under these circumstances when Plaintiff has
validly brought claims under a state statute that is not
supplanted by federal law.  Removal is improper when federal law
simply displaces state law without replacing the state cause of
action with a federal one.  When federal law displaces state law
without supplanting it, a plaintiff cannot be deemed to be
attempting to avoid a federal cause of action.

Here, the CCRAA and its federal counterpart, the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, co-exist as separate statutory schemes.

Because Plaintiff's causes of action are not created by federal
law, and because Defendant has not convincingly shown they arise
under or raise a substantial issue of federal law, the court still
seriously doubts this action was properly removed. Given the need
for careful judgments about the exercise of federal judicial power
in an area of uncertain jurisdiction, the court finds that it
lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 20, 2017 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7zwn6qn from Leagle.com.

Ronald Chinitz, Plaintiff, represented by George Volney Granade,
Reese LLP.

Ronald Chinitz, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Robert Reese,
Reese LLP.

Experian Information Solutions, Inc, Defendant, represented by
Daniel John McLoon, Jones Day, Kerry Cordill Fowler, Jones Day,
Kerry Cordill Fowler, Jones Day & Christopher Kevin Spiers, Hanson
Bridgett LLP.


EXPRESS COURIER: Bid to Decertify FLSA Class in "Harris" Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled JAMES HARRIS; RICK KETCHAM; and ADAM MANSKE,
Each Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. EXPRESS COURIER INTERNATIONAL, INC. n/k/a LSO FINAL
MILE, Defendant, Case No. 5:16-CV-05033 (W.D. Ark.), Judge Timothy
L. Brooks of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Arkansas, Fayetteville Division, granted the Defendant's Motion to
Decertify FLSA Collective Action and denied the Plaintiffs' Motion
for Rule 23 Class Certification.

The Plaintiffs are former couriers of Defendant LSO, which is a
company that facilitates the delivery of products for the medical,
financial, and retail industries, through the work of couriers who
actually perform these deliveries.  LSO offers same-day, on-
demand, and scheduled delivery services in ten different states.
According to them, LSO has misclassified its couriers as
independent contractors, when they really should be classified and
paid as employees, and LSO has failed to pay their couriers a
minimum wage and overtime compensation for all hours worked over
40 per week.

The Plaintiffs argue that they share with their fellow LSO
couriers the following characteristics: (i) they were uniformly
classified by LSO as independent contractors and were not paid
minimum-wage and/or overtime compensation; (ii) they were required
to sign the same "Owner-Operator Agreement" before they were
permitted to make deliveries for the company; (iii) they were
subject to the same corporate-level policies, procedures, and
training programs; (iv) they were subject to a common policy of
local control; and (v) they were subject to common policies
regarding pay.  For its part, LSO denies the allegations.

On Sept. 19, 2016, the Court conditionally certified this case as
an opt-in, Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") collective action,
and approved the Plaintiffs' proposed notice for mailing to the
putative class.  The conditionally-certified collective action
includes each individual who (i) worked for Express as a driver,
courier, or owner-operator any time after Feb. 11, 2013; (ii)
never subcontracted any of his or her work for Express; and (iii)
contracted directly with Express under Express's standard Owner-
Operator Agreement.

On April 14, 2017, after the parties engaged in at least six
months of discovery related to class-certification issues, LSO
filed a Motion to Decertify the FLSA Collective Action.  At
approximately the same time, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion to
Certify a Rule 23 Class Action under the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act
("AMWA").  The proposed Rule 23 class includes each individual who
(i) worked for Express, as a driver, courier, or owner-operator in
Arkansas any time after Feb. 11, 2013; (ii) never subcontracted
with anyone, or otherwise never hired anyone, to perform any of
his or her work for Express; and (iii) contracted directly with
Express under Express's standard Owner-Operator Agreement.

Judge Brooks finds that maintaining the collective action will not
provide an efficient and cost-effective mechanism to resolve the
liability questions in the case, as compared to proceeding with
individual actions.  In particular, he finds that the liability
issues cannot be resolved on a classwide basis without significant
individual inquiry.  Therefore, LSO's Motion to Decertify FLSA
Collective Action is granted.  The opt-in Plaintiffs will be
dismissed by operation of the Order, but the matter will be stayed
and the opt-in class members' claims tolled for a period of 60
days to allow them to file their individual claims in the
appropriate courts.  During this 60-day stay, the Plaintiffs'
counsel will be required to send a copy of the Order and an
instructional letter to all opt-in class members, advising them of
their legal rights going forward.

Turning to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Rule 23 Class Certification,
the Judge finds that although the exempt/non-exempt question is
common to all the class members and is, in fact, the threshold
question that must be answered with respect to liability, a
classwide determination on this very issue will be extremely
onerous, if not impossible.  Accordingly, he finds that the class
action mechanism is not superior to holding individual trials on
the issue of liability.  The lack of uniformity in how the
couriers were paid, in and of itself, is fatal to achieving
effective and efficient classwide consideration of LSO's alleged
liability.  He denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Rule 23 Class
Certification.

The Plaintiffs' individual claims will proceed, and a case
management order will issue forthwith, granting a limited time-
period for the parties to conduct merits discovery, setting a
deadline to file dispositive motions, and fixing a date for trial.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 21, 2017 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/82Coqf from Leagle.com.

James Harris, Plaintiff, represented by Josh Sanford --
josh@sanfordlawfirm.com -- Sanford Law Firm PLLC.

James Harris, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua Lee West --
west@sanfordlawfirm.com -- Sanford Law Firm.

Rick Ketcham, Plaintiff, represented by Josh Sanford, Sanford Law
Firm PLLC & Joshua Lee West, Sanford Law Firm.

Adam Manske, Plaintiff, represented by Josh Sanford, Sanford Law
Firm PLLC & Joshua Lee West, Sanford Law Firm.

Janice Suggs, Plaintiff, represented by Josh Sanford, Sanford Law
Firm PLLC.

Chris Averette, Plaintiff, represented by Josh Sanford, Sanford
Law Firm PLLC.

Joshua Burrus, Plaintiff, represented by Josh Sanford, Sanford Law
Firm PLLC.

Traci Calbert, Plaintiff, represented by Josh Sanford, Sanford Law
Firm PLLC.

Kenneth Champion, Plaintiff, represented by Josh Sanford, Sanford
Law Firm PLLC.

Nicholas Cornwell, Plaintiff, represented by Josh Sanford, Sanford
Law Firm PLLC.

Express Courier International, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Andrew Butcher -- abutcher@scopelitis.com -- Scopelitis Garvin
Light Hanson Feary, Kerri E. Kobbeman -- KKobbeman@cwlaw.com --
Conner & Winters, LLP, Adam Carl Smedstad --
asmedstad@scopelitis.com -- Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson Feary
P.C., Elizabeth M. Beck -- EBECK@SCOPELITIS.COM -- Scopelitis
Garvin Light Hanson Feary & Emily A. Quillen --
equillen@scopelitis.com -- Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson Feary
PC.

EMP LSO Holding Corporation, Defendant, represented by Andrew
Butcher, Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson Feary & Emily A. Quillen,
Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson Feary PC.


FIELDTURF USA: Faces New Castle School Suit in District of NJ
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fieldturf USA Inc.
The case is styled New Castle School District, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Fieldturf
USA Inc, Fieldturf Inc. and Fieldturf Tarkett SAS, Defendants,
Case No. 3:17-cv-13065 (D. N.J., December 14, 2017).

Fieldturf engages in the manufacturing and installation of infield
artificial turf systems.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Daniel C. Levin, Esq.
   Levin Sedran & Berman
   510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
   Philadelphia, PA 19106
   Tel: (215) 592-1500

      - and -

   Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
   Levin, Fishbein et al.
   510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
   Philadelphia, PA 19106-3697
   Tel: (215) 592-1500
   Fax: (215) 592-4663


FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Faces "Sanchez" Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Financial Recovery
Services, Inc. The case is styled Sandra Sanchez, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Financial
Recovery Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07286 (E.D.
N.Y., December 14, 2017).

Financial Recovery offers collection services to mid-size
companies across the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FRIENDLY HOME: Faces "Konstantynovska" Class Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Friendly Home
Care Inc.

The case is captioned Lyudmyla Konstantynovska, individually and
on behalf of other persons similarly situated v. Friendly Home
Care Inc., Case No. 153500/2017 (N.Y., Sup. Ct., November 29,
2017).

Friendly Home Care Inc. is in business of providing home and adult
care services in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER LLP
      40 Broad St, 7th FL
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 943-9080

The Defendant is represented by:

      TRIVELLA FORTE, LLP
      1311 Mamaroneck AV, Ste 170
      White Plains, NY 10605
      Telephone: (914) 949-9075


FRONTLINE ASSET: Faces "Suynov" Suit in E. Dist. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Frontline Asset
Strategies, LLC. The case is styled as Sofia Suynov, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Frontline
Asset Strategies, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07260 (E.D.
N.Y., December 13, 2017).

Frontline Asset is a collection firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FUELCO ENERGY: Segovia Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------
Juan Segovia and Victor Flores, each individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Fuelco Energy LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 17-cv-1246, (W.D. Tex., December 8, 2017), seeks monetary
damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties
and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs worked for Defendant as operators, pumping and fracking
oil wells. They regularly worked in excess of forty hours per week
throughout their tenure with Defendant without receiving overtime
premium. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GAF MATERIALS: Sauceda Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages, Penalties
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rodolfo Sauceda, on behalf of himself individually, and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GAF Materials Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. BC686304 (Cal. Super., December 7, 2017),
seeks unpaid wages, overtime, meal and rest period compensation,
final pay, penalties, injunctive and other equitable relief and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the California
Labor Code and Unfair Competition Law and applicable rules and
regulations of the Industrial Welfare Commission.

Plaintiff's job duties included preparing and administering
coatings and/or paint for Defendants' roofing manufacturing
business in Los Angeles. Sauceda worked for Defendant for over 30
years and was terminated during his medical leave August 2017. He
routinely worked in excess of 8 hours per workday and/or more than
40 hours per workweek, but did not receive overtime compensation.
He also claims to have worked though rest/meal breaks. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher L. Burrows, Esq.
      BURROWS LAW FIRM
      8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 634
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211
      Tel: (310) 526-9998
      Fax: (424) 644-2446
      Email: cburrows@cburrowslaw.com


GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Faces "Hansen" Suit in District of Oregon
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Government Employees
Insurance Company, a Maryland corporation. The case is styled Leif
Hansen, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Government Employees Insurance Company, a Maryland
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-01986-MO (D. Or.,
December 13, 2017).

Government Employees Insurance Company is an American auto
insurance company headquartered in Chevy Chase, Maryland. It is
the second largest auto insurer in the United States, after State
Farm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Paul W. Conable, Esq.
   Tonkon Torp LLP
   1600 Pioneer Tower
   888 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600
   Portland, OR 97204-2099
   Tel: (503) 802-2188
   Fax: (503) 972-3888
   Email: paul.conable@tonkon.com

      - and -

   Steven D. Olson, Esq.
   Tonkon Torp LLP
   1600 Pioneer Tower
   888 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600
   Portland, OR 97204-2099
   Tel: (503) 802-2159
   Fax: (503) 972-3859
   Email: steven.olson@tonkon.com


GREENBERG TRAURIG: Faces "Troice" Suit in 5th Cir. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Greenberg Traurig,
L.L.P. The case is styled as Samuel Troice, Michoacan Trust,
individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly
situated, PAM REED, Putative Class Representative, Plaintiffs v.
Greenberg Traurig, L.L.P, Defendant, Case No. 17-11464 (5th Cir.
Ct., December 13, 2017).

Greenberg Traurig is an international law firm founded in Miami,
Florida, in 1967 by Larry J. Hoffman, Mel Greenberg and Robert
Traurig.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Judith R. Blakeway, Esq.
   Strasburger & Price, L.L.P.
   2301 Broadway Street
   San Antonio, TX 78215-1157
   Tel: 210-250-6000

      - and -

   Douglas J. Buncher, Esq.
   Neligan Foley, L.L.P.
   325 N. Saint Paul Street
   Dallas, TX 75201
   Tel: 214-840-5300

      - and -

   Michael Jung, Esq.
   Strasburger & Price, L.L.P.
   901 Main Street
   Bank of America Plaza
   Dallas, TX 75202
   Tel: 214-651-4300

      - and -

   Peter Daniel Morgenstern, Esq.
   Butzel Long, P.C.
   230 Park Avenue
   New York, NY 10169
   Tel: 212-374-5379

      - and -

   Edward C. Snyder, Esq.
   Castillo Snyder, P.C.
   700 N. Saint Mary's
   San Antonio, TX 78205
   Tel: 210-630-4200

The Defendant is represented by:

   Roy Michael Northrup, Esq.
   Cowles & Thompson, P.C.
   901 Main Street
   Dallas, TX 75202
   Tel: 214-672-2150


HARTFORD FIRE: "Andreas-Moses" Suit Transferred to M.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on November 18, 2017 captioned
Karen Andreas-Moses, Lisa Morgan, Elizabeth Wagner, and Jacqueline
Wright, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company, Case No. 5:16-cv-01387 was
transferred on November 22, 2017, from the U.S. District Court
Northern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida. The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 6:17-cv-02019-RBD-KRS to the proceeding.

The case seeks redress for systematic and class-wide failure to
pay overtime compensation in violation of New York Labor Law.

Hartford Fire Insurance Company operates an insurance company in
Hartford, Connecticut. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian J. LaClair, Esq.
      BLITMAN & KING LLP
      Franklin Center, Suite 300
      443 North Franklin Street
      Syracuse, NY 13204
      Telephone: (315) 422-7111
      Facsimile: (315) 471-2623
      E-mail:  bjlaclair@bklawyers.com

         - and -

      David Victor Barszcz, Esq.
      Mary E. Lytle, Esq.
      LYTLE & BARSZCZ
      543 N Wymore Rd Ste 103
      Maitland, FL 32751
      Telephone: (407) 622-6544
      Facsimile: (407) 622-6545
      E-mail: dbarszcz@orlandoemploymentlawyer.net
              mlytle@lblaw.attorney

The Defendant is represented by:

      Hillary J. Massey, Esq.
      Molly C. Mooney, Esq.
      Patrick J. Bannon, Esq.
      SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP
      Two Seaport Ln, Suite 300
      Boston, MA 02210
      Telephone: (617) 946-4879
      Facsimile: (617) 790-6716

         - and -

      Robert T. Szyba, Esq.
      SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP
      620 Eighth Avenue
      New York, NY 10018
      Telephone: (212) 218-3351
      Facsimile: (917) 344-1174


INNERVISION LLC: Faces "Aresu" Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Innervision, LLC.
The case is styled Paul Aresu Photography, Inc., a New York
corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Innervision, LLC doing
business as: Shermco Vending, Jonathan Sherman and John Does 1-10,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-09733 (S.D. N.Y., December 12, 2017).

Innervision, LLC provides support services to individuals with
disabilities, head trauma, and/or mental health needs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dan Shaked, Esq.
   Shaked Law Group P.C.
   44 Court Street, Suite 1217
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (917) 373-9128
   Fax: (718) 504-7555
   Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


INVENTURE FOODS: Faces "Vana" Class Suit Over Proposed Utz Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Vana, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Inventure Foods, Inc., Terry Mcdaniel, Steve
Weinberger, Timothy Cole, Ashton D. Asensio, Macon Bryce Edmonson,
Harold Edwards, Paul J. Lapadat, Joel D. Stewart, Utz Quality
Foods, LLC, and Heron Sub, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-04296-BSB
(November 22, 2017), stems from a proposed transaction announced
on October 26, 2017, pursuant to which, Inventure Foods, Inc. will
be acquired by Utz Quality Foods, LLC for $4.00 in cash for each
share of Inventure common stock.

According to the complaint, Inventure filed a
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction.
However, the Solicitation Statement omits material information
with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the
Solicitation Statement false and misleading. Specifically, (i) the
Solicitation Statement omits material information regarding the
Company's financial projections and the analyses performed by the
Company's financial advisor, Rothschild Inc; (ii) the Solicitation
Statement fails to disclose whether any nondisclosure agreements
executed by Inventure and the prospective bidders contained "don't
ask, don't waive" provisions that are or were preventing those
counterparties from submitting superior offers to acquire the
Company, (iii) the Solicitation Statement omits material
information regarding potential conflicts of interest of the
Company's officers and directors; and (iv) the Solicitation
Statement omits material information regarding the engagement of
CDG Group, LLC (now FTI Consulting, Inc.), a second advisor
Inventure retained in connection with the Company's strategic
review process.

Inventure Foods, Inc. is a marketer and manufacturer of specialty
food brands in "better-for-you" and "indulgent" categories under a
variety of company-owned and licensed brand names, including
Boulder Canyon Foods(TM), Jamba(R), Seattle's Best Coffee(R),
Rader Farms(R), TGI Fridays(TM), Nathan's Famous(R), Vidalia
Brands(R), Poore Brothers(R), Tato Skins(R), Willamette Valley
Fruit Company(TM), Fresh Frozen(TM), Bob's Texas Style(R), and Sin
In A Tin(TM). [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gerald Barrett, Esq.
      WARD, KEENAN & BARRETT, P.C.
      3838 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1720
      Phoenix, AR 85012
      Telephone: (602) 279-1717
      Facsimile: (602) 279-8908
      E-mail: gbarrett@wardkeenanbarrett.com

         - and -

      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq.
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Telephone: (302) 295-5310
      E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com
              gms@rl-legal.com


IQ DATA: Faces "Ojukwu" Suit in S. Dist. Cal.
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against IQ Data
International, Inc.  The case is styled as Gabriel Ojukwu and
Shawnequa Ojukwu, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. IQ Data International, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-02506-LAB-AGS (S.D. Cal., December 13,
2017).

IQ Data International, Inc. is a debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Matthew M. Loker, Esq.
   Kazerouni Law Group, APC
   245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
   Costa Mesa, CA 92626
   Tel: (800) 400-6808
   Fax: (800) 520-5523
   Email: ml@kazlg.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: Summary Judgment in "Topchian" Suit Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned SAMVEL TOPCHIAN, Appellant, v. JPMORGAN
CHASE BANK, N.A., MARTIN, LEIGH, LAWS & FRITZLEN, P.C., and SELECT
PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., Respondents, Case No. WD80472 (Mo.
App.), Judge Karen King Mitchell of the U.S. Court of Appeals of
Missouri for the Western District affirmed the judgment of the
Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, granting summary
judgment to the Defendants.

On Sept. 1, 2005, Topchian borrowed $221,000, as evidenced by a
30-year deed of trust bearing his signature and referencing a
promissory note he signed to document the loan.  Beginning in
2009, Topchian participated in a Stated-Income Trial Period Plan
("TPP") under the Home Affordable Modification Program ("HAMP").
The TPP required Topchian to submit "trial plan" payments to Chase
as a prerequisite to a possible permanent loan modification.  He
made trial payments under the TPP from May to December 2009.  In
December 2009, he received a "Home Affordable Modification
Agreement" from Chase.

Meanwhile, in October 2011, cases in which various plaintiffs had
sued Chase in separate lawsuits in 2010 and 2011 were consolidated
into a multi-district class action lawsuit styled JPMorgan Chase
Mortgage Modification Litigation in the U.S. for the District of
Massachusetts.  The consolidated actions pertained to Chase's
handling of mortgage borrowers' requests for modifications of
their loans.  Following consolidation, the plaintiffs filed an
amended class action complaint on Jan. 20, 2012.

On June 15, 2012, Topchian filed a pro se petition in the Small
Claims Court of the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri,
seeking $3 million in damages from Chase for breach of contract.
Chase removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.
Chase then filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, a
motion for a more definite statement.  The district court denied
the motion to dismiss but granted the motion for a more definite
statement, directing Topchian to amend his petition.

His amended petition included some additional facts, but no legal
theories, and Chase moved to dismiss the amended petition.  The
district court granted the motion to dismiss and later denied
Topchian's motion for reconsideration.  He appealed the dismissal
of his amended petition to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit.  The Eighth Circuit reversed, in part, and
remanded the district court's grant of Chase's motion to dismiss,
finding that Topchian had stated a claim for breach of contract.

In November 2013, the class representatives and Chase reached a
Settlement Agreement in the federal class action, for which they
jointly sought the court's approval.  The court held a preliminary
approval hearing on Dec. 5, 2013, which included evidence and
argument by the class counsel and Chase.  The next day, the court
issued a Preliminary Approval Order directing implementation of
the Settlement Agreement and certifying a class for that purpose.
The Preliminary Approval Order directed that notice be sent to
Chase borrowers who were identified as potentially being in the
class.  Topchian was on the list of potential class members, and
notice of the settlement was mailed to him.  He admitted receiving
the notice in January 2014.  The class action court held a Final
Fairness Hearing on May 7, 2014, following which the court entered
a Final Approval Order, Final Judgment, and Order of Dismissal
with Prejudice.

On Oct. 22, 2014, he dismissed his breach of contract suit then
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Missouri following remand by the Eighth Circuit, and, on Dec. 10,
2014, he filed the present lawsuit against Chase and added MLLF
and SPS as Defendants.

Topchian asserted four claims against Chase: (i) breach of
contract, (ii) violation of the MMPA in connection with the
original sale of the loan, (iii) violation of the MMPA in
connection with the loan modification, and (iv) common law fraud.
He asserted one MMPA claim against MLLF, alleging that MLLF (i)
attempted to collect on a debt it knew or should have known was
invalid because Chase mishandled the TPP, (ii) sought payment on a
debt it knew or should have known was invalid because of the TPP,
(iii) failed to investigate the legitimacy of the debt before
attempting to collect it, and (iv) ignored Topchian's repeated
statements that he was not in default.  With respect to SPS,
Topchian claimed that SPS, as the sub-servicer of Topchian's loan,
sent him letters that incorrectly stated he was in default,
requested payment amounts that were not due, and demanded payment
different from the terms of his modification agreement.

Chase, MLLF, and SPS filed motions for summary judgment on the
affirmative defenses of res judicata and release, claiming that,
because Topchian received the Class Notice, he was a member of the
Settlement Class, and he did not opt out, he is bound by the class
action judgment. Topchian opposed the motions for summary
judgment, arguing that (i) the federal district court in
Massachusetts lacked personal jurisdiction over him; (ii) he had
received a permanent loan modifiiation, and the Class Notice did
not include borrowers like him who had permanent modifications;
and (iii) the class action judgment was improper on several
grounds.  On Jan. 10, 2017, the circuit court granted summary
judgment in favor of Chase, MLLF, and SPS.

Topchian filed the appeal.  He argues that the circuit court erred
in granting summary judgment because: (i) the class action
judgment was entered without personal jurisdiction over Topchian
or adequate notice to him, (ii) he was denied adequate
representation by counsel for the class, (iii) he was denied
adequate representation by class representatives, (iv) the class
action settlement was the product of fraud, and (v) the claims
released by the class action judgment are different from the
claims Topchian asserts in the case.

Judge Mitchell finds that Topchian's claims against Chase, MLLF,
and SPS are barred by res judicata and that a collateral attack on
the class action judgment is not appropriate in the case.  She
explains that Topchian's claims were precluded by a judgment
implementing the settlement of a federal class action and that a
collateral attack on that judgment was inappropriate.  With
respect to MLLF, and SPS, they were released from Topchian's MMPA
claims by the prior judgment.

The Judge concludes that summary judgment is appropriate because
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and Chase,
MLLF, and SPS are entitled to judgment as matter of law on the
affirmative defense of res judicata.  Accordingly, she affirmed
the circuit court's grant of summary judgment as to Chase, MLLF,
and SPS.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 21, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/Nymp3Z from Leagle.com.

John Campbell, Erich Vieth, and Alicia Campbell, St. Louis, MO,
Attorneys for Appellant.

Robert J. Hoffman -- rjhoffman@bryancave.com -- and Jennifer A.
Donnelli -- jadonnelli@bryancave.com -- Kansas City, MO, Attorneys
for Respondent JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

Richard C. Wuestling -- wuestling@wuestlingandjames.com -- and
Susan M. Dimond -- dimond@wuestlingandjames.com -- St. Louis, MO,
Attorneys for Respondent Martin, Leigh, Laws & Fritzlen, P.C.

Andrew R. Kasnetz -- akasnetz@sandbergphoenix.com -- Timothy C.
Sansone -- tsansone@sandbergphoenix.com -- and Joseph F. Devereux,
III -- jdevereux@sandbergphoenix.com -- St. Louis, MO, Attorneys
for Respondent Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.


KREATION JUICERY: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Product Labels
-------------------------------------------------------------
Davis Goldstein, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Kreation Juicery, Inc., Case No. BC684218
(Cal. Super. Ct., November 22, 2017), alleges that the Defendant
engages in an unlawful scheme whereby Defendant intentionally
misleads consumers into making purchases of its Products,
including, but not limited to those labeled as, "CBD OIL," "Shades
of Green", "Green 1", "Green 2", "Green 4", "Strength",
"Synchonize," "Clarity", "Healer", "Unity 12", "Charcoalade",
"Enlighten", "Matcha Green Tea", and "RX" potions by falsely
promising that these Products were proven to "reduce malignant
tumors", cure Autism and aide in the treatment of Cancer.

Located in Beverly Hills, CA, Kreation Juicery, Inc. maintains at
least 10 retail locations in Los Angeles County. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mitch Kalcheim, Esq.
      LEGAL GP
      9663 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 889
      Beverly Hills, CA 90210
      Telephone: (310) 980-7749
      E-mail: MHK@XegalGP.com


LADY M CONFECTIONS: Faces "Conner" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lady M Confections
Co., Ltd. doing business as: Lady M. The case is styled as Mary
Conner, Individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Lady M Confections Co.,
Ltd doing business as: Lady M., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07229
(E.D. N.Y., December 12, 2017).

Lady M Confections Co., Ltd. doing business as: Lady M. makes
cakes and pastries that are sold online to customers, and through
shops in New York City, LA, Singapore and South Korea.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dan Shaked, Esq.
   Shaked Law Group, P.C.
   44 Court Street, Suite 1217
   Brooklyn, NY 11217
   Tel: (917) 373-9128
   Fax: (718) 504-7555
   Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


LOWELL, MA: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Minority Voters Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William G. Young of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
case, CHANMONY HUOT, VLADIMIR SALDANA, CHAMPA PANG, THOEUN KONG,
LIANNA KUSHI, DENISSE COLLAZO, SUE J. KIM, SOADY OUCH, TOOCH VAN,
CARMEN BERMUDEZ, KEI KAWASHIMA-GINSBERG, DANIEL K. UK, AND FAHMINA
ZAMAN, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS; KEVIN J.
MURPHY, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS LOWELL CITY MANAGER; LOWELL
CITY COUNCIL; RITA MERCIER, RODNEY M. ELLIOTT, EDWARD J. KENNEDY,
JR., JOHN J. LEAHY, WILLIAM SAMARAS, JAMES L. MILINAZZO, DANIEL P.
ROURKE, COREY A. BELANGER, JAMES D. LEARY, IN THEIR OFFICIAL
CAPACITIES AS MEMBERS OF THE LOWELL CITY COUNCIL; LOWELL SCHOOL
COMMITTEE; STEPHEN J. GENDRON, JACQUELINE DOHERTY, CONNIE A.
MARTIN, ROBERT J. HOEY, JR., ROBERT JAMES GIGNAC, ANDRE
DESCOTEAUX, IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS MEMBERS OF THE LOWELL
SCHOOL COMMITTEE; LOWELL ELECTION AND CENSUS COMMISSION; AND
BEVERLY ANTHES, JOSEPH MULLEN, THEL SAR, THOMAS FR. O'BRIEN, IN
THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS MEMBERS OF THE LOWELL ELECTION AND
CENSUS COMMISSION, Defendants, Civil Action No. 17-10895-WGY (D.
Mass.).

The Plaintiffs are members of the City of Lowell's minority
community and are also registered voters.  Minorities constitute
over 49% of the City's total population, and Hispanics/Latinos and
Asian-Americans combined comprise approximately 40% of the total
population.  The growth in the City's minority populations has
been steady and significant over the last three decades.  Such
diversity is not reflected on the Lowell City Council or the
Lowell School Committee.

The Plaintiffs have brought the action against the Defendants
alleging that the Defendants' at-large election system violated
the Plaintiffs' rights under (i) Section 2 of the Voting Rights
Act ("Section 2"), (ii) the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment, and (iii) the Fifteenth Amendment.

The Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that it
does not state a claim upon which relief may be granted because
(i) the Plaintiffs do not plead sufficient facts to allege the
existence of a large and geographically compact district that
would create a majority-minority district, and (ii) the minority
groups may not aggregate their claims and form a minority
coalition in order to sustain a claim under Section 2.

The Plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing that they pled
sufficient facts to show a majority-minority district can exist
and that minority coalition claims are in fact cognizable under
Section 2.

After a hearing on Oct. 17, 2017, Judge Young denied the
Defendants' motion to dismiss because (i) the Plaintiffs
demonstrated in their complaint that a majority-minority district
could exist if certain neighborhoods were combined, and (ii) the
majority of circuits and district courts that address the issue
have persuasively concluded that minority coalitions may maintain
claims under Section 2.  He explains that he denied the motion to
dismiss in order to properly to serve Section 2's legislative
intent of curing past discrimination and remain faithful to the
reasoning of the majority of the circuit and district courts which
have considered the issue because minority coalition claims are
cognizable under Section 2.

The Judge says the Plaintiffs adequately pled a majority-minority
district of their complaint in accordance with the first factor in
Gingles.  The Plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that
minorities constitute over 49% of Lowell's total population, and
Hispanics/Latinos and Asian-Americans combined comprise
approximately 40% of the total population.  They also alleged that
it is possible to draw redistricting maps for the City of Lowell
in which Asian-Americans and Hispanics/Latinos would form a
majority of the population in at least one reasonable and
properly-apportioned single-member district for both the Lowell
City Council and the Lowell School Committee and a district
comprising portions of the Acre, Lower Highlands, and/or Highlands
neighborhoods of Lowell can be drawn that satisfies this
precondition.

Judge Young says these allegations satisfy the first Gingles
factor because they do more than just recite the first factor,
they actually offer an idea of what the proposed district would
look like by describing the possible neighborhoods that could
create the district.

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

Chanmony Huot, Plaintiff, represented by Robert G. Jones --
Robert.Jones@ropesgray.com -- Ropes & Gray LLP.

Chanmony Huot, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel E. Fine --
aniel.Fine@ropesgray.com -- Ropes & Gray, Matthew Mazzotta --
atthew.Mazzotta@ropesgray.com -- Ropes & Gray, Oren M. Sellstrom,
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Economic Justic & Scott S.
Taylor -- scott.taylor@ropesgray.com -- Ropes & Gray LLP.

Vladimir Saldana, Plaintiff, represented by Robert G. Jones, Ropes
& Gray LLP, Daniel E. Fine, Ropes & Gray, Matthew Mazzotta, Ropes
& Gray, Oren M. Sellstrom, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and
Economic Justic & Scott S. Taylor, Ropes & Gray LLP.

Champa Pang, Plaintiff, represented by Robert G. Jones, Ropes &
Gray LLP, Daniel E. Fine, Ropes & Gray, Matthew Mazzotta, Ropes &
Gray, Oren M. Sellstrom, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and
Economic Justic & Scott S. Taylor, Ropes & Gray LLP.

Thoeun Kong, Plaintiff, represented by Robert G. Jones, Ropes &
Gray LLP, Daniel E. Fine, Ropes & Gray, Matthew Mazzotta, Ropes &
Gray, Oren M. Sellstrom, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and
Economic Justic & Scott S. Taylor, Ropes & Gray LLP.

Lianna Kushi, Plaintiff, represented by Robert G. Jones, Ropes &
Gray LLP, Daniel E. Fine, Ropes & Gray, Matthew Mazzotta, Ropes &
Gray, Oren M. Sellstrom, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and
Economic Justic & Scott S. Taylor, Ropes & Gray LLP.

Denisse Collazo, Plaintiff, represented by Robert G. Jones, Ropes
& Gray LLP, Daniel E. Fine, Ropes & Gray, Matthew Mazzotta, Ropes
& Gray, Oren M. Sellstrom, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and
Economic Justic & Scott S. Taylor, Ropes & Gray LLP.

Sue J Kim, Plaintiff, represented by Robert G. Jones, Ropes & Gray
LLP, Daniel E. Fine, Ropes & Gray, Matthew Mazzotta, Ropes & Gray,
Oren M. Sellstrom, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and
Economic Justic & Scott S. Taylor, Ropes & Gray LLP.

Soady Ouch, Plaintiff, represented by Robert G. Jones, Ropes &
Gray LLP, Daniel E. Fine, Ropes & Gray, Matthew Mazzotta, Ropes &
Gray, Oren M. Sellstrom, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and
Economic Justic & Scott S. Taylor, Ropes & Gray LLP.

Tooch Van, Plaintiff, represented by Robert G. Jones, Ropes & Gray
LLP, Daniel E. Fine, Ropes & Gray, Matthew Mazzotta, Ropes & Gray,
Oren M. Sellstrom, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and
Economic Justic & Scott S. Taylor, Ropes & Gray LLP.

City of Lowell, Defendant, represented by C. Michael Carlson, City
of Lowell Law Department, James F. Wellock, Ciy of Lowell Law
Department & Lee M. Holland.

Kevin J. Murphy, Defendant, represented by C. Michael Carlson,
City of Lowell Law Department, James F. Wellock, Ciy of Lowell Law
Department & Lee M. Holland.

Lowell City Council, Defendant, represented by C. Michael Carlson,
City of Lowell Law Department, James F. Wellock, Ciy of Lowell Law
Department & Lee M. Holland.

Rita Mercier, Defendant, represented by C. Michael Carlson, City
of Lowell Law Department, James F. Wellock, Ciy of Lowell Law
Department & Lee M. Holland.

Rodney M Elliott, Defendant, represented by C. Michael Carlson,
City of Lowell Law Department, James F. Wellock, Ciy of Lowell Law
Department & Lee M. Holland.

Edward J Kennedy, Defendant, represented by C. Michael Carlson,
City of Lowell Law Department, James F. Wellock, Ciy of Lowell Law
Department & Lee M. Holland.

John J Leahy, Defendant, represented by C. Michael Carlson, City
of Lowell Law Department, James F. Wellock, Ciy of Lowell Law
Department & Lee M. Holland.

William Samaras, Defendant, represented by C. Michael Carlson,
City of Lowell Law Department, James F. Wellock, Ciy of Lowell Law
Department & Lee M. Holland.

James L Milinazzo, Defendant, represented by C. Michael Carlson,
City of Lowell Law Department, James F. Wellock, City of Lowell
Law Department & Lee M. Holland.

Daniel P Rourke, Defendant, represented by C. Michael Carlson,
City of Lowell Law Department, James F. Wellock, City of Lowell
Law Department & Lee M. Holland.


MACY'S WEST: Plaintiff Must Pay $7,511 Attys Fees for No-Show
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order granting in part and denying in part
Defendants' Motion for Attorney's Fees and Cost in the case
captioned RAMON GARCIA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MACY'S WEST STORES,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-04440-WHO (N.D. Cal.).

Defendants Macy's West Stores, Inc., and XPO Last Mile, Inc., move
to recover their attorney fees and costs pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 37 due to named plaintiff Victor Ramirez's failure to appear
for his scheduled deposition.

Six plaintiffs filed a punitive class action against defendants
Macy's and XPO LM in Alameda Superior Court, asserting causes of
action for violations of California Labor Code.  The action was
removed to the District Court on August 5, 2016.  By agreement of
the parties, the depositions of two of the plaintiffs, Mynor
Cabrera and Victor Ramirez, were noticed for October 4 and October
5, 2017.

Tibor did not respond until 9:17 am the following morning,
confirming that the deposition would not occur.  The court
reporter and court interpreter had already arrived for the Ramirez
deposition and Lounsbury entered a non-appearance on the record.
Lounsbury then changed his flight to leave a day earlier than
planned and flew back to Virginia on October 5.

As a result of the cancellation, the parties met and conferred
about what plaintiffs would agree to reimburse defendants for the
expenses and time incurred related to the cancelled Ramirez
deposition but were unable to agree.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(d)(1)(A)(i) allows a court to
impose sanctions upon a party failing to appear for a noticed
deposition.  Rule 37(d)(3) provides that in addition to or instead
of those sanctions, a court must require the party failing to act,
the attorney advising that party, or both to pay the reasonable
expenses, including attorney's fees, caused by the failure, unless
the failure was substantially justified or other circumstances
make an award of expenses unjust.

Plaintiffs' counsel agree that they should pay $860 for the court
interpreter's reservation and late cancelation fee. They object,
however, to paying the full $421.75 charged by the court reporter.
They contend that they should pay $310 to cover reserving the
court reporters' services but should not have to pay the remainder
incurred by defense counsel, marking the non-appearance of Ramirez
on the record, because defendants knew Ramirez was not coming.  It
is reasonable to award defendants the full expenses incurred by
both the court interpreter and court reporter. Plaintiffs' counsel
shall pay a total of $1,281.75 for both.

As an initial matter, plaintiffs' object to paying for Lounsbury's
travel expenses, arguing that because defendants have a local
office and local counsel involved in the case, flying an attorney
from Virginia to take the depositions in San Francisco was
unnecessary.  The Court agreed with defendants that staffing the
depositions was their decision to make and the selection of
Lounsbury to take the depositions was not unreasonable.  Defense
counsel has failed to adequately show that all the expenses for
ground transportation, air travel, and the hotel would not have
been incurred but for the canceled deposition given that Cabrera's
deposition was also scheduled and partially took place.
Plaintiffs' counsel will pay $580.41 for one-night of the hotel;
$13.99 for the ground transportation from the hotel to the
location where Ramirez was scheduled to be deposed; and the $734
cost difference and service fee for air fare.

Defendants request a total of $8,715 to account for the 24.9 hours
of Lounsbury's time charged at an hourly rate of $350. Lounsbury
breaks down his time as follows: (i) 0.6 hours to prepare the
deposition notices and in conferring with plaintiffs' counsel
regarding the same; (ii) 15.3 hours to prepare for Ramirez's
deposition; (iii) 1.3 hours to appear for Ramirez's deposition;
and (iv) 7.7 hours to prepare the pleadings in support of the
motion for attorney fees.

Plaintiffs also object to the 1.3 hours claimed for making the
record of the non-appearance, but the Court found this amount of
time reasonable. Plaintiffs do not object to the request for 7.7
hours spent in preparing this motion. The Court concluded that 7.7
hours for preparation of the motion and the reply is reasonable
and should be compensated.

Plaintiffs' counsel must pay $4,900 for defense counsel's
attorneys' fees to account for 14 hours broken up as: (i) 5 hours
to prepare for Ramirez's deposition; (ii) 1.3 hours for appearing
for the deposition; and (iii) 7.7 hours for preparation of the
motion and reply.

Plaintiffs' counsel must pay $4,900 for attorney fees and
$2,611.15 for expenses incurred as a result of the canceled
deposition of Victor Ramirez for a total amount of $7,511.15.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 20, 2017 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7l3xx35 from Leagle.com.

Ramon Garcia, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Hagop Boyamian --
mike.falveylaw@gmail.com -- Law Offices of Thomas W. Falvey.

Ramon Garcia, Plaintiff, represented by Armand Raffi Kizirian -
armand.falveylaw@gmail.com -- Law Offices of Thomas W. Falvey,
David Francis Tibor -- david@jmllaw.com -- The Law Offices of
Joseph M. Lovretovich, Jospeh M. Lovretovich -- jml@jmllaw.com --
The Law Offices of Joseph M. Lovretovich & Thomas Walker Falvey --
thomaswfalvey@gmail.com -- Law Offices of Thomas W. Falvey.

Victor Ramirez, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Hagop Boyamian,
Law Offices of Thomas W. Falvey, Armand Raffi Kizirian, Law
Offices of Thomas W. Falvey, David Francis Tibor, The Law Offices
of Joseph M. Lovretovich, Jospeh M. Lovretovich, The Law Offices
of Joseph M. Lovretovich & Thomas Walker Falvey, Law Offices of
Thomas W. Falvey.

Adrian Valente, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Hagop Boyamian,
Law Offices of Thomas W. Falvey, Armand Raffi Kizirian, Law
Offices of Thomas W. Falvey, David Francis Tibor, The Law Offices
of Joseph M. Lovretovich, Jospeh M. Lovretovich, The Law Offices
of Joseph M. Lovretovich & Thomas Walker Falvey, Law Offices of
Thomas W. Falvey.

Mario Pinon, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Hagop Boyamian, Law
Offices of Thomas W. Falvey, Armand Raffi Kizirian, Law Offices of
Thomas W. Falvey, David Francis Tibor, The Law Offices of Joseph
M. Lovretovich, Jospeh M. Lovretovich, The Law Offices of Joseph
M. Lovretovich & Thomas Walker Falvey, Law Offices of Thomas W.
Falvey.

Mynor Cabrera, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Hagop Boyamian,
Law Offices of Thomas W. Falvey, Armand Raffi Kizirian, Law
Offices of Thomas W. Falvey, David Francis Tibor, The Law Offices
of Joseph M. Lovretovich, Jospeh M. Lovretovich, The Law Offices
of Joseph M. Lovretovich & Thomas Walker Falvey, Law Offices of
Thomas W. Falvey.

Macy's West Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey
Hamilton Newhouse -- jeffrey.newhouse@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson
Lewis P.C., Fraser Angus McAlpine --
Fraser.McAlpine@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C. & Michael
C. Christman, Macy's Law Department.

Joseph Eletto Transfer, Inc., Defendant, represented by Adam Carl
Smedstad -- ASMEDSTAD@SCOPELITIS.COM -- Scopelitis Garvin Light
Hanson & Feary, P.C. & Andrew J. Butcher --
ABUTCHER@SCOPELITIS.COM -- Scopelitis, Gavin, Light, Hanson &
Feary, pro hac vice.

XPO Logistics, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Hamilton
Newhouse, Jackson Lewis P.C.,Adam Lewis Lounsbury, Jackson Lewis,
PC, pro hac vice & Fraser Angus McAlpine, Jackson Lewis P.C.


MDL 1566: Court to Review Rulings in Natural Gas Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for District of Nevada issued an
Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' Motion for
Reconsideration in the case captioned In re WESTERN STATES
WHOLESALE NATURAL GAS ANTITRUST LITIGATION REORGANIZED FLI, INC.
et al., Plaintiffs, v. WILLIAMS COMPANIES. et al., Defendants.
LEARJET, INC. et al., Plaintiffs, v. ONEOK, INC. et al.,
Defendants. SINCLAIR OIL CORP., Plaintiff, v. E PRIME INC. et al.,
Defendants. SINCLAIR OIL CORP., Plaintiff, v. ONEOK ENERGY
SERVICES CO., L.P., Defendant. BRECKENRIDGE BREWERY OF COLORADO,
LLC et al., Plaintiffs, v. ONEOK INC. et al., Defendants.
HEARTLAND REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER et al., Plaintiffs, v. ONEOK,
INC. et al., Defendants. ARANDELL CORP. et al., Plaintiffs, v.
XCEL ENERGY INC. et al., Defendants. NEWPAGE WISCONSIN SYSTEM
INC., Plaintiff, v. CMS ENERGY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CO. et al.,
Defendants, No. 2:03-cv-01431-RCJ-PAL, MDL No. 1566, No. 2:05-cv-
01331-RCJ-PAL., 2:06-cv-00233-RCJ-PAL, 2:06-cv-00267-RCJ-PAL,
2:06-cv-00282-RCJ-PAL, 2:06-cv-01351-RCJ-PAL, 2:07-cv-00987-RCJ-
PAL, 2:07-cv-01019-RCJ-PAL, 2:09-cv-00915-RCJ-PAL (D. Nev.) The
Motions to Certify and the Motion for Suggestion of Remand are
denied.  The consolidated cases are stayed.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) transferred
seven class action cases from various districts in California to
the District Court under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 as Multidistrict
Litigation (MDL) Case No. 1566, assigning Judge Pro to preside.
One or more of the cases have been to the Court of Appeals twice
and to the Supreme Court once.

In 2007, the Court of Appeals reversed several dismissals under
the filed rate doctrine and remanded for further proceedings.  In
2013, the Court of Appeals reversed several summary judgment
orders, ruling that the Natural Gas Act did not pre-empt state law
anti-trust claims and that certain Wisconsin-and Missouri-based
Defendants should not have been dismissed for lack of personal
jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari as to pre-emption under the
Natural Gas Act and affirmed. The case was soon thereafter
reassigned to the District Court when Judge Pro retired. The Court
has issued several dispositive orders and has denied class
certification in applicable cases.

MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER

Motion No. 2959

Defendants Xcel Energy Inc. (Xcel), Northern States Power Co. (N.
States), Dynegy Illinois, Inc. (DII), DMT GP, LLC (DMT), Dynegy
GP, Inc. ("DGI"), El Paso Corp. (El Paso), and Williams Merchant
Services Co. (Williams) ask the Court to reconsider denial of
their motion for summary judgment in the '1019 and '915 Cases
based on release and/or res judicata via the settlements in a
consolidated class action brought in the Southern District of New
York, No. 03-cv-6186 ("the NYMEX Case").

The Court granted the motion as to several Defendants but denied
the motion as to movants because the Court was not satisfied that
movants were parties to the NYMEX Case or parents, subsidiaries,
successors, etc. of parties to the NYMEX Case covered by the
release. The Court invited the present motions to reconsider if
movants could provide such evidence or point out to the Court such
evidence already in the record.

First, according to Jolley's testimony, DGI was a partner of
Dynegy Marketing & Trade. It was therefore released as a member of
a Settling Defendant.

Second, DII was the parent of the parent of DGI. Under the
release, parents of parents of Settling Defendants, as well as
parents of members of Settling Defendants, were released.
Third, DMT is a subsidiary of DMT Holdings, which is in turn a
subsidiary of Dynegy Holdings, Inc., which in turn is a parent of
DGI, which in turn is a member of a Settling Defendant (Dynegy
Marketing & Trade). Under the release, subsidiaries of parents of
Settling Defendants are released.

Motion No. 2962

The remaining Defendants ask the Court to reconsider its March
2017 denial of summary judgment in the '1019 Case based on its
finding that that there remained a genuine issue of material fact
as to whether Plaintiffs Carthage College and Briggs & Stratton
received sufficient notice of the NYMEX settlement.

But movants correctly note in reply that the reason the Court
recently granted summary judgment on this issue despite any
potential fact issues concerning notice was because any such fact
issues were precluded; under the case law, the NYMEX court's
findings that notice to class members had been sufficient was
simply not collaterally attackable here.

The factual distinction Plaintiffs ask the Court to recognize may
be valid, but the Court would have to ignore Hesse in order to
address it. The Court is not free to do so and finds that it must
reconsider.

MOTIONS TO CERTIFY ORDER FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL

The Court will not certify these issues for interlocutory appeal
based on the speculation that the Court of Appeals may choose to
hear those issues together with the pending appeals. At a minimum,
even if the Court of Appeals chose to do that, it would almost
certainly extend the time to determine the pending appeals.

MOTION FOR SUGGESTION OF REMAND

Plaintiffs in the class action cases (the '233, '1019, '987,
'1351, and '915 Cases) have asked the Court to issue a suggestion
of remand to the JPML.

The Court will not enter the proposed order. If Plaintiffs
themselves do not believe the class action cases should be
immediately remanded, the Court will not issue a suggestion of
remand. Plaintiffs implicitly admit that the Court should not
suggest remand until the pending appeals are decided. That being
the case, the Court will not enter a superfluous order indicating
what it may do in the future. The Court agrees with Defendants
that upon issuing the present order, it should simply stay the
cases and await the Court of Appeals' rulings in the two pending
appeals.

The Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Brief and the Motion to
Reconsider are granted.

The Motion to Reconsider is granted in part and denied in part.
Xcel Energy Inc.; Northern States Power Co.; Dynegy Illinois,
Inc.; Dynegy GP, Inc.; El Paso Corp.; and Williams Merchant
Services Co. are entitled to summary judgment based on release,
but DMT GP, LLC is not.

The Motions to Certify and the Motion for Suggestion of Remand are
denied.

The consolidated cases are stayed, and the parties shall notify
the Court upon the issuance of the Court of Appeals' rulings in
Appeals Nos. 16-17099 and 17-16227.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 20, 2017 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybjrnrn5 Leagle.com.

NewPage Wisconsin System Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Robert L.
Gegios -- rgegios@kmksc.com -- Kohner, Mann & Kailas.

NewPage Wisconsin System Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Gregory
M. Bentz -- gbentz@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli Shughart.


MICHAEL & SON: "Aguilar" Class Suit Transferred to E.D. Virginia
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on April 19, 2017 captioned Marco
Aguilar, individually & on behalf of all similarly situated v.
Michael & Son Services, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-00728, was
transferred on November 29, 2017, from the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia. The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:17-cv-00613-RGD-RJK to the proceeding.

The case asserts labor-related claims.

Headquartered in the State of Maryland, Michael & Son Services,
Inc. is a contractor with specialties in commercial improvement,
commercial building, electrical, gas fitting, HVAC, home
improvement, plumbing and residential building. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN
      333 Vine St Ste 1200
      Lexington, KN 40507
      Telephone: (859) 219-4529
      E-mail: bmazaheri@forthepeople.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Sarah Elizabeth Moffett, Esq.
      LECLAIR RYAN PC
      2318 Mill Road, Suite 1100
      Alexandria, VA 22314
      Telephone: (703) 687-5930
      E-mail: sarah.moffett@leclairryan.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: "McNew" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on November 17, 2017, styled Kevin
McNew, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly
situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:17-cv-02728, was
transferred on November 29, 2017, from the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-06858-VC to the proceeding.

The case asserts product-liability claims.

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

The Defendant is represented by:

      Jacob A. Flint, Esq.
      FLINT LAW FIRM, LLC
      222 Park Street, Suite 500
      Edwardsville, IL 62025
      Telephone: (618) 205-2017
      Facsimile: (618) 307-5790
      E-mail: jflint@toverdict.com


NAMOW INC: Faces T. Mina Supply Class Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Namow, Inc.,
City of New York, by its department of design and construction,
City Of New York, by its department of environmental protection,
Westchester Fire Insurance Company, Maria G. Nubile, Bruna J.
Laurino and "John Doe One" through "John Doe Ten".

The case is captioned T. Mina Supply, Inc., on behalf of itself
and all other persons similarly situated as trust fund
beneficiaries of Lien Law trusts of which Namow, Inc., is a
Trustee v. Namow, Inc., City of New York, By Its Department Of
Design And Construction, City Of New York, By Its Department Of
Environmental Protection, Westchester Fire Insurance Company,
Maria G. Nubile, Bruna J. Laurino and "John Doe One" through "John
Doe Ten", Case No. 701720/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., November 27, 2017).

Namow, Inc. operates a construction company located at 84-22 Grand
Avenue, Elmhurst, NY 11373.

Westchester Fire Insurance Company is a foreign corporation
authorized by the Superintendent of insurance to conduct the
business of insurance and surety ship in the State of
New York and has a place of business located at 1133 Avenue of the
Americas, New York, New York 10036.

City of New York, By Its Department Of Design and Construction and
City Of New York, By Its Department Of Environmental Protection
operate public benefit corporations in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marshall M. Stern, Esq.
      MARSHALL M. STERN, P.C.
      17 Cardiff Court
      Huntington station, NY 117-16
      Telephone: (631)427-0101


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Summary Judgment Bid in "Jordan" Partly OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LAURA ZAMORA JORDAN, as her separate estate, and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NATIONSTAR
MORTGAGE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant,
and FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, Intervenor, Case No. 2:14-CV-
0175-TOR (E.D. Wash.), Judge Thomas O. Rice of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Washington granted in part the
Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.

On April 3, 2012, Ms. Jordan filed her Complaint against
Nationstar in Chelan County Superior Court.  She subsequently
filed a First and Second Amended Complaint seeking class action
relief.  In her Second Amended Complaint, Ms. Jordan asserted the
following causes of action: trespass; intentional trespass;
violation of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA"); and breach of
contract.  She also asserted a violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") but the Court dismissed Ms.
Jordan's individual FDCPA claim on Aug. 10, 2015.  On May 9, 2014,
the Chelan County Superior Court certified the Class, pursuant to
Washington Court Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1), and 23(b)(3).  Thereafter,
the Defendant removed the action to the Court.

Nationstar then filed a partial summary judgment motion asking the
Court to find that entry provisions are enforceable under
Washington law.  Ms. Jordan moved for partial summary judgment
requesting the Court to find that before a lender can lawfully act
upon the entry provisions, the lender is first required to obtain
the borrower's post-default consent or permission from a court.
The Court certified both questions to the Washington Supreme Court
and stayed the case.

On July 7, 2016, the Washington Supreme Court entered its decision
finding the entry provisions in direct conflict with Washington
law and, therefore, unenforceable.  Further, the Washington
Supreme Court determined that receivership is not the exclusive
remedy for a lender to gain access to a borrower's property.  As a
result, on July 21, 2016, the Court denied the parties' cross-
motions for partial summary judgment, and lifted the stay.

Nationstar then moved to reconsider the denial of its partial
summary judgment motion, which the Washington Supreme Court denied
and filed its Certificate of Finality on Sept. 2, 2016.  On Sept.
6, 2017, the Court denied the Defendant's Motion to Decertify
Class and certified a slightly redefined Class.  Ms. Jordan then
filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.

Judge Rice granted in part the Plaintiff's Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment.  It is granted as to liability for common law
trespass and CPA violations for all Class members who had their
properties rekeyed prior to foreclosure.

He concludes that all the Class members whose homes were rekeyed
are entitled to summary judgment on their intentional trespass
claim, as there is no genuine issue of material fact.  He agrees
that Nationstar acted intentionally in excluding Class members
from exclusive possession of their homes by installing lockboxes.
He finds that intentional trespass claim is met because changing
locks on the debtors' homes is a reasonably foreseeable
interference of their possessory interest.  He says the Class
members are entitled to the cost of restoration regarding the
rekeying of the debtors' locks, equivalent to Nationstar's lock
change fees in the amount of $535,376.  They are also entitled to
the reasonable rental value from the date Nationstar locked a
house to the cure of any default or when the property was properly
liquidated, the exact calculation to be determined at trial.

Judge Rice also concludes that Ms. Jordan and the Class members
have established their CPA claim for all members who had their
homes rekeyed by Nationstar prior to foreclosure.  Nationstar's
practice of rekeying homes before foreclosure was unfair and
deceptive, thus satisfying the first element of the CPA claim.
There was a business relationship between the borrowers and
Nationstar, but the violation also caused injury to the borrowers'
property by changing the locks.  Nationstar's practice of rekeying
homes was committed in the course of its business and was part of
its uniform practice of rekeying allegedly abandoned homes.  The
Class members' property was diminished and thus they suffered
injury.

The Judge reserves application of the disgorgement remedy for
trial as genuine disputes of material fact remain and more
evidence is required to make a determination.  He directed the
District Court Executive to enter the Order and furnish copies to
the counsel.

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

Laura Zamora Jordan, Plaintiff, represented by Beth E. Terrell --
bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC.

Laura Zamora Jordan, Plaintiff, represented by Clay M. Gatens --
clayg@jdsalaw.com -- Jeffers Danielson Sonn & Aylward PS, Michael
D. Daudt, Daudt Law PLLC, Michelle A. Green --
michelleg@jdsalaw.com -- Jeffers Danielson Sonn and Aylward PS &
Blythe H. Chandler -- bchandler@terrellmarshall.com -- Terrell
Marshall Law Group PLLC.

Nationstar Mortgage LLC, Defendant, represented by John Alan Knox
-- jknox@williamskastner.com -- Williams Kastner & Gibbs, Andrew
Weiss Noble -- awn@severson.com -- Severson & Werson APC, Jan T.
Chilton -- jtc@severson.com -- Severson & Werson PC, pro hac vice,
Mark Douglas Lonergan -- mdl@severson.com -- Severson & Werson
APC, pro hac vice & Mary Kate Sullivan -- mks@severson.com --
Severson & Werson PC, pro hac vice.

State of Washington, Washington State Attorney General, Interested
Party, represented by Amy Chia-Chi Teng, Attorney Generals Office.

Federal Housing Finance Agency, Intervenor, represented by Asim
Varma -- asim.varma@apks.com -- Arnold & Porter LLP, pro hac vice,
Daniel J. Gibbons -- DJG@witherspoonkelley.com -- Witherspoon
Kelley, David B. Bergman -- david.bergman@apks.com -- Arnold &
Porter LLP, pro hac vice & Howard N. Cayne --
howard.cayne@apks.com -- Arnold & Porter LLP, pro hac vice.


OSI SYSTEMS: Accused of Corruption, "Doyel" Hits Share Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Doyel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. OSI Systems, Inc., Deepak Chopra, Alan I.
Edrick and Ajay Mehra, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-08855 (C.D.
Cal., December 8, 2017), seeks damages, prejudgment and post-
judgment interest, as well as reasonable attorneys' fees, expert
fees and other costs and such other and further relief under the
Securities and Exchange Act.

OSI Systems, Inc. produces medical monitoring and anesthesia
systems, optoelectronic devices, and security and inspection
systems. Its subsidiary Rapiscan Systems provides metal detectors
and X-ray machines for screening luggage and cargo.

On January 18, 2012, OSI announced that Rapiscan had been awarded
a six-year, $400 million contract to provide turnkey screening
services to Mexico's tax collection authority. On August 21, 2013,
OSI announced that Rapiscan had been awarded a fifteen-year
contract to provide turnkey screening services throughout Albania.

Rapiscan's equipment was allegedly misrepresented in the Mexican
contract and was accordingly overpriced relative to the value of
the services provided. Said contract was unlikely to be renewed or
was likely to be renewed at terms less favorable to OSI. In
addition, the Albania contract was allegedly secured by corrupt
means and the company's revenues was likewise unsustainable.

On this news, OSI's share price fell $24.55, or 29.2%, to close at
$59.52 on December 6, 2017. Plaintiff owns OSI shares and lost
substantially. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      468 North Camden Drive
      Beverly Hills, CA 90210
      Telephone: (818) 532-6499
      E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

              - and -

      Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      Ten South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 377-1181
      Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
      Email: 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
      Facsimile (212) 697-7296
      Email: peretz@bgandg.com


OVASCIENCE INC: Sued in Mass. Over Misleading Financial Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Westmoreland County Employee Retirement System, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Ovascience, Inc.,
Michelle Dipp M.D., PH. D., Jeffrey E. Young, Richard H. Aldrich,
Jeffrey D. Capello, Mary Fisher, Marc Kozin, Stephen Krauss,
Thomas Malley, Harald F. Stock, PH. D., J.P. Morgan Securities
LLC, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, and Leerink Partners LLC,
Case No. 1:17-cv-12312-IT (D. Mass., November 22, 2017), alleges
that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well
as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Offering
Materials contained misleading statements about and
failed to disclose that: (1) the very science behind AUGMENT was
untested and in doubt; (2) the patients that had received
OvaScience's AUGMENT procedure in 2014 did not achieve a pregnancy
success rate that was significantly higher than the rate achieved
without the Company's AUGMENT procedure; (3) the Company had not
chosen to undertake its studies outside of the United States, but
was forced to as it did not want to meet stringent and expensive
federal regulations; and (4) the Company was far from being
profitable, or even approaching profitability.  Accordingly, the
price of the Company's shares was artificially and materially
inflated in the Offering.

Ovascience, Inc. is a life science company that engages in the
discovery, development, and commercialization of new treatments
for infertility. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Esq.
      HUTCHINGS BARSAMIAN MANDELCORN, LLP
      110 Cedar Street, Suite 250
      Wellesley Hills, MA 02481
      Telephone: (781) 431-2231
      Facsimile: (781) 431-8726
      E-mail: thess-mahan@hutchingsbarsamian.com

         - and -

      David R. Scott, Esq.
      Amanda F. Lawrence, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      156 South Main Street P.O. Box 192
      Colchester, CT 06415
      Telephone: (860) 537-5537
      Facsimile: (860) 537-4432
      E-mail:  david.scott@scott-scott.com
               alawrence@scott-scott.com

         - and -

      Thomas L. Laughlin IV, Esq.
      Donald A. Broggi, Esq.
      Andrea Farah, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
      New York, NY 10169
      Telephone: (212) 223-6444
      Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
      E-mail: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com
              dbroggi@scott-scott.com
              afarah@scott-scott.com


PA ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION: "Seneca" Claims Overtime, Minimum Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Ruslavage and Mario Seneca individually and for others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Pennsylvania Interscholastic
Athletic Association, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-01598 (W.D.
Pa., December 8, 2017), seeks to recover damages resulting from
unpaid working time stemming from minimum wage and overtime
violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act.

Ruslavage and Seneca worked for Defendant as sports officials from
approximately September 2004 until the present. The Pennsylvania
Interscholastic Athletic Association allegedly misclassified
Plaintiffs and all other sports officials as independent
contractors, and required them to work off the clock without any
pay and overtime. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
      GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
      3634 California Ave.
      Pittsburgh, PA 15212
      Tel: 412-766-1455
      Fax: 412-766-0300
      Email: josh@goodrichandgeist.com

             - and -

     Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
     Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
     JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
     11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
     Houston, TX 77046
     Tel: (713) 352-1100
     Fax: (713) 352-3300
     Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
            adunlap@mybackwages.com

            - and -

     Richard J. Burch, Esq.
     BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
     8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
     Houston, TX 77046
     Tel: (713) 877-8788
     Fax: (713) 877-8065
     Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com


PERCHERON FIELD: New Evidence in "Boyington" Re-Opens Discovery
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kim R. Gibson of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in part Eric
Boyington's Motion to Re-Open Discovery Regarding Newly-Acquired
Evidence and Compel Discovery Responses in the case styled ERIC
BOYINGTON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. PERCHERON FIELD SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:14-cv-90 (W.D. Pa.).

The case is a hybrid collective/class action brought under the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the Pennsylvania Minimum
Wage Act ("PMWA").  The Plaintiffs are current and former Right of
Way Agents ("ROW Agents") for Percheron.  The Plaintiffs allege
that Percheron improperly classified them as overtime-exempt
employees and, thus, seek backpay for non-payment of overtime
wages, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs under the FLSA.

Under the Court's Case Management Order of Nov. 1, 2016, the
Plaintiffs were ordered to complete all depositions pertinent to
any further dispositive motions as well as their Motion for Class
Certification by March 1, 2017.  This discovery deadline of March
1, 2017 was never amended.

Pursuant to the Case Management Order, the Plaintiffs took the
depositions of the Gwins on Feb. 1, 2017.  Shannon Gwin was the
Percheron project manager on the eastern part of a Sunoco pipeline
project known as Mariner East 2, Segment 3 on which many of the
opt-in Plaintiffs worked; Scott Gwin was an ROW Agent under
Shannon Gwin.  However, at some time shortly after the Plaintiffs
took these depositions, the Gwins' employment with Percheron
ended, and, according to Facebook and Linkedln posts located by
the Plaintiffs, the Gwins moved to Louisiana and began operating
"Friendly Farms Pet Retreat, LLC" in Baskin, Louisiana.  The exact
date of the Gwins' departure from Percheron and move to Louisiana
is unknown to the Plaintiffs, but, again, based on content posted
on Facebook and Linkedln, they infer that the date is presumably
in the range of March 2017 to July 2017.

The Plaintiffs allege that they have heard "reports" that the
cause of the Gwins' departure from Percheron was the Gwins'
involvement with improper and/or illegal arrangements with
landowners on the Mariner East 2, Segment 3 project.  They asked
Defendant to consent to further depositions and discovery
regarding the Gwins' departure; the Defendant refused and has
provided no other explanation regarding the Gwins' apparently
voluntary resignation from Percheron.

Having failed to amicably resolve this dispute, the Plaintiffs
filed their Motion to Re-Open Discovery on Aug. 16, 2017.  In
response, the Defendant filed its Opposition to their Motion to
Re-Open Discovery and accompanying exhibits on Aug. 24, 2017.
Lastly, the Plaintiffs filed their Reply Brief in Support of their
Motion to Re-Open Discovery on Aug. 30, 2017.

In their Motion to Re-Open Discovery, the Plaintiffs request that
the Court re-open discovery and compel responses to discovery
requests regarding the departure of the Gwins from employment with
Percheron.  More specifically, they ask that the Court orders that
Percheron respond, within 30 days of service, to a set of
interrogatories and requests for production of documents on the
limited subject of the departure of the Gwins from employment with
Percheron.

Judge Gibson holds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied their burden
under Rule 16(b)(4) to demonstrate "good cause" to modify the Case
Management Order and allows discovery to be reopened on the narrow
topic of the Gwins' departure through a set of interrogatories and
document requests.  He finds that their request for additional
interrogatories regarding the Gwins' departure from Percheron
satisfies the requirements of Rule 33(a), Rule 34, and Rule 26(b).
He also finds that the Plaintiffs did not waive the ability to
argue that outside credibility evidence is relevant to the
substantive issues in the litigation.  The single objection made
by the Plaintiffs' counsel at Shannon Gwin's deposition does not
constitute a waiver of any right or the ability to make any
argument in the future.

While he will allow the Plaintiffs to propound its interrogatories
and request documents regarding the Gwins' departure after the
close of fact discovery, the Judge will not preemptively issue an
order compelling Percheron to respond to these interrogatories or
to produce documents.  He says he will not assume that Percheron
will refuse to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by
refusing to respond or object, as appropriate, to the set of
interrogatories and document requests issued by the Plaintiffs
regarding the Gwins' departure.  He fully expects that Percheron
will comply with its discovery obligations under federal law and,
specifically, with Rule 33 and Rule 34.  The Plaintiffs can, of
course, raise the issue again if Percheron fails to timely comply
with its discovery obligations.

For these reasons, Judge Gibson granted in part and denied in part
the Plaintiffs' Motion to Re-Open Discovery.  Specifically, he re-
opens discovery on a limited basis to allow the Plaintiffs to
submit a set of interrogatories and requests for production of
documents on the subject of the Gwins' departure from employment
with Percheron.  However, he will not preemptively issue an order
compelling Percheron to appropriately respond to these new
discovery requests.  Pursuant to Rule 33(b)(2) and Rule
34(b)(2)(A), Percheron must serve its answers and/or any
objections within 30 days after being served with the relevant set
of interrogatories and requests for production of documents.

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

ERIC BOYINGTON, Plaintiff, represented by John R. Linkosky --
Linklaw@comcast.net.

ERIC BOYINGTON, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph H. Chivers,
Andrew J. Horowitz -- andrew.horowitz@obermayer.com -- Obermayer
Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel, LLP, Bruce C. Fox --
bruce.fox@obermayer.com -- Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP
& Jeffrey B. Cadle.

MARY BETH GARNER, Plaintiff, represented by John R. Linkosky,
Joseph H. Chivers, Andrew J. Horowitz, Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell &
Hippel, LLP & Bruce C. Fox, Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel
LLP.

JOHN HUBBS, Plaintiff, represented by John R. Linkosky, Joseph H.
Chivers, Andrew J. Horowitz, Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel,
LLP & Bruce C. Fox, Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP.

JAYME ROWE, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew J. Horowitz,
Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel, LLP & Bruce C. Fox, Obermayer
Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP.

TONJA TUCKER, Plaintiff, represented by John R. Linkosky, Joseph
H. Chivers, Andrew J. Horowitz, Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell &
Hippel, LLP & Bruce C. Fox, Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel
LLP.

LESLIE WELDEN, Plaintiff, represented by John R. Linkosky, Joseph
H. Chivers, Andrew J. Horowitz, Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell &
Hippel, LLP & Bruce C. Fox, Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel
LLP.

BRADLEY WRIGHT, Plaintiff, represented by John R. Linkosky, Joseph
H. Chivers, Andrew J. Horowitz, Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell &
Hippel, LLP & Bruce C. Fox, Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel
LLP.

PERCHERON FIELD SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, represented by Brittany
A. Fink -- bfink@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Robert W.
Pritchard -- rpritchard@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, Brian M.
Hentosz -- bhentosz@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C.,
Christopher Michalski -- cmichalski@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson, Jill M. Weimer -- jweimer@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson, P.C. & Sarah J. Miley -- smiley@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson, P.C..

PERCHERON FIELD SERVICES, LLC, Counter Claimant, represented by
Brian M. Hentosz, Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Brittany A. Fink,
Littler Mendelson, P.C..

ERIC BOYINGTON, Counter Defendant, represented by John R. Linkosky
& Joseph H. Chivers .

PERCHERON FIELD SERVICES, LLC, Counter Claimant, represented by
Brian M. Hentosz, Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Brittany A. Fink,
Littler Mendelson, P.C..

PERCHERON FIELD SERVICES, LLC, Counter Defendant, represented by
Brian M. Hentosz, Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Brittany A. Fink,
Littler Mendelson, P.C..


PHILLIPS & COHEN: Faces "Polak" Suit in Eastern District of NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Phillips & Cohen
Associates, Ltd. The case is styled Israel Polak, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Phillips &
Cohen Associates, Ltd., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07220 (E.D.
N.Y., December 12, 2017).

Phillips & Cohen Associates, Ltd. provides debt recovery services
in the United States and internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


POLLO OPERATIONS: Court Narrows "Longhini" ADA Violation Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida issued an Order granting in part and denying in part the
Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned Doug
Longhini, Plaintiff, v. Pollo Operations, Inc. d/b/a Pollo
Tropical 26 and Arka Investments Corporation, Defendants, Civil
Action No. 17-23410-Civ-Scola (S.D. Fla.).

The Supreme Court has held that while a complaint attacked by a
Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual
allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds' of
his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause
of action will not do.  Factual allegations must be enough to
raise a right to relief above the speculative level.

To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.

The Defendants first move to dismiss any violations of the ADA of
which the Plaintiff did not have notice at the time he filed the
Complaint. Although the Complaint specifically identifies numerous
architectural barriers that the Plaintiff encountered at the
Defendants' restaurant, the Complaint states that the list of
barriers is not an exclusive list, and requests to inspect the
restaurant to discover barriers to access that were concealed.
Courts within this district have held that a plaintiff must have
actual knowledge of alleged violations of the ADA at the time a
complaint is filed. Plaintiffs do not have standing to complain
about alleged barriers which they were unaware of at the filing of
their complaint.  Therefore, the Court grants the Defendants'
motion to dismiss those portions of the Complaint that seek
redress for violations of which the Plaintiff was unaware at the
time he filed the Complaint.

The Defendants next move to dismiss alleged violations that do not
relate to the Plaintiff's disability and/or did not actually
injure him.  It is well-settled that a plaintiff does not have
standing to assert a claim for an alleged ADA violation not
related to the plaintiff's disability.  It is also well-settled
that a plaintiff must have suffered an injury-in-fact in order to
have standing.  However, the Defendants specifically identify two
allegations that they argue do not relate to the Plaintiff's
disability and/or did not injure the Plaintiff. This first is an
allegation that signage at some of the designated accessible
parking spaces are not compliant.

The Defendants appear to misunderstand the nature of the alleged
violation. The regulations cited in the Complaint require that
accessible parking spaces be designated as reserved, and set forth
specific requirements for such signage. ADA Accessibility
Guidelines 4.6.4. This is presumably not intended to be an
accommodation for individuals who are visually impaired, but
rather an accommodation for all disabled individuals so that they
are able to clearly identify which parking spaces are accessible.
Therefore, the Court denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss this
allegation

Although the Complaint purports to be brought on behalf of the
Plaintiff and "all other similarly situated mobility-impaired
individuals, the Plaintiff has failed to plead a basis for
bringing a class action. The Plaintiff's response to the Motion to
Dismiss asserts that he never intended this case to be a class
action.  Therefore, the issue is moot.

Accordingly, the Court grants in part and denies in part the
Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss.  The Court dismisses
without prejudice those portions of the Complaint that seek
redress for violations of the ADA that were unknown or
undiscovered at the time the Complaint was filed, and the
Plaintiff's allegation that "[t]he facility fails to make
reasonable accommodations in policies, practices and procedures."
However, the Court declines to dismiss the Plaintiff's allegation
that "signage at some of the designated accessible parking spaces
are not compliant."

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 20, 2017 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yb68ez3b from Leagle.com.

Doug Longhini, Plaintiff, represented by Alfredo Garcia-Menocal,
GARCIA-MENOCAL & PEREZ, P.L., 730 NW 107th Ave., Suite 214Miami,
FL 33172

Doug Longhini, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony Joseph Perez,
Garcia-Menocal & Perez, P.L., 730 NW 107th Ave., Suite 214Miami,
FL 33172

Pollo Operations, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lawrence Dean
Silverman -- lawrence.silverman@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP &
Sandra Jessica Millor -- sandra.millor@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP.


RESONANT INC: Securities Class Suit Settlement Has Final Court OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California, Western Division, issued a Final Judgment of Dismissal
with Prejudice in the case captioned In re RESONANT INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION, This Document Relates To: All Actions, Case
No. 2:15-cv-01970 SJO (MRW), No. 2:15-cv-02054 SJO (VBK), 2:15-cv-
02369 SJO (VBK)(C.D. Cal.).

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Court approves
the Settlement and finds that the Settlement is, in all respects,
fair, just, reasonable and adequate to the Settlement Class.  The
Court also reaffirms its findings and conclusion, set forth in the
Preliminary Approval Order, that, for purposes of the Stipulation
and the Settlement, this Settlement Class meets the prerequisites
for bringing a class action set forth in Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure Rule 23(a) and the requirements for maintenance of a
class action under Rule 23(b)(3).  The Court makes final its
previously conditional certification of the Settlement Class.

Accordingly, the Court authorizes and directs implementation and
performance of all the terms and provisions of the Stipulation, as
well as the terms and provisions hereof.  Except as to any
individual claim of those Persons who have validly and timely
requested exclusion from the Settlement Class, the Litigation and
all claims contained therein, as well as all of the Released
Claims are dismissed with prejudice by the Lead Plaintiffs and the
other members of the Settlement Class, and as against the Released
Persons.  The Settling Parties are to bear their own costs, except
as otherwise provided in the Stipulation.

The Court finds that the Stipulation and Settlement, and the Plan
of Allocation are fair, reasonable and adequate as to each of the
Settling Parties, and that the Stipulation and Settlement and the
Plan of Allocation are finally approved in all respects, and the
Settling Parties are hereby directed to perform its terms.

Lead Counsel are awarded 33% of the Settlement Fund for their
attorneys' fees, which sum the Court finds to be fair and
reasonable.  Lead Counsel are awarded $51,133.20 in reimbursement
of litigation expenses, which expenses the Court finds to have
been reasonably incurred.  The Court has also considered the
request for incentive awards for the Lead Plaintiffs in
recognition of their contributions and awards $5,000 to each Lead
Plaintiff.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 20, 2017
Judgment and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yb2h7wbn
from Leagle.com.

John Devouassoux, Plaintiff, represented by Casey Edwards Sadler -
- csadler@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP.

John Devouassoux, Plaintiff, represented by Howard G. Smith, Law
Offices of Howard G Smith,  3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
Bensalem, PA 19020, pro hac vice, Lionel Zevi Glancy --
lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP & Robert
Vincent Prongay -- rprongay@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay and
Murray LLP.

Resonant Inc., Defendant, represented by James N. Kramer --
jkramer@orrick.com  Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP & Kevin M.
Askew -- kaskew@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP.

Terry Lingren, Defendant, represented by James N. Kramer, Orrick
Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP & Kevin M. Askew, Orrick Herrington
and Sutcliffe LLP.

John Philpott, Defendant, represented by James N. Kramer, Orrick
Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP & Kevin M. Askew, Orrick Herrington
and Sutcliffe LLP.


RETRIEVAL-MASTERS: Faces "Palermo" Suit in E. Dist. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Retrieval-Masters
Creditors Bureau, Inc. The case is styled Jennifer L. Palermo, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc. doing business as:
American Medical Collection Agency, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-
07241 (E.D. N.Y., December 12, 2017).

Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc. is a debt collection
agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


RITUALS COSMETICS: Matzura Says Website Not Blind Accessible
------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Matzura and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Rituals Cosmetics USA Inc. and Rituals Spa
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-09695 (S.D. N.Y, December 18,
2017), seeks compensatory and statutory damages and fines,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this
action together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and
such other and further relief under the Americans with
Disabilities Act and New York State Human Rights Law.

Defendants sell fragrances in eight locations in New York City
including through their website www.rituals.com. Matzura is a
visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-
reading software to read website content. He claims that the
Rituals website is not accessible to the blind.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brandon D. Sherr, Esq.
      Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
      227 Broadway, Suite 408
      New York, NY 10007-2036
      Telephone: (212) 229-2249
      Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
      Email: bsherr@zellerlegal.com
             jazeller@zellerlegal.com

             - and -

      Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
      Dana L. Gottlieb
      GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
      150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
      New York, NY 10003-2461
      Telephone: (212) 228-9795
      Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
      Email: nyjg@aol.com
             danalgottlieb@aol.com


SATELLITE AFFORDABLE: "Benton" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Daryl Benton, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated,
and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff, v. Satellite
Affordable Housing Associates and Does 1-100, Case No. RG17885127
(Cal. Super., December 7, 2017), seeks unpaid wages, overtime,
meal and rest period compensation, final pay, penalties,
injunctive and other equitable relief and reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the California Labor Code and Unfair
Competition Law and applicable rules and regulations of the
Industrial Welfare Commission.

Satellite engages in the ownership and operation of providing
innovative and affordable housing and services to more than 4,000
residents in seven counties in northern California. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      William Turley, Esq.
      David Mara, Esq.
      Jill Vecchi, Esq.
      Matthew Crawfors, Esq.
      THE TURLEY & MARA LAW FIRM, APLC
      7428 Trade Street
      San Diego, CA 92121
      Telephone: (619) 234-2833
      Facsimile: (619) 234-4048
      Email: bturley@turleylawfirm.com
             dmara@turleylawfirm.com


SOLOMON & SOLOMON: Faces "Kantor" Suit in E. Dist. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Solomon & Solomon
PC. The case is styled Jonathan Kantor, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Solomon & Solomon PC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07280 (E.D. N.Y., December 13, 2017).

Solomon & Solomon PC is a collection law firm which provides both
collection and litigation services on delinquent receivables.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Daniel C Cohen, Esq.
   Daniel Cohen, PLLC
   407 Rockaway Avenue
   Brooklyn, NY 11212
   Tel: (646) 645-8482
   Fax: (347) 665-1545
   Email: dancohenlaw@gmail.com


SQUARE TRADE: Faces "Berger" Suit Over Breach of Contract
---------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Berger, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Square Trade, Inc. and Does 1-100, Case No. BC684219
(Cal. Super. Ct., November 22, 2017), arises out the Defendants'
alleged breach of breach of contract, by failing to pay consumers
who purchased a Square Trade Service Agreement which provided that
Square Trade would reimburse consumers for the entire purchase
price in the event of a covered claim.

Square Trade, Inc. is one of the United States' largest extended
warranty service agreement providers for consumer electronics and
appliances. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mitch Kalcheim, Esq.
      LEGAL GP
      9663 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 889
      Beverly Hills, CA 90210
      Telephone: (310) 980-7749
      E-mail: MHK@XegalGP.com

STATE FARM: MAO-MSO Class Suit Transferred to C.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on March 28, 2017 titled MAO-MSO
Recovery II, LLC, MSP Recovery, LLC, and MSPA Claims 1, LLC, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. State
Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Case No. 3:17-cv-00321,
was transferred on November 29, 2017, from the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of Illinois. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-01541-JBM-JEH to the proceeding.

The case alleges that the Defendant failed to fulfill its
statutorily-mandated duty under the Medicare Secondary Payer
provisions of the Medicare Act to reimburse Medicare Advantage
Organizations ("MAOs") for medical treatments or expenses paid by
the Plaintiffs and the putative Class Members on behalf of the
Defendant's insureds.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is a mutual non-
stock company organized and existing under the laws of the State
of Illinois with its principal place of business at One State Farm
Plaza, Bloomington, Illinois 61710. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher L. Coffin, Esq.
      PENDLEY BAUDIN & COFFIN LLP
      24110 Eden St., PO Drawer 71
      Plaquemine, LA 70765
      Telephone: (225) 687-6396
      Facsimile: (225) 687-6398
      E-mail: ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com

          - and -

      Adam M. Foster, Esq.
      Pedram Esfandiary, Esq.
      R. Brent Wisner, Esq.
      BAUM, HEDLUND, ARISTEI & GOLDMAN, PC
      12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 950
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Telephone: (310) 207-3233
      E-mail: afoster@baumhedlundlaw.com
              pesfandiary@baumhedlundlaw.com
              rbwisner@baumhedlundlaw.com

         - and -

      Courtney L. Stidham, Esq.
      PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, L.L.P.
      1515 Poydras Street, Suite 1400
      New Orleans, LA 70112
      Telephone: (504) 355-0086
      Facsimile: (504) 523-0699
      E-mail: cstidham@pbclawfirm.com

         - and -

      David M. Hundley II, Esq.
      HUNDLEY LAW GROUP, P.C.
      1620 West Chicago Ave., Suite 307
      Chicago, IL 60622
      Telephone: (312) 212-3343
      Facsimile: (312) 724-7766
      E-mail: dmh@hundleylaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Benjamine Reid, Esq.
      CARLTON FIELDS JORDAN BURT
      100 S.E. 2nd St.
      Miami Tower, Ste. 4200
      Miami, FL 33131-2113
      Telephone: (305) 539-7222
      Facsimile: (305) 530-0055
      E-mail: breid@carltonfields.com

         - and -

      James P. Gaughan, Esq.
      Joseph A. Cancila Jr., Esq.
      RILEY SAFER HOLMES & CANCILA LLP
      Three First National Plaza
      Suite 2900, 70 W Madison St
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 471-8655
      E-mail: jgaughan@rshc-law.com
              jcancila@rshc-law.com

         - and -

      Patrick D. Cloud, Esq.
      HEYL ROYSTER VOELKER & ALLEN
      Suite 100, 105 W Vandalia Street
      PO Box 467
      Edwardsville, IL 62025
      Telephone: (618) 656-4646
      E-mail: pcloud@heylroyster.com

         - and -

      D. Matthew Allen, Esq.
      CARLTON FIELDS JORDAN BURT
      4221 West Boy Scout Boulevard, Suite 1000
      Tampa, FL 33607
      Telephone: (813) 229-4304
      Facsimile: (813) 229-4133
      E-mail: mallen@carltonfields.com


STRAIGHT PATH: Delaware Court Stays Shareholder Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of Delaware issued an Opinion staying the
case captioned In re Straight Path Commc's Inc. Consol. S'holder
Litig., Civil Action No. 2017-0486-SG. (Del. Ch.), subject to any
parties' motion by any party to show that the facts are fully
developed and the matter is ripe for a decision.

Before the Court were motions to dismiss both a claim for damages
and a request to establish a constructive trust, arising from
purported breaches of fiduciary duties by a corporate controller
and an inside director with respect to a cash-out merger.

The Plaintiffs are current stockholders of the to-be-acquired
corporation.  The merger has yet to close, and the Plaintiffs do
not seek an injunction; to the contrary, they are in favor of the
merger itself.  Their claims arise from assets transferred to
another entity controlled by the controller, which was a condition
of his support for the merger.  The Defendants argue strenuously
that such a scenario does not raise a direct claim.

Before the Court are motions to dismiss from Howard, Davidi, and
IDT.  The Court did not reach those motions.  Because the
Complaint seeks redress for direct claims of stockholders arising
from the merger, and does not seek to enjoin the merger, the
matter is not ripe.

The Defendants point out that the independent directors were
originally party defendants in this matter.  The Plaintiffs then
dismissed them without prejudice; they are subject to be sued
again.  According to the Defendants, this sword of Damocles
hanging from the thread of the Plaintiffs' discretion means that
the independent directors are conflicted here, and their failure
to authorize Straight Path to file a motion to dismiss, under
these circumstances, cannot serve to excuse demand. Accordingly,
say the Defendants, to the extent the Plaintiffs' claims are
derivative, they must be dismissed.

The Court declined to address this issue at this juncture. Again,
the Court noted that no party seeks to enjoin the merger. If, as
the parties agree is likely, that merger goes through in short
order, the stay will be lifted, the direct claims, if viable, will
be ripe, and any derivative claims will fall away.  If the merger
fails, all that will remain is the cause of action belonging to
the Company arising from the Term Sheet transaction, and it will
then be necessary to assess whether the Plaintiffs may proceed
derivatively based on their pleadings.  This matter in one guise
or another will receive judicial review.  But to the Court,
addressing the issue of demand excusal at this point adds nothing
by way of efficiency, and runs the same risk of an advisory
opinion as does addressing the viability of the direct claims.

Accordingly, the matter is stayed subject to motion by any party
to show that the facts are fully developed and the matter is ripe
for a decision.

A full-text copy of the Chancery Court's November 20, 2017 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ydbq3j4r from Leagle.com.


TF FINAL: Can't Compel Arbitration in "Ouadani," 1st Cir. Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sandra L. Lynch of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit affirmed the district court denial of Dynamex's motion to
compel arbitration in the case, DJAMEL OUADANI, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, Appellee, v.
TF FINAL MILE LLC, f/k/a Dynamex Operations East, LLC, Defendant,
Appellant, Case No. 17-1583 (1st Cir.).

Ouadani worked as a delivery driver from March to August 2016,
delivering products for Dynamex, now known as TF Final.  As a
condition of his employment, Ouadani was required to associate
with a vendor affiliated with Dynamex, named Selwyn and Birtha
Shipping, LLC ("SBS").  He received his compensation from SBS,
which had a written contract with Dynamex.  Ouadani did not have a
written contract either with Dynamex or with SBS.

In August 2016, Ouadani complained to Dynamex that he lacked the
independence of a contractor, and that he should be paid as an
employee if Dynamex continued to exert the same degree of control
over his work.  He was terminated shortly after he complained.

After his termination, Ouadani brought various wage-and-hour
claims against Dynamex in federal district court, styling his
action as a putative class action on his behalf and on behalf of
others similarly situated.  Dynamex responded by filing a motion
to compel arbitration, pointing to an agreement between Dynamex
and SBS that contained a mandatory arbitration clause.

The district court denied Dynamex's motion, reasoning that Ouadani
had never signed the agreement containing the arbitration clause
and had no idea that the agreement even existed.  On appeal,
Dynamex argues that Ouadani should nonetheless be compelled to
arbitrate under federal common law principles of contract and
agency.

Judge Lynch concludes that Dynamex's arguments are without merit.
The Judge disagrees with the Defendant's argument that Ouadani
should be bound to arbitrate because he is an "agent" of SBS.  He
says Ouadani is not, in this context, bringing his wage-and-hour
claims as an "agent acting on behalf" of SBS.  To the contrary,
Ouadani is bringing his claims against Dynamex on his own behalf
and purportedly on behalf of other similarly situated drivers.
The alleged agency relationship between Ouadani and SBS is
irrelevant to the legal obligation in dispute.

Next, she finds Dynamex's claims that that Ouadani knowingly
sought and obtained benefits from the Agreement because he
performed the "Contracted Services" pursuant to the Agreement for
compensation and that the Agreement would be "useless" without
drivers like Ouadani to perform the contemplated services
unpersuasive.  The Judge says the benefits of the arbitration
clause of the Agreement accrue to the contracting signatories --
Dynamex and SBS -- not to Ouadani.  Ouadani can hardly be said to
have "embraced" the Agreement when he was unaware of its
existence.

Finally, Judge Lynch concludes that Dynamex's failure to show that
the parties to the Agreement intended to provide any legal rights
to Ouadani is fatal to its third-party beneficiary claim.  Dynamex
fails to identify any language in the Agreement that can be read
to provide Ouadani with specific legal rights.  Dynamex's and
SBS's failure to obtain a written agreement from Ouadani cuts
against Dynamex's argument that Ouadani should be bound by the
Agreement.  Ouadani's mandated association with SBS for payment
purposes does not alter the fact that Dynamex ultimately
controlled the terms and conditions of Ouadani's work as a
delivery driver.  His claims do not depend on the existence of a
right guaranteed in the Agreement between Dynamex and SBS; they
are grounded in Ouadani's relationship with Dynamex.

For these reasons, Judge Lynch affirmed the decision of the
district court.  Dynamex is ordered to show cause by written
response within 15 days as to why the Court should not assess
double costs for needlessly consuming the time of the Court and
opposing counsel.

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

Diane M. Saunders -- diane.saunders@ogletree.com -- with whom
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. was on brief, for
appellant.

Stephen Churchill -- steve@fairworklaw.com -- with whom Hillary
Schwab -- hillary@fairworklaw.com -- Brant Casavant --
brant@fairworklaw.com -- and Fair Work, P.C. were on brief, for
appellee.


TINTRI INC: "Golosiy" Securities Suit Remanded to State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for Northern District of
California issued an Order granting Plaintiff's Motion to Remand
the case captioned VLADIMIR GOLOSIY, Plaintiff, v. TINTRI, INC.,
ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-05876-YGR (N.D. Cal.), to the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo.

Defendants Tintri, Inc., et al., removed the securities class
action alleging violations of the Securities Act.  The District
Court related the case sua sponte to Clayton v. Tintri, Inc., 17-
cv-05683-YGR (Clayton) and Nurlybayev v. Tintri, Inc., et al,
4:17-cv-05684-YGR (Nurlybayev).  Clayton and Nurlybayev were
remanded to the State Court pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section
77(v)(a).

A plaintiff may seek to have a case remanded to the state court
from which it was removed if the district court lacks jurisdiction
or if there is a defect in the removal procedure.

The Securities Act of 1933, which imposes liability for omissions
and misstatements in various securities-related communications,
provides concurrent jurisdiction in state and federal courts over
alleged violations of the Act. However, Section 77v(a) of the
Securities Act strictly forbids the removal of cases brought in
state court and asserting claims under the Act.

In light of the Ninth Circuit's holding in Luther v. Countrywide
Home Loans Servicing LP, 533 F.3d 1031, 1033 (9th Cir. 2008), and
copious case law in this district, the District Court finds that
removal is barred under Section 77v(a).  More than twenty district
courts in the Ninth Circuit have addressed this issue and remanded
to state court every time.  The Court sees no good reason to
reconsider the question or depart from these consistent and
considered decision.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 20, 2017 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8bplmpn from Leagle.com.

Vladimir Golosiy, Plaintiff, represented by Brian J. Robbins --
brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com -- Robbins Arroyo LLP.

Vladimir Golosiy, Plaintiff, represented by Eric M. Carrino --
ecarrino@robbinsarroyo.com -- Robbins Arroyo LLP & Stephen J. Oddo
-- soddo@robbinsarroyo.com -- Robbins Arroyo LLP.

Tintri, Inc., Defendant, represented by Caz Hashemi
chashemi@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Benjamin
Matthew Crosson -- bcrosson@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich &
Rosati & Doru Gavril dgavril@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich
and Rosati.

Ken Klein, Defendant, represented by Caz Hashemi, Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati,Benjamin Matthew Crosson, Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati & Doru Gavril, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and
Rosati.

Kieran Harty, Defendant, represented by Caz Hashemi, Wilson
Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati,Benjamin Matthew Crosson, Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati & Doru Gavril, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and
Rosati.

Ian Halifax, Defendant, represented by Caz Hashemi, Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati,Benjamin Matthew Crosson, Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati & Doru Gavril, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and
Rosati.

Peter Sonsini, Defendant, represented by Caz Hashemi, Wilson
Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati,Benjamin Matthew Crosson, Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati & Doru Gavril, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and
Rosati.

Adam Grosser, Defendant, represented by Caz Hashemi, Wilson
Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati,Benjamin Matthew Crosson, Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati & Doru Gavril, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and
Rosati.

Christopher Schaepe, Defendant, represented by Caz Hashemi, Wilson
Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Benjamin Matthew Crosson, Wilson
Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati & Doru Gavril, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich
and Rosati.

Harvey Jones, Defendant, represented by Caz Hashemi, Wilson
Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati,Benjamin Matthew Crosson, Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati & Doru Gavril, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and
Rosati.

John Bolger, Defendant, represented by Caz Hashemi, Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati,Benjamin Matthew Crosson, Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati & Doru Gavril, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and
Rosati.

Charles Giancarlo, Defendant, represented by Caz Hashemi, Wilson
Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati,Benjamin Matthew Crosson, Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati & Doru Gavril, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and
Rosati.


TITAN LOGISTICS: Faces "Johnston" Suit in W.D. of Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Titan Logistics &
Resources, LLC.  The case is styled Glenwood Johnston, Ladel
Richards, Tracy Guinard, Edward Richard Reynolds, Normand Maillet,
Kavid Harris, Shannon Houchin, Chevy Burse, Jackie Christiansen,
Todd Brooks, Joe Sandoval, Michael Bazan, Jerry Lynn Tryon, Delvin
Washington, Greg Monkress, Sean Williams, Richard Hake, Matthew
Schwarz, Brian Gould, William Shultz, Ronnie Phillips, George
Woelich, Jamie Garland and Symeon Dorsey, on behalf of themselves
and similarly situated employees, Plaintiffs v. Titan Logistics &
Resources, LLC, Tony Digiamberdine and Beemac Trucking,
Defendants, Case No. 12:17-cv-01617-NBF (W.D. Penn., December 14,
2017).

Titan Logistics & Resources LLC, is a full service, oil field
logistics company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H. Chivers, Esq.
   100 First Avenue, Suite 1010
   Pittsburgh, PA 15222
   Tel: (412) 227-0763
   Email: jchivers@employmentrightsgroup.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Webber" Suit Over Security Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Susan Webber and Livia Soibelman, individually, and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals v. UBER Technologies,
Inc., Rasier-CA, LLC, and Rasier, LLC, Case No. 3:17-cv-06758
(N.D. Cal., November 22, 2017), is an action for damages as a
result of the Defendants' failure to provide adequate protection
of its Drivers' and Riders personal and confidential information
and failure to provide sufficient and timely notice or warning of
potential and actual cyber security breaches to its users.

The Defendants operate ride-share services mobile application
software. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bevin Allen Pike, Esq.
      Robert K. Friedl, Esq.
      Trisha K. Monesi, Esq.
      CAPSTONE LAW APC
      1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 556-4811
      Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
      E-mail: Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com
              Robert.Friedl@capstonelawyers.com
              Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com


UNIQLO USA: Faces "Jorge" Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Jorge, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Uniqlo USA, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-09187 (S.D.N.Y.,
November 22, 2017), is a civil rights action against Uniqlo USA,
LLC for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate
its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.

Uniqlo USA, LLC operates Uniqlo clothing stores as well as the
Uniqlo website and advertises, markets, distributes, and sells
clothing in the State of New York and throughout the United
States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel C. Cohen, Esq.
      DANIEL COHEN, PLLC
      300 Cadman Plaza W., 12th Fl.
      Brooklyn, NY 11201
      Telephone: (646) 645-482
      Facsimile: (347) 665-1545
      E-mail: dan@dccohen.com

         - and -

      Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
      Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
      GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
      150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
      New York, NY 10003
      Telephone: (212) 228-9795
      Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
      E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
              danalgottlieb@aol.com


UNITED STATES: Burns and Charest to Lead Hurricane Harvey Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Federal Claims issued an Order
Regarding Judicial Assignment, Appointment of Counsel for the
Purpose of Discovery, Dispositive and Cross Motions in the case
captioned IN RE ADDICKS AND BARKER (TEXAS) FLOOD-CONTROL
RESERVOIRS, THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO: ALL CASES, No. 17-3000L
(Fed. Cl.).

During the October 6, 2017 and November 1, 2017 hearings convened
in Houston, the court was advised that putative class action
complaints and individual complaints with upstream claims
affecting approximately 4,000 private property interests are or
will be filed in the United States Court of Federal Claims.

The Honorable Eric G. Bruggink of the United States Court of
Federal Claims is assigned to manage pre-trial discovery and
adjudicate all pre-trial dispositive motions.

Daniel Charest, Esq. -- dcharest@burnscharest.com -- Founding
Partner of the Dallas-based firm, Burns and Charest, LLP; Charles
Irvine, Esq. -- charles@irvineconner.com -- Founding Partner in
the Houston law firm of Irvine & Conner, PLLC; Larry Vincent, Esq.
-- lvincent@burnscharest.com -- counsel to Burns and Charest, LLP;
and E. Armistead Easterby, Esq., a Partner in the Houston law firm
of Williams Kherkher LLP, are appointed Co-Counsel for Pre-Trial
Discovery and Dispositive Motions

On or before January 30, 2018, all initial disclosures and
electronically stored information and hard copy documents filed in
the pre-trial phase of this case, will be provided to opposing
counsel.

On or before February 28, 2018, the Government will file an
Answer, pursuant to RCFC 7(a)(2), in response to any Amended
Complaint filed on or before January 15, 2018.

Thereafter, the parties may conduct discovery, subject to court
Order, including any expert discovery, to conclude no later than
May 31, 2018.

On or before June 15, 2018, the parties will file any dispositive
motion(s), pursuant to RCFC 56.

On or before July 16, 2018, the parties may file any Responses
and/or Cross-Motions to May 14, 2018 dispositive motion(s).
On or before July 31, 2018, the parties simultaneously may file
any Replies.

On or before October 29, 2018, the court will convene an oral
argument in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas.

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

In re ADDICKS AND BARKER (TEXAS) FLOOD-CONTROL RESERVOIRS,
Plaintiff, represented by Allen Craig Eiland, The Law Offices of
A. Craig Eiland, P.C., Old Galveston Square, 2211 The Strand,
Suite 201, Galveston, TX, 77550

In re ADDICKS AND BARKER (TEXAS) FLOOD-CONTROL RESERVOIRS,
Plaintiff, represented by Anthony Glenn Buzbee, The Buzbee Law
Firm, J.P. Morgan Chase Tower 600 Travis, Ste 7300 Houston, TX
77002, Bryant Steven Banes, 1700 West Loop South Suite 1400
Houston, TX, 77027, Neel, Hooper & Banes, PC, Charles W. Irvine --
charles@irvineconner.com -- Irvine & Conner, LLC, Christopher
Stephen Johns -- cjohns@jmehlaw.com -- Johns, Marrs, Ellis & Hodge
LLP, Clayton A. Clark, Clark, Love & Hutson, G.P., 440 Louisiana
Street Suite 1600Houston, TX 77002, David Charles Frederick --
dfrederick@kellogghansen.com -- Kellogg, Hansen, et al, Derek
Heath Potts, Potts Law Firm, LLP, 3737 Buffalo Speedway Ste 1900,
Houston, TX 77098-3739, Edward Blizzard, Blizzard & Nabers, LLP,
Lyric Centre 440 Louisiana Suite 1710Houston, TX 77002-1689, Edwin
Armistead Easterby, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, 8441 Gulf
Freeway Suite 600Houston, TX 77017, Eric Reed Nowak, Harrell &
Nowak, 650 Poydras Street, Suite 2107, New Orleans, LA, 70130,
Howard L. Nations, Nations Law Firm, 3131 Briarpark Drive #208,
Houston, TX, 77042, Ian P. Cloud -- icloud@robinscloud.com --
Robins Cloud LLP, Jack Edward McGehee -- jmcgehee@lawtx.com --
McGehee, Chang, Barnes, Landgraf, Jason A. Itkin, Arnold & Itkin,
LLP, 6009 Memorial Drive, Houston, TX 77007, Jay Edelson --
jedelson@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, Jeffrey L. Raizner, Raizner
Slania LLP, 2402 Dunlavy Street, Houston, TX, 77006, John Scott
Black, Daly & Black, P.C., 2211 Norfolk St Ste 800, Houston, TX,
77098-4030, Kurt B. Arnold, Arnold & Itkin, LLP, 6009 Memorial
Drive, Houston, TX, 77007, Luke Joseph Ellis -- lellis@jmehlaw.com
-- Johns, Marrs, Ellis & Hodge LLP, Michael C. Falick --
mfalick@rothfelderfalick.com -- Rothfelder & Falick, L.L.P., Minh-
Tam Tammy Tran, Tammy Tran Law Firm, 2915 Fannin, Houston, TX,
77002, Noah Michael Wexler, Arnold & Itkin, LLP, 6009 Memorial
Drive Houston, TX, 77007, Phillip Bruce Dye, Jr. -- pdye@velaw.com
-- Vinson & Elkins LLP & Jez, L.L.P., Rene Michelle Sigman --
rsigman@MerlinLawGroup.com -- Merlin Law Group, Riley L. Burnett,
Jr., Burnett Law Firm, 3737 Buffalo Speedway, Suite 1850, Houston,
Texas 77098,  Steven John Mitby -- smitby@azalaw.com -- Ahmad
Zavitsanos, et al., Timothy Micah Dortch --
Micah.Dortch@cooperscully.com -- Cooper & Scully, PC, Vuk
Vujasinovic, VB Attorneys, 6363 Woodway DriveSuite 400Houston, TX
77057 & William Fred Hagans -- whagans@hagans.law -- Hagans
Montgomery & Rustay, P.C.

USA, Defendant, represented by Jacqueline Camille Brown, U.S.
Department of Justice.


UNITED STATES: Consovoy McCarty to Lead Hurricane Harvey Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Federal Claims issued an Order
Regarding Judicial Assignment, Appointment of Counsel for the
Purpose Pre-Trial Jurisdictional and Government Motion to Dismiss
in the case captioned IN RE ADDICKS AND BARKER (TEXAS) FLOOD-
CONTROL RESERVOIRS, THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO: ALL CASES, No. 17-
3000L (Fed. Cl.).

During the October 6, 2017 and November 1, 2017 hearings convened
in Houston, the court was advised that putative class action
complaints and individual complaints with downstream claims
affecting approximately 4,000 private property interests are or
will be filed in the United States Court of Federal Claims.

The Honorable Susan G. Braden of the United States Court of
Federal Claims is assigned to manage jurisdictional discovery and
adjudicate issues presented by any motion filed, pursuant to Rule
of the United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC) 12(b)(1)-(7).

William S. Consovoy, Esq., Founding Partner of Consovoy, McCarthy,
Park, PLLC; David C. Frederick, Esq., Adjunct Professor of Law at
the University of Texas Law School, where he teaches a Supreme
Court clinic; Jack E. McGehee, Esq., Founding Partner of the
Houston firm McGehee, Change, Barnes, Landraf, are appointed Co-
Counsel for Jurisdictional Discovery.

A full-text copy of the Court's November 20, 2017 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y98qq9af from Leagle.com.


UNITED STATES: Fleming Nolen to Lead in Hurricane Harvey Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Federal Claims issued an Order
Regarding Judicial Assignment, Appointment of Counsel for the
Purpose Pre-Trial Jurisdictional and Government Motion to Dismiss
in the case captioned IN RE ADDICKS AND BARKER (TEXAS) FLOOD-
CONTROL RESERVOIRS. THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO: ALL CASES, No. 17-
3000L (Fed. Cl.).

The Honorable Marian Blank Horn of the United States Court of
Federal Claims is assigned to manage pre-trial discovery and
adjudicate all pre-trial dispositive motions.

Rand P. Nolen, Esq., a Founding Partner of the Houston law firm of
Fleming, Nolen, Jez, LLP; Derek Potts, Esq., Founder and Managing
Partner of the Potts Law Firm; Richard W. Mithoff, Esq., a
Founding Partner of the Houston law firm of Mithoff Law, are
appointed Co-Counsel for Pre-Trial Discovery and Dispositive
Motions.

A full-text copy of the Court of Federal Claims' November 20, 2017
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9qxodup from
Leagle.com.


UNITED STATES: Jenner & Block to Lead in Hurricane Harvey Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Federal Claims issued an Order
Regarding Judicial Assignment, Appointment of Counsel for the
Purpose Pre-Trial Jurisdictional and Government Motion to Dismiss
in the case captioned IN RE ADDICKS AND BARKER (TEXAS) FLOOD-
CONTROL RESERVOIRS. THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO: ALL CASES, No. 17-
3000L (Fed. Cl.).

During the October 6, 2017 and November 1, 2017 hearings convened
in Houston, the court was advised that putative class action
complaints and individual complaints with upstream claims
affecting approximately 10,000 to 16,000 private property
interests are or will be filed in the United States Court of
Federal Claims.

The Honorable Charles F. Lettow of the United States Court of
Federal Claims is assigned to manage jurisdictional discovery and
adjudicate issues presented by any motion filed, pursuant to Rule
of the United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC) 12(b)(1)-(7).

Ian H. Gershengorn, Esq. -- igershengorn@jenner.com -- Chair of
Jenner & Block LLP's Appellate and Supreme Court Practice; Larry
Vincent, Esq., counsel to Burns and Charest, LLP; and Vuk
Vujasinovic, Esq., a Founding Partner of Vujansinovic & Beckcom
LLP, are appointed Co-Counsel for Jurisdictional Discovery.

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


UNO RESTAURANT: Alvarez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------
Jose Santos Alvarez, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Uno Restaurant Associates, Inc. and Myles
Chefetz, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-24452 (S.D. Fla., December 8,
2017), seeks unpaid minimum wage compensation, unpaid overtime
wage compensation, liquidated damages, redress for retaliatory
discharge and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 and Article X, Section 24 of the Florida Constitution.

Uno Restaurant Associates operates Prime Italian Restaurant
located in Miami Beach, Miami-Dade County, Florida. It is owned
and managed by Chefetz. Alvarez worked as a tipped busser for Uno.
He claims that his tips were illegally allocated to non-tipped
employees, thus rendering his wages below mandatory minimum rates,
and was denied overtime pay. Alvarez formally complained and as a
direct result, he was fired. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UPS INC: Vawter Sues Over Denied Breaks, Paystubs, Final Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Vawter as an individual, and on behalf of all similarly
situated employees, Plaintiff, v. United Parcel Service, Inc. and
Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. BC686104 (Cal.
Super., December 7, 2017), seeks redress for failure to provide
meal periods, rest periods, minimum wages, overtime, complete and
accurate wage statements resulting from unfair business practices;
waiting time penalties for unpaid wages due upon termination and
for violation of the California Labor Laws of the Business and
Professions Code, including declaratory relief, damages,
penalties, equitable relief, costs and attorneys' fees.

UPS is a courier service based in Georgia with operations in Los
Angeles where Vawter worked as a non-exempt hourly worker.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
      Treana L. Allen, Esq.
      MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
      249 E. Ocean Blvd.,Ste. 814
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Telephone: (562) 590-5550
      Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
      Email: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
             tallen@mahoney-law.net


UTILITY SERVICE: Court Awards $83K Atty Fees in "Verhulst"
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Missouri, Western Division, issued and Order granting Plaintiff's
Motion for an Award of Attorney's Fees in the case captioned JAMES
KOMOROSKI and GALEN VERHULST, individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. UTILITY SERVICE PARTNERS
PRIVATE LABEL, INC. d/b/a SERVICE LINE WARRANTIES OF AMERICA,
Defendant, Case No. 4:16-CV-00294-DGK (W.D. Mo.).

Plaintiffs James Komoroski and Galen Verhulst purchased utility
warranties from Defendant Utility Service Partners Private Label,
Inc., doing business as Service Line Warranties of America (SLWA),
which would defray the cost to repair and replace the water
service line running into their home. Plaintiffs allege SLWA
denied warranty coverage for legitimate repair claims.

Counsel seek $83,000 in fees and no reimbursement for expenses.

Counsel have provided detailed records which confirm that the
total amount of attorney time spent on this matter was
approximately 306 hours, the total amount of paralegal time spent
on this matter was approximate 66 hours, and that all of the time
spent on this matter was reasonable. As for the rate, the proposed
fee of $83,000 for 306 hours of attorney time1 works out to an
hourly rate of approximately $270 an hour.

The motion is granted, and the Court commends counsel for their
work.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 20, 2017 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc858jf4 from Leagle.com.

James Komoroski, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph A. Kronawitter -
- jkronawitter@hab-law.com -- Horn, Aylward & Bandy, LLC.

James Komoroski, Plaintiff, represented by Phyllis Norman, The
Norman Law Firm LLC, 4310 Madison Avenue, Suite 120, Kansas City,
MO, 64111 & Robert A. Horn -rhorn@hab-law.com -- Horn, Aylward &
Bandy, LLC.

Galen Verhulst, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph A. Kronawitter,
Horn, Aylward & Bandy, LLC,Phyllis Norman, The Norman Law Firm LLC
& Robert A. Horn, Horn, Aylward & Bandy, LLC.

Utility Service Partners Private Label, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Benjamin J. Sitter -- bsitter@mcguirewoods.com --
McGuire Woods LLP, pro hac vice, Jarrod D. Shaw, pro hac vice,
Michael S. Foster -- mfoster@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli PC &
Mark A. Olthoff -- molthoff@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli PC.


VICTORIA'S SECRET: Settlement in "Casas" Suit Has Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge George H. Wu of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California granted final approval of the settlement of
the case styled MAYRA CASAS, JULIO FERNANDEZ, individuals, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. VICTORIA'S SECRET STORES, LLC, a business entity of unknown
form, LIMITED BRANDS, a business entity of unknown form, and DOES
1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CV 14-6412-
GW(VBKx)(C.D. Cal.) on the terms set forth in the Joint
Stipulation.

Plaintiffs Casas and Fernandez have alleged claims against the
Defendant on behalf of themselves and on behalf of others
similarly situated, comprising all current and former employees of
the Defendant, who worked in California during the period from
July 9, 2010 to Aug. 11, 2017, and who were classified as non-
exempt from overtime pay.

They assert claims against the Defendant for (i) failure to pay
reporting time pay for regular shifts; (ii) failure to pay
reporting time pay for "call-in" shifts; (iii) failure to pay
overtime compensation; (iv) failure to pay minimum wages; (v)
failure to maintain required business records; (vi) failure to
provide accurate itemized wage statements; (vii) failure to pay
all wages earned at termination; (viii) unlawful business
practices; (ix) unfair business practices; (x) failure to pay
split shift premiums; (xi) unreimbursed business expenses; and
(xii) civil penalties based on these alleged violations.

The Defendant expressly denies the allegations of wrongdoing and
violations of law alleged in the Action, and further denies any
liability whatsoever to the Plaintiffs or to the Class Members.

The Parties agreed to resolve the Action and entered into the
Stipulation in and about February and March 2017, and the First
Addendum on July 28, 2017, which together provide for a complete
dismissal, with prejudice, of the claims asserted in the Action
against the Defendant on the terms and conditions set forth in the
Stipulation and the First Addendum, subject to the approval of the
Court.  The Court granted preliminary approval of the Parties'
Settlement in this Action on Aug. 11, 2017.

The Total Class Action Settlement Amount will be exactly
$12,000,000.  The Defendant will pay the Total Class Action
Settlement Amount, within 20 calendar days of the Effective Date
by wiring that amount to the Claims Administrator.  With the
limited exception of the Defendant's obligation to pay the
employer's share of payroll taxes, under no circumstances will the
Defendant be obligated to pay more than the amount of $12,000,000
as a result of the Settlement.

The notice to the Class Members was sent in accordance with the
Stipulation and the Preliminary Approval Order.  A fairness
hearing on the proposed Settlement having been duly held and a
decision reached.

Judge Wu granted final approval of the Settlement and Stipulation
and granted final certification of the Class.  He approved the
plan of distribution as set forth in the Stipulation and the First
Addendum thereto, providing for the distribution of the Net
Settlement Amount to Class Members.

The Class consists of 43,669 Class Members, and is defined as all
current and former employees of the Defendant, who worked in
California during the Class Period and who were classified as non-
exempt from overtime pay.  Additionally, a Subclass is formed to
represent all members of the foregoing Class whose employment with
Defendant terminated during the Class Period.  The term Class
Period means the time frame commencing four years prior to the
date the original Complaint in the action was filed, i.e., July 9,
2010, and continuing until the date of preliminary approval.

As previously ordered in the Court's Preliminary Approval Order
dated Aug. 11, 2017, the Judge appointed as the Class Counsel the
following attorneys: Stanley D. Saltzman and Stephen P. O'Dell of
Marlin & Saltzman, LLP, 29800 Agoura Road, Suite 210, Agoura
Hills, California 91301.

Judge Wu approve these payments, which will be paid from, and not
in addition to, the Total Class Action Settlement Amount:

     a. the payment of attorneys' fees in the amount of $3,540,000
(equal to 29.5%) to the Class Counsel;

     b. the payment of attorneys' costs in the amount of $10,797
to the Class Counsel;

     c. a payment in the amount of $37,500 to the California Labor
& Workforce Development Agency, representing the State of
California's portion of civil penalties under the Private
Attorneys General Act;

     d. the payment of reasonable claims administration costs to
the Claims Administrator, CPT Group, Inc., in the amount of
$200,000; and

     e. the enhancement awards to Plaintiff and class
representative Casas in the amount of $10,000, and to Plaintiff
and class representative Fernandez in the amount of $9,000.

The Judge dismissed the Action with prejudice.  He finds that
there is no just reason for delay of entry of the Final Order and
Judgment and directs its entry.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 21, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/FHqK06 from Leagle.com.

Mayra Casas, Plaintiff, represented by Stanley D. Saltzman, Marlin
and Saltzman LLP.

Mayra Casas, Plaintiff, represented by Stephen P. O'Dell --
sodell@marlinsaltzman.com -- Marlin and Saltzman LLP.

Mayra Casas, represented by William Anthony Baird --
tbaird@marlinsaltzman.com -- Marlin and Saltzman LLP.

Julio Fernandez, Plaintiff, represented by Stanley D. Saltzman,
Marlin and Saltzman LLP, Stephen P. O'Dell, Marlin and Saltzman
LLP & William Anthony Baird, Marlin and Saltzman LLP.

Victoria's Secret Stores, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jennifer
Lindsay Katz -- jennifer.katz@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree
Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, Lori A. Bowman --
lori.bowman@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak and
Stewart PC & Patricia M. Jeng -- pjeng@sheppardmullin.com --
Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton LLP.

L Brands, Defendant, represented by Beth A. Gunn --
beth.gunn@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak and
Stewart PC, Jennifer Lindsay Katz, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak &
Stewart, Lori A. Bowman, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak and Stewart
PC & Patricia M. Jeng, Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton LLP.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Powders Suit Transferred to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on November 14, 2017 captioned
Powders Automobiles, Inc., f/k/a Powders Volkswagen, Inc., and
Powders Volkswagen Audi, Inc., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, BMW
North America, LLC, Volkswagen AG, Volkswagen Group of America,
Inc., Audi AG, Audi of America, LLC, Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG,
Porsche Cars of North America, Inc., Daimler AG, and Mercedes-Benz
USA, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-01293 was transferred on November 29,
2017 from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-
06856-CRB to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' and others' alleged illegal
"technical standards" conspiracy, in which the five car
manufacturers agreed to use "only certain technical solutions" in
new vehicles.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michelle Adrien Parfitt, Esq.
      ASHCRAFT & GEREL LLP
      4900 Seminary Rd., Suite 650
      Alexandria, VA 22311
      Telephone: (703) 931-5500
      Facsimile: (703) 820-1656
      E-mail: mparfitt@ashcraftlaw.com

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Schmidt" Suit Transferred to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on November 14, 2017, styled Tom
Schmidt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, BMW North America, LLC,
Volkswagen AG, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Audi AG, Audi of
America, LLC, Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG, Porsche Cars of North
America, Inc., Daimler AG, and Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Case No.
1:17-cv-01294, was transferred on November 29, 2017, from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-06856-CRB to the
proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' and others' alleged illegal
"technical standards" conspiracy, in which the five car
manufacturers agreed to use "only certain technical solutions" in
new vehicles.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michelle Adrien Parfitt, Esq.
      ASHCRAFT & GEREL LLP
      4900 Seminary Rd., Suite 650
      Alexandria, VA 22311
      Telephone: (703) 931-5500
      Facsimile: (703) 820-1656
      E-mail: mparfitt@ashcraftlaw.com


WAL-MART STORES: Court Enters Protective Order in "Prado" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Kenly Kiya Kato of the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California granted the parties' Stipulated
Protective Order to the limited information or items that are
entitled to confidential treatment the case captioned MARK PRADO,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., a
Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-05630-AB-KKx (C.D. Cal.).

Discovery in the action is likely to involve production of
confidential, proprietary, or private information for which
special protection from public disclosure and from use for any
purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted.
Accordingly, the parties stipulate to and petition the Court to
enter the Stipulated Protective Order.

The protections conferred by the Stipulation and Order cover not
only Protected Material, but also (i) any information copied or
extracted from Protected Material; (ii) all copies, excerpts,
summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and (ii) any
testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or their
Counsel that might reveal Protected Material.  Any use of
Protected Material at trial will be governed by the orders of the
trial judge.  The Order does not govern the use of Protected
Material at trial.

Even after final disposition of the litigation, the
confidentiality obligations imposed by the Order will remain in
effect until a Designating Party agrees otherwise in writing or a
court order otherwise directs.  Final disposition will be deemed
to be the later of (i) dismissal of all claims and defenses in the
Action, with or without prejudice; and (ii) final judgment after
the completion and exhaustion of all appeals, rehearings, remands,
trials, or reviews of the Action, including the time limits for
filing any motions or applications for extension of time pursuant
to applicable law.

Any Party or Non-Party may challenge a designation of
confidentiality at any time that is consistent with the Court's
Scheduling Order.  The Challenging Party will initiate the dispute
resolution process under Local Rule 37.1 et seq. 6.  Unless the
Designating Party has waived or withdrawn the confidentiality
designation, all parties will continue to afford the material in
question the level of protection to which it is entitled under the
Producing Party's designation until the Court rules on the
challenge.

A Receiving Party may use Protected Material that is disclosed or
produced by another Party or by a Non-Party in connection with the
Action only for prosecuting, defending, or attempting to settle
the Action.  Such Protected Material may be disclosed only to the
categories of persons and under the conditions described in the
Order.

After the final disposition of the Action, within 60 days of a
written request by the Designating Party, each Receiving Party
must return all Protected Material to the Producing Party or
destroy such material.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 21, 2017 Protective Order is
available at https://is.gd/C9O9fc from Leagle.com.

Mark Prado, Plaintiff, represented by Shawn C. Westrick --
swestrick@westricklawfirm.com -- Westrick Law Firm.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc, Defendant, represented by Ian A. Wright --
ian.wright@alston.com -- Alston and Bird LLP, James Robert Evans,
Jr. -- james.evans@alston.com -- Alston and Bird LLP & Jesse M.
Jauregui -- jesse.jauregui@alston.com -- Alston and Bird LLP.


WEYERHAEUSER CO: Faces "Coleman" Suit in Colorado
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Weyerhaeuser
Company. The case is styled Jamal Coleman and Sheena Coleman, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. Weyerhaeuser Company and Infinity Home Collection, Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-mc-00200-WYD (D. Colo., December 14, 2017).

Weyerhaeuser Company is a Washington corporation with its
principal place of business located in Seattle, Washington.
Weyerhaeuser is one of the world's largest forest products
companies, controlling 13.1 million acres of timberlands,
primarily in the United States, and managing additional
timberlands under long-term licenses in Canada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Robert David Lantz, Esq.
   Coan Payton & Payne, LLC-Denver
   999 18th Street
   South Tower, Suite S-1500
   Denver, CO 80202
   Tel: (303) 861-8888
   Email: rlantz@cp2law.com


YELP INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Curry" Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled JOSEPH CURRY, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated; CITY OF MIAMI FIRE FIGHTERS' AND POLICE
OFFICERS' RETIREMENT TRUST, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and MARY ADAMS,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. YELP INC.; JEREMY STOPPELMAN; ROBERT J. KROLIK;
GEOFFREY DONAKER, Defendants-Appellees, v. DRU L. PIO, Movant,
Case No. 16-15104 (9th Cir.), Judge Ronald Gould of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's
dismissal with prejudice of the Plaintiffs' securities fraud
complaint.

During the period from Oct. 29, 2013 to April 3, 2014, the
Defendants consistently stated that the reviews generated on
Yelp's website were "firsthand" and "authentic" information from
contributors about local businesses.  On April 2, 2014, pursuant
to a Wall Street Journal ("WSJ") Freedom of Information Act
request, the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") disclosed more than
2,000 complaints from businesses claiming that Yelp had
manipulated reviews of their services.  That afternoon, after the
market had closed, the WSJ released an article citing the FTC's
disclosure and noting that Yelp's stock had declined 6% after the
FTC made its disclosure of the complaint.

The Plaintiffs sued the Defendants alleging that Yelp's statements
regarding the independence and authenticity of posted reviews were
materially false; that the Defendants knew the statements were
false; and that the revelation of their falsity through FTC
disclosures and news articles caused a drop in the Plaintiffs'
stock value.  The district court consolidated two cases and
appointed City of Miami Fire Fighters' and Police Officers'
Retirement Trust as the Lead Plaintiff.

The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' initial
class-action complaint, which the district court granted,
concluding that the Plaintiffs did not sufficiently allege
falsity, materiality, causation, or scienter.

The Plaintiffs then filed their First Amended Class Action
Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws.  The
Defendants again moved to dismiss, and the district court once
more granted the motion to dismiss.  The district court held that
the Plaintiffs did not sufficiently plead material falsity.  It
reasoned that Plaintiffs' new allegations did not implicate the
veracity of the Defendants' previous statements that Yelp reviews,
by and large, are "authentic" and "firsthand" because the
Defendants had previously acknowledged that Yelp's screening
technology was imperfect.

The Plaintiffs next filed a motion for reconsideration, which
included a proposed second amended complaint.  The district court
denied their motion for reconsideration.

Curry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and Miami Fire Fighters' and Police Officers' Retirement
Trust appeal the district court's dismissal with prejudice of
Plaintiffs' securities fraud complaint for failure to state a
claim.  They argue that the district court erred by holding that
they did not adequately plead falsity, materiality, loss
causation, and scienter.  They further argue that the district
court erred by dismissing their control person claim and by
denying them leave to amend.

Judge Gould held that the disclosure of consumer complaints,
without more, in the circumstances of the case did not form a
sufficient basis for a viable loss causation theory.  He further
held that allegations of suspicious insider sales of stock without
allegations of historical trading data did not, in the
circumstances, create a strong inference of scienter.  He affirmed
the district court's dismissal of the complaint based on the
elements of loss causation and scienter that were not sufficiently
pled.  The Judge says he needs not reach and does not reach the
Plaintiffs' arguments regarding materiality and falsity.  He also
affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint with
prejudice because amendment of the complaint as to loss causation
would be futile under current precedent.

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

Andrew S. Love -- alove@rgrdlaw.com -- (argued), Kenneth J. Black
-- kennyb@rgrdlaw.com -- Shawn A. Williams -- shawnw@rgrdlaw.com -
- and Susan K. Alexander -- salexander@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, San Francisco, California; Stephen H.
Cypen -- scypen@cypen.com -- Cypen & Cypen, Miami Beach, Florida;
for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Gilbert R. Serota -- Gilbert.Serota@aporter.com -- (argued) and
Daniel M. Pastor -- dpastor@coblentzlaw.com -- Arnold & Porter
LLP, San Francisco, California, for Defendants-Appellees.



                             *********


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  * * *