CAR_Public/171227.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


           Wednesday, December 27, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 256



                            Headlines

360 DIGITAL: Sends Spam Text Messages, "Hormozdi" Suit Claims
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: "Brown" Suit Moved to S.D. Ohio Court
ACCREDITED DEBT: Terrado et al. Sue over Commission-Only Pay
ADVANCED CALL: Parsons Sues over Debt Collection Practices
AEROTEK INC: Court Junks "Abdul-Hasib" FLSA Suit w/o Prejudice

AFL: John Platten Joins Concussion Class Action
ALCON LABORATORIES: America's Health Suit Moved to N.D. Ill.
ALLEGIANT AIR: Must Reply to "Doliboa" Suit by Jan. 12
ALLERGAN INC: Faces Antitrust Class Action Over Restasis Price
ALLERGAN INC: Sergeants Fund Sues over Monopoly of Restatis Drops

ASKARI SECURITY: Nkanteen Seeks Minimum Pay, OT under Labor Code
AVEO: Levitt Robertson Seeks Customers to Join Class Action
AVIS BUDGET CAR: Settles FCRA Class Action for $2.7 Million
BADGER DAYLIGHTINING: Fails to Pay All Wages, "Shaw" Suit Says
BANCO SANTANDER: "Gonzalez" Shareholder Remains in Federal Court

BANGLA TIMES: Alam Seeks Unpaid OT, Minimum Wage under Labor Law
BAODING CFC: "Liu" Class Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
BARKLEY COURT: Cal. App. Flips Statutory Rates Ruling in "Burd"
BARNES & NOBLE: "Hartpence" Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania
BAYER HEALTHCARE: "Johnson" Remanded to Missouri State Court

BERNARD L. MADOFF: Shulman Trustees File Fraud Class Action
BIG PHARMA: Steuben County to Join Opioid Crisis Class Action
BOFI HOLDING: Judgment on Pleadings Bid in Securities Suit OK'd
BUCKEYE TRANSPLANT: "Nguyen" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
CANADA: Settles LGBP Purge Class Action for $145 Million

CEDARHURST: Sued for Storing Employee's Biometric Information
CENTRA TECH: Rensel Sues over Sale of Cryptocurrency Securities
CKE RESTAURANTS: Aguilar Seeks Minimum Wage, OT under Labor Code
CITIGROUP INC: Employees in 401(k) Suit Get Class Certification
CONN APPLIANCES: Williams Sues over Telemarketing Calls

CVS HEALTH: "Prescott" Suit Transferred to Dist. of New Jersey
CYAN INC: 1998 Securities Reform Statute "Gibberish", Court Says
DEL TACO: Jaffey Has Until Jan. 5 to Reply to Stay/Dismissal Bids
DR REDDY'S: Faces Securities Class Action in New Jersey
DYNAMIC LEDGER: MacDonald Sues over Sale of Cryptocurrencies

ELECTRONIC TRANSACTION: Dismissal of Olde Gulf Club Suit Affirmed
EQUIFAX INC: ICBA Files Class Action Over July 2017 Data Breach
EXACTECH INC: "Pappalardo" Suit Challenges Osteon Merger
FCA US: "Canfield" Suit Moved to District of Delaware
FIRST CHOICE: "Vincent" Suit Seeks OT Compensation under FLSA

FLEXI HOLIDAY: Responds to Class Action Over Timeshare Agreements
FORCE FRAMING: Orozco Seeks Minimum Wage, OT under Labor Code
G SECURITY: "Osorio" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA
GALARDI SOUTH: "Ross" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages under FLSA
GATEWAY ENERGY: Court Junks "Bell" Fraud Suit Without Prejudice

GENESIS LOGISTICS: Settlement in "Aguirre" Has Final Approval
GOOGLE INC: Faces iPhone Data Snooping Class Action in UK
GOOGLE INC: Jan. 5 Reply Deadline on "Sweet" Dismissal Bid
HAT WORLD: Court Grants Conditional Certification in "Ward"
HEIGHTS TOWER: Bid to Decertify "Pietrzycki" Class Denied

HILL'S PET: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Vanzant" ICFA Suit
HILLSTONE HEALTHCARE: "Smith" Suit Seeks OT Wages under FLSA
HOLTGER BROS: "McChesney" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
HOME CAPITAL: West Face Opts Out of Class Action Settlement
HOMESIDE FINANCIAL: "Cunningham" Stayed Pending ACA Int'l. Ruling

HOTELS.COM LP: OTC Charges Ruling in Tax Ordinance Suit Vacated
HSBC CARD: Settlement in "Medeiros" Suit Has Final Approval
HSBC HOLDINGS: Plaintiff in Failed Class Action Faces $1MM Costs
ICHIBAN GROUP: Court Narrows Claims in "Zhang" Labor Suit
IMPAX LABORATORIES: "Vana" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Impax Merger

IMPAX LABORATORIES: "Stone" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Amneal Merger
JPMORGAN CHASE: Call Center Agents Not Paid OT, Rivenbark Says
KATANGA MINING: Jan. 29 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORES: Judge Junks Suit Over Text Messages
LAWRENCE LIVERMORE: Oakland Court Decertifies Retirees' Class

LIFE PARTNERS: Pillar Funds' Appeal from Class Certs Denied
LOCK HAVEN: Older Employees File Age Discrimination Class Action
MASTERCARD: Faces Collective Action Over Interchange Fees
MAXX POWERSPORT: May Amend Counterclaims in Usury Suit
MDL 2382: Court Certifies Class in Vacuum Marketing & Sales Suit

MDL 2740: Pinedas Sue over Docetaxel Injection Concentrate
MDL 2800: "Bitton" Suit vs. Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Caplan" Suit vs. Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Tirelli" Suit vs. Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Austin" Suit vs Equifax Seeks Moved to N.D. Georgia

MDL 2800: Equifax Faces "Kishel" Suit over Consumer Data Breach
MDL 2800: "Davis" Suit vs Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Hensley" Suit v. Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: Pino Sues Equifax over Consumer Data Breach
MDL 2800: Sprecher Sues Equifax over Consumer Data Breach

MDL 2800: "Amadick" Suit v. Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Anderson" Suit v. Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Byas" Suit v. Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Tada" Suit v. Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Cole" Suit v. Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia

MDL 2800: "Gallant" Suit vs. Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Avise" Suit vs. Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Joof" Suit vs. Equifax Transferred to N.D Georgia
MDL 2800: "Neilan" Suit v. Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Faillace" Suit vs. Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia

MDL 2800: "Barker" Suit vs Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Collins" Suit vs. Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Bandoh-Aidoo" Suit v. Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Santomauro" Suit v. Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Raffin" Suit v. Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia

MDL 2800: "Skye" Suit vs. Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Duran" Suit vs. Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Gerstein" Suit v. Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Kendall" Suit vs. Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Kilgore" Suit v. Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia

MDL 2800: "Levy" Suit vs. Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Belden" Suit vs. Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Christen" Suit vs. Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Derby" Suit vs. Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Gibson" Suit v. Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia

MDL 2800: "Grossberg" Suit v. Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Jorge" Suit vs. Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Salinas" Suit vs. Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Zamora" Suit vs. Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Mann" Suit vs. Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia

MDL 2800: "Pavitt" Suit vs. Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "House" Suit vs. Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Bahnmaier" Suit vs. Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Collins" Suit v. Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Lynch" Suit vs. Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia

MDL 2800: "Martin" Suit vs. Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2807: "Huffer" Suit v. Sonic Consolidated in N.D. Ohio
MDL 2807: "Lewin" Suit vs. Sonic Consolidated in N.D. Ohio
MDL 2807: "Ramirez" Suit vs. Sonic Moved to N.D. Ohio
MENORAH PARK: "Thompson" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA

MST GENERAL: "Guaman" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law
NEW TELECOM: Lin Seeks Unpaid minimum Wages, OT under Labor Law
NEWFIT DALLAS: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Avila" Suit Claims
NPAS INC: Pickles Violates Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
NURSE FORCE: "Pinard" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA

OHIO STATE: Ex-Player Seeks to Expand Commercial Image Use Suit
PHARM-SAVE INC: Court Narrows Claims in "Savidge" PII Theft Suit
PRINCE GEORGE'S HOSPITAL: Faces Class Action Over Fake Doctor
RECON INDUSTRIES: "Roberts" Suit Seeks Minimum Pay
REXALL SUNDOWN: Court Dismisses "Seegert" Suit Without Prejudice

RYB EDUCATION: Law Firms Recruit Plaintiffs in Securities Suit
SAINT CHARLES SCHOOL: Bid to Strike 3rd Amended "Stanek" OK'd
SCHARFMAN ORGANIZATION: Faces Class Action Over J-51 Tax Program
SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Court Certifies Class in Securities Suit
SENTINEL TRANSPORATION: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Padilla Says

SILVER SPRING: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action
SILVERTREE MOHAVE: Court Dismisses "Lewis" Suit with Prejudice
SONIQ SERVICES: Violates Wage and Hour Laws, Alexwright Says
SP BANCORP: Md. Spec. App. Affirms Dismissal of "Stisser" Suit
STATE FARM: Transferred MAO-MSO Class Suit to C.D. Illinois

SUGAR TRANSPORT: Trial in "Guinn" Continued to Aug. 21
T-MOBILE USA: Stanbury Sues over Spam Text Messages
TAKE TWO: Seyfarth Shaw Attorneys Discuss BIPA Case Ruling
TENAGLIA & HUNT: Raju Sues over Debt Collection Practices
TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Renteria Says

TESCO CORP: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
TEZOS: Jan. 25 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
THE GAP: Faces Class Suit in New Jersey Over Deceiving Markdowns
TIRE DISCOUNTERS: Service Managers Class in "Lindsey" Decertified
TIVITY HEALTH: Jan. 19 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set

TOLEDO TOOL: Court Denies Class Certification in "Marek"
TRACTOR SUPPLY: Faces "Johnson" Wage-and-Hour Suit
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: City of Chicago Files Data Breach Suit
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Data Breach Class Action in Australia
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Local Governments File Joint Data Breach Suit

UNITED STATES: Bernsen Named Lead Counsel in "Andrus" Suit
UNITED STATES: Stetson Named Lead Counsel in "Andrus" Suit
UNITED STATES: Filing of 1st Amended Suit Against HUD Partly OKd
WAL-MART STORES: 5th Cir. Denies En Banc Rehearing Bid in "Odle"
WELLS FARGO: Court Reserves Ruling Bid to Arbitrate "Mitchell"

WESTMINSTER MANAGEMENT: Asks Judge to Hide Names of Investors
WILLIS TOWERS: Pension Fund Files Class Action Over 2016 Merger
WISCONSIN: CCI Inmates' Bid for Class Certification Denied
WOLFGANG'S STEAKHOUSE: N.Y. Court Dismisses FACTA Class Action
XE SERVICES: Court Dismisses "Mercadante" ERISA Suit w/ Prejudice

XPO LOGISTICS: Faces "Alderson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
YELP INC: 9th Cir. Upholds Dismissal of Securities Class Action
YUMS CHINESE: "Wei" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA

* Elmira Housing Authority Wins Class Action Against D.C. Firm
* "Natural" Class Action Reflects Rise in Food Litigation
* Vaginal Mesh Products Banned in Australia After Class Action





                            *********



360 DIGITAL: Sends Spam Text Messages, "Hormozdi" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
SHIREEN HORMOZDI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. 360 DIGITAL MARKETING, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05135-WSD (N.D. Ga., Dec. 13, 2017),
seeks damages as a result of Defendant's violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

This action arises out of Defendant's practice of sending
autodialed text messages to individuals. The Plaintiff is one
recipient of Defendant's spam text messaging. Defendant has sent
text messages to Plaintiff's cellular telephone. These text
messages were sent without prior express written consent of the
recipients. All of these text messages were sent using an
automatic telephone dialing system, and none of them were sent for
an emergency purpose.

360 Digital delivers end-to-end digital marketing solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles M. Clapp, Esq.
          CMC LAW
          5 Concourse Parkway NE, Suite 3000
          Atlanta, GA 30328
          Telephone: (404) 585 0040
          Facsimile: (404) 393 8893
          E-mail: charles@lawcmc.com


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: "Brown" Suit Moved to S.D. Ohio Court
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Alexander Brown and Arik Silva,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., Abercrombie & Fitch Stores
Inc., and Does 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 2:14-cv-01242, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio (Columbus) on Dec. 14, 2017. The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-01093-MHW-KAJ to the proceeding.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Michael H. Watson.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs have been injured by
Defendants' failure to provide rest periods, failure to reimburse
necessary expenditures incurred in direct consequence of
Plaintiffs discharge of duties for Defendants, compulsion or
coercion of Plaintiffs to patronize Defendants' Stores and/or
other persons, and failure to minimum wages due hours for worked.

Abercrombie & Fitch is an American retailer that focuses on
upscale casual wear for young consumers, its headquarters are in
New Albany, Ohio, a suburb of Columbus. The company operates two
other offshoot brands: Abercrombie Kids & Hollister Co.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Randall B Aiman-Smith, Esq.
          Carey A James, Esq.
          Hallie Von Rock, Esq.
          Reed W L Marcy, Esq.
          AIMAN-SMITH AND MARCY
          7677 Oakport Street Suite 1020
          Oakland, CA 94621
          Telephone: (510) 562 6800
          Facsimile: (510) 662 6830
          E-mail: ras@asmlawyers.com
                  caj@asmlawyers.com
                  hvr@asmlawyers.com
                  rwlm@asmlawyers.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Alison B Willard, Esq.
          Barbara A Fitzgerald, Esq.
          Andrew P Frederick, Esq.
          John R Richards, Esq.
          Kathy H Gao, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP
          One Market Spear Street Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 442 1000
          Facsimile: (415) 442 1001
          E-mail: awillard@morganlewis.com
                  bfitzgerald@morganlewis.com
                  andrew.frederick@morganlewis.com
                  jrrichards@morganlewis.com
                  kgao@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Mark A. Knueve, Esq.
          Daren S Garcia, Esq.
          Michael Jacob Ball, Esq.
          Tyler B Pensyl, Esq.
          VORYS SATER SEYMOUR & PEASE-2
          PO Box 1008
          52 E Gay Street
          Columbus, OH 43216-1008
          Telephone: (614) 464 6400
          E-mail: maknueve@vorys.com
                  mjball@vorys.com
                  tbpensyl@vssp.com


               - and -

          Ryan Christopher Bykerk, Esq.
          Ashley Michelle Farrell, Esq.
          Mark D. Kemple, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          1840 Century Park East Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 586 7700
          Facsimile: (310) 586-7800
          E-mail: bykerkr@gtlaw.com
                  farrellpicketta@gtlaw.com
                  dsgarcia@vssp.com
                  kemplem@gtlaw.com


ACCREDITED DEBT: Terrado et al. Sue over Commission-Only Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN TERRADO, PAKTIN KARIM, and JOSHUA ATOE individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
ACCREDITED DEBT RELIEF, LLC, SHAWN R. SYNDERGAARD, BENJAMIN P.
SCHWAN, and BRIAN M. STONE, jointly and severally, the Defendants,
Case No. 3:17-cv-02509-CAB-NLS (S.D. Cal., Dec. 14, 2017), seeks
to recover wages for all hours under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
California Labor Code, and California Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Order.

The Defendants are in the debt-relief business. As part of their
business practices, Defendants utilize tactics to generate their
leads, including but not limited to contacting and enticing
financially distressed consumers to hire Accredited Debt Relief to
connect them with debt relief providers over the phone. The
Defendants employed call center sales employees, referred to
herein as call center agents. The Defendants employed these
Agents, including Plaintiffs, in call center facilities in San
Diego and La Jolla, California, respectively.

The Defendants employ over 100 agents to make sales calls on
prospective customer leads in the form of a call center with
inbound and outbound calls.

The individuals Plaintiffs seek to represent in this action are
current and former Agents who are similarly situated to themselves
in terms of their positions, job duties, pay structure, and
Defendants' violations of federal and state law.

The Defendants required their Agents to work a full-time schedule,
plus overtime. However, Defendants did not actually or accurately
record their Agents' compensable work time as required by law.
Instead of paying Agents based on hours worked, Defendants
allegedly paid their Agents on a contingent, commission-only
basis. The Defendants' contingent, commission-only compensation
system required payment of overtime based on actual wages,
including commissions, during each work week.

Defendants did not calculate overtime payments, when they were
paid, using the correct regular rate for the Agents, but rather,
for example, a fixed hourly rate of $15.80. Furthermore,
Defendants required Managers to manually alter and falsify time
records, giving them direct access to the data in the Paychex
system. Defendants' Paychex pay stubs are in large part
inaccurate, unreliable, and do not comply with the law.

The Defendants also failed to pay Agents for all hours worked. For
example, in the course of performing their job responsibilities,
Defendants' Agents used multiple computer networks, software
programs, applications, and phone systems. The time Agents spent
booting up and logging into these programs and applications before
and after their shifts was compensable because the programs and
applications were an integral, indispensable, and important part
of the Agents' work and they could not perform their jobs
effectively without them.[BN]

[ Counsel for Plaintiff and Proposed Class and Collective Members:

          Trenton Kashima
          FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK, LLP
          550 West C St., Suite 1760
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 238 1333
          Facsimile: (619) 238 5425

               - and -

          James Hawkins, Esq.
          Gregory Mauro, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS, APLC
          9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387 7200
          E-mail: james@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                  greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com -- amended Dec. 29, 2017]


ADVANCED CALL: Parsons Sues over Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH J. PARSONS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. ADVANCED CALL CENTER TECHNOLOGIES,
LLC, a Georgia Limited Liability Company, the Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-14436-KAM (S.D. Fla., Dec. 14, 2017), seeks to recover
statutory damages as a result of Defendant's violation of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Defendant is a Georgia Limited Liability Company engaged in
the business of collecting consumer debts.  It operates from
offices located at 1235 Westlakes Drive, Suite 160, Berwyn,
Pennsylvania 19312. The Defendant regularly uses the United States
Postal Service and telephone in the collection of consumer debt.
The Defendant regularly collects or attempts to collect debts for
other parties.

According to the complaint, the Defendant was acting as a debt
collector with respect to the collection of Plaintiff's alleged
debt. The Defendant sought to collect from Plaintiff an alleged
debt incurred by Plaintiff for personal, family, or household
purposes; more specifically, the debt at issue was a delinquent
credit card debt.

On September 20, 2017, Defendant sent a letter to Plaintiff that
sought to collect an alleged debt due to Synchrony Bank. The
Demand Letter was Defendant's initial communication with Plaintiff
with respect to the alleged debt.  According to the suit, the
Defendant's Demand Letter falsely and misleadingly pronounces the
verification rights of Plaintiff provided by 15 U.S.C. section
1692g.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff:

          Leo W. Desmond, Esq.
          DESMOND LAW FIRM, P.C.
          5070 Highway A1A, Suite D
          Vero Beach, FL 32963
          Telephone: (772) 231 9600
          Facsimile: (772) 231 0300
          E-mail: lwd@desmondlawfirm.com


AEROTEK INC: Court Junks "Abdul-Hasib" FLSA Suit w/o Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Marvin J. Garbis of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Maryland dismissed without prejudice the case styled LINA
ABDUL-HASIB, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AEROTEK, INC., Defendant,
Civil Action No. MJG-17-1502 (D. Md.).

Abdul-Hasib filed a putative collective action against Aerotek
asserting an unpaid wages claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA").  Aliyah Smith and Beverly McGunigal joined the putative
collective action as party Plaintiffs.  Aerotek is a staffing
company and has employed both Abdul-Hasib and Smith for temporary
assignments.  There are no records, however, indicating that
McGunigal has ever been employed by Aerotek.

As a part of their employment with Aerotek, Abdul-Hasib and Smith
each entered into a Mutual Arbitration Agreement.  The Agreements
were signed electronically; Abdul-Hasib signed on Feb. 18, 2017,
and Smith signed on Nov. 12, 2015.

By its Motion to Dismiss, Aerotek seeks dismissal of Abdul-Hasib
and Smith's claims without prejudice to their ability to pursue
the claims in arbitration.  Aerotek also seeks dismissal of
McGunigal's claims because she cannot establish the requisite
employer-employee relationship.  McGunigal has subsequently
withdrawn her consent to join the litigation.  Therefore,
McGunigal's claim will be dismissed.

Abdul-Hasib and Smith do not dispute that they signed the
Agreement, nor do they dispute that their claims are within the
scope of the Agreement's covered claims.  By filing the instant
lawsuit, Abdul-Hasib and Smith have breached the Agreement.
However, Abdul-Hasib and Smith assert that the Class Action Waiver
contained within the Agreement is not enforceable, and therefore,
the Court must deny Aerotek's dismissal motion or alternatively,
the Court should wait for the United States Supreme Court's
decision on the validity of class action waivers in employment
contracts.

Judge Garbis explains that under current Fourth Circuit precedent,
class action waivers have been held permissible.  As the
Plaintiffs have noted, the two district courts in the Fourth
Circuit to have specifically addressed class action waivers in the
context of the FLSA and the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA")
have found such waivers valid and enforceable.  Importantly, even
if the Court were to find that the Class Action Waiver was not
enforceable, this would not affect the enforceability of the
arbitration provision of the Agreement, which is severable and
remains intact.

Further, while not dispositive, the Judge also notes that a
putative class or collective action representative's claim is
brought individually to the extent that the Court has not yet made
the findings necessary to conditionally certify a collective
action under FLSA, or a class action under the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.  As such, the individual claim is arbitrable
under the Agreement.  Accordingly, he concludes that Abdul-Hasib
and Smith's claims are subject to a valid and enforceable
arbitration agreement.

For these reasons, Judge Garbis granted Aerotek's Motion to
Dismiss the Claims of the Plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs Abdul-Hasib and
Smith's claims are dismissed without prejudice.  Plaintiff
McGunigal's claim is dismissed for failure to state a claim.  The
Judgment will be entered by separate Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 29, 2017 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/P83NU9 from Leagle.com.

Lina Abdul-Hasib, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jason S. Rathod --
jrathod@classlawdc.com -- Migliaccio and Rathod LLP.

Lina Abdul-Hasib, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by R. Andrew Santillo --
asantillo@winebrakelaw.com -- Winebrake & Santillo, LLC, pro hac
vice & Nicholas A. Migliaccio -- nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com --
Migliaccio & Rathod LLP.

Aliyah Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Jason S. Rathod,
Migliaccio and Rathod LLP, R. Andrew Santillo, Winebrake &
Santillo, LLC & Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Migliaccio & Rathod LLP.

Beverly McGunigal, Plaintiff, represented by Jason S. Rathod,
Migliaccio and Rathod LLP & Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Migliaccio &
Rathod LLP.

Aerotek, Inc., Defendant, represented by Steven A. Neeley, Jr. --
steve.neeley@huschblackwell.com -- Husch Blackwell LLP & William
E. Corum -- william.corum@huschblackwell.com -- Husch Blackwell
LLP, pro hac vice.


AFL: John Platten Joins Concussion Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Stuart Honeysett, writing for nine.com.au, reports that former
Brownlow medallist and four-time premiership winner John Platten
has become the latest player to join a damages action against the
AFL over concussion-related concerns.

The 54-year-old joins former Essendon and Geelong ruckman John
Barnes and retired Melbourne and North Melbourne flyer Shaun Smith
as plaintiffs in the case.

The Herald Sun has reported Platten was concussed 36 times in his
career, and has said in the past he is concerned that he may be
experiencing the early stages of Alzheimer's disease.

The former champion played 258 games for the Hawks between
1986-98.

"John went to hospital 10 times for concussions and always played
the next week," lead lawyer Greg Griffin said.

"He was a gladiator because that's what they had to do -- and a
lot of them are paying a terrible price for that now."

Mr. Barnes, who is the lead plaintiff in the case and won a
premiership at the Bombers in 2000, recently said he was concerned
the head knocks that he suffered during his career had triggered
episodes of epilepsy and memory loss.

"It's turned my life upside down . . . I'm not the same bloke I
used to be," Mr. Barnes said.

"I know things are changing in my mind and I want answers."

Mr. Griffin, a commercial lawyer and chairman of A-League club
Adelaide United, said writs could be lodged with the Federal Court
next year.

The case could have major ramifications for the code, in light of
similar action that triggered a $1 billion lawsuit in the NFL.

"The VFL/AFL have known for 40 years about the dangers associated
with allowing concussed players to continue to play," Mr. Griffin
said.

"And only up until very recently has there been any attempt to
protect the wellbeing of these players.

"The problem the AFL has got is that the medical evidence has been
around for decades -- everybody knew about it -- it's just like
the NFL in the United States.

"But the AFL chose to accept a contrary medical position, which
was that there was no linkage between returning to the field after
concussions and subsequent brain injury."

The AFL Players Association has said it supports any player's
right to pursue legal action. [GN]


ALCON LABORATORIES: America's Health Suit Moved to N.D. Ill.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled America's Health & Resource
Center, Ltd., an Illinois corporation, and Affiliated Health
Group, Ltd., an Illinois corporation, individually and as the
representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, v. Alcon
Laboratories Inc. and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation and
John Does 1-12, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-mc-00193, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois - (Chicago), on Dec. 8, 2017. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-08857 to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Gary Feinerman.

Alcon is an American global medical company specializing in eye
care products and headquartered in Hunenberg, Switzerland. Alcon's
American headquarters are located in Fort Worth, Texas. Alcon is a
subsidiary of Novartis.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

Daniel J. Cohen, Esq.
BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
134 N. La Salle St., Suite 1000
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (314) 497 6352
E-mail: danieljaycohen209@gmail.com


ALLEGIANT AIR: Must Reply to "Doliboa" Suit by Jan. 12
------------------------------------------------------
Judge George Foley, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada extended the deadline for Allegiant to respond
to the case, SETH DOLIBOA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ALLEGIANT AIR, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-CV-02779-JCM-GWF (D. Nev.) to Jan. 12,
2018.

The parties have stipulated to extend the deadline for the
Defendant to respond to the Complaint to Jan. 12, 2018 to allow
the counsel for the Defendant to familiarize themselves with the
matter and prepare an appropriate response to the Complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 29, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/wsOxFf from Leagle.com.

Seth Doliboa, Plaintiff, represented by Francis J. Flynn, Jr., Law
Office of Francis J. Flynn, Jr..

Seth Doliboa, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Kind, Kazerouni
Law Group, APC.

Allegiant Air, LLC, Defendant, represented by Michael R. Hogue --
hoguem@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP.


ALLERGAN INC: Faces Antitrust Class Action Over Restasis Price
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Lidgett, writing for Law360, reports that Allergan Inc. was
hit with a lawsuit by a proposed class of indirect purchasers who
bought the dry-eye treatment Restasis at allegedly
"supracompetitive prices," saying the company entered into a deal
with a Native American tribe to avoid patent invalidation.

The Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge 20, Insurance Trust
Fund said in its complaint that even though the company made $3.3
billion from Restasis sales over 11 1/2 years while it was patent-
protected, it developed a scheme to keep generic competitors off
the market. [GN]

The case is Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge 20, Insurance
Trust Fund v. Allergan, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-00755 (E.D. Tex.).
The case is assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap.

Law firms involved in the case are Hilliard & Shadowen LLP, Parker
Bunt, and Shepherd Finkelman.


ALLERGAN INC: Sergeants Fund Sues over Monopoly of Restatis Drops
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sergeants Benevolent Association Health & Welfare Fund, on behalf
of itself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Allergan, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07300 (E.D.N.Y.,
Dec. 14, 2017), seeks injunctive relief to end Allergan's wrongful
monopoly conduct, together with damages for purchases and
reimbursements of Restatis by Sergeants and other end-payors since
May 17, 2014 -- when, but for Allergan's unlawful scheme, the
Restatis market would have been opened to competition.

According to the complaint, Allergan has reaped billions of
dollars in profits from sales of its Restatis dry-eye drops.
Restatis is a blockbuster drug and a key revenue source for
Allergan that delivered nearly $1.5 billion in 2016 sales.

This action arises because, instead of allowing its Restatis
pharmaceutical patents to expire in the ordinary course, Allergan
carried out a multifaceted scheme to prolong its Restatis monopoly
and forestall the generic competition that should have, and
otherwise would have, lowered prices for Sergeants and other end-
payors. Each additional month of exclusive Restatis sales results
in tens of millions of dollars in additional profits for Allergan.

Allergan abused legal process on a number of fronts to perpetuate
a patent monopoly to which it was no longer entitled. It committed
fraud on the Patent Office to gain approval of a second wave of
Restatis patents that never should have issued. It filed a set of
sham citizen petitions with the FDA to delay approval of competing
generic drugs. It pursued baseless infringement litigation against
the generic drug makers that sought to compete in the Restatis
market. And, facing a probable invalidity determination in an
inter pares Patent Office proceeding, Allergan assigned the second
wave of Restatis patents to a Mohawk Indian tribe in the hopes
that borrowing the tribe's sovereign immunity (in exchange for a
multi-million dollar reverse-licensing fee) could lend its patents
the protection that the law does not afford. With these and other
acts, Allergan manipulated the legal process to preserve its
monopoly profits and foreclose generic entry, thereby preventing
more affordable versions of Restatis from coming onto the market
and causing end-payors to pay supracompetitive monopoly prices.
Allergan's exclusionary conduct violates the antitrust laws.

Allergan, Inc. is a global pharmaceutical company focused on eye
care, neurosciences, medical dermatology, medical aesthetics,
breast enhancement, obesity intervention and urologics.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Peter Safirstein, Esq.
          SAFIRSTEIN METCALF LLP
          1250 Broadway, 27th Floor
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 201 2845
          E-mail: psafirstein@safirsteinmetcalf.com

               - and -

          Dena C. Sharp, Esq.
          Jordan Elias, Esq.
          Adam E. Polk, Esq.
          Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          711 Third Ave, 20th Floor
          New York, New York 10017
          Telephone: (212) 798 0136
          Facsimile: (212) 557 2952
          E-mail: dcg@girardgibbs.com
                  chc@girardgibbs.com
                  je@girardgibbs.com
                  aep@girardgibbs.com


ASKARI SECURITY: Nkanteen Seeks Minimum Pay, OT under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
PRINCEDUKE NKANTEEN, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, and the general public, the Plaintiff, v.
ASKARI SECURITY SERVICES, INC., a California corporation; and DOES
1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC686998 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Dec. 13, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and
minimum wages California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants employed Plaintiff and
other persons as hourly-paid or non-exempt employees. The
Defendants, jointly and severally, employed Plaintiff as an
hourly, nonexempt Security Driver, from May 2016 through June 5,
2017, in the State of California, including the County of Los
Angeles. The Defendant failed to compensate them for all hours
worked, missed meal periods and/or rest breaks. The Defendants
engaged in a uniform policy and systematic scheme of wage abuse
against their hourly-paid or non-exempt employees.

Askari Security is a fully licensed security firm with a statewide
operational presence in the state of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Heather Davis, Esq.
          Amir Nayebdadash, Esq.
          Luke Clapp, Esq.
          PROTECTION LAW GROUP, LLP
          136 Main St., Suite A
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 290 3095
          Facsimile: (866) 264 7880


AVEO: Levitt Robertson Seeks Customers to Join Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Adele Ferguson and Sarah Danckert, writing for The Weekly Source,
report that on Nov. 25 Fairfax's Adele Ferguson returned in the
Sydney Morning Herald and The Age to prosecute the case against
the country's No.2 village operator with the headline "Hundred
sign up for second Aveo class action".

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

The Levitt Robinson class case is open to anyone who terminated an
Aveo contract after 2015 and is specifically focuses on the
company's strategy to change freehold titles to leasehold, as part
of their Aveo Way strategy.

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

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

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

On Nov. 24 Aveo filed its defence.

For Levitt Robertson to take the action they needed a lead
applicant -- an Aveo customer that has had a significant loss and
is typical of those the class action is to represent.

They selected the children of a now deceased Peregian Springs
village (Sunshine Coast) resident, Robert Luke.  He bought the
freehold unit in 2003 for $270,000 and it was sold for $379,000 on
a 99-year lease.

The action claims Robert Luke's family received less from the sale
because Aveo converted the title from freehold to leasehold and
that Aveo failed to disclose this to them.

Aveo says the outgoing resident has the option to stay as is or
take up their Aveo Way strategy of converting to leasehold by Aveo
buying the unit at an agreed price and receive a number of
benefits including no liability for refurbishment costs or sales
commissions (up to 3%).

Levitt Robertson question the price Aveo offered (and thus Aveo's
integrity) and this Aveo Way deal.

But it seems they have their facts wrong in the Luke case. Aveo
has responded:

That sale was commenced in late 2014 at a time when the Aveo Way
programme had not yet been introduced to the village where the
unit is located.  A pre-sale estimate of the unit was prepared on
that basis.

Several months later, and after the Aveo Way programme had been
introduced, the lead applicants consented to their unit being sold
under the Aveo Way programme.

That change had no impact on the price achieved which was in fact
higher than the pre-sale estimate prepared prior to the
introduction of the Aveo Way programme.

The Fairfax article also features Prof Murray Gillin who is one of
the 200 retirees who Levitt Robinson have signed up to their class
action. He was a freehold resident at Sackville Grange village in
Kew (VIC).

However Prof. Gillin sold his unit as a freehold transaction in
August 2016 and Sackville Grange was not offering the Aveo Way
contract at that time.

It appears that Fairfax missed this detail.

The next court appearance is in March and the expectation is the
Luke family claim will be struck out and Levitt Robertson will
have to start again, meaning the class action will drag later into
the year. [GN]


AVIS BUDGET CAR: Settles FCRA Class Action for $2.7 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Ahearn, writing for Employment Screening Resources, reports
that Avis has agreed to pay $2.7 million to settle a class action
lawsuit that claims the car rental company allegedly violated the
federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) when conducting
background checks on job applicants for employment purposes,
according to a report on the TopClassActions.com website.

Top Class Actions reports plaintiff Angela Fuller claimed that
when the defendant Avis conducted a background check on her in
2015 "she did not get the job because of a mistake in her consumer
report that listed a 1985 infraction as a conviction." She claimed
consumer reports are only supposed to list convictions for the
past seven years.

Top Class Actions reports that Avis has agreed to pay cash or
another form of compensation under the terms of the settlement.
Although the FCRA has a two-year statute of limitations, even
those whose claims fall outside of the two-year limit will receive
compensation under the Avis class action lawsuit settlement:

   -- Job applicants with Avis who had a credit report pulled by
the company between June 9, 2013 and April 28, 2016, will receive
a $45 payment.

   -- Those who lost or were not offered a job based on the
consumer report between June 9, 2016 and April 28, 2016, will
receive a $650 payment in addition to the $45 payment.

   -- Those who had a credit report pulled by Avis outside of the
statute of limitations will receive up to two $20 vouchers from
the car rental company for a weekday car rental.

Top Class Actions reports that the defendants "deny that they have
committed any wrongful acts or violations of law or that it has
any liability to the Plaintiff or the Settlement Class" and that
the plaintiff believes the defendants violated the FCRA but "she
also recognizes the risk that the Court or a jury might not make
that finding."

The lawsuit is Fuller v. Avis Budget Car Rental LLC, et al., Case
No. 2:15-cv-03856, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey.  The complete Top Class Actions article is available
at https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/lawsuit-
news/826564-avis-settles-job-applicant-background-check-class-
action-2-7m/.

Enacted in 1970, the FCRA is federal legislation that promotes the
accuracy, fairness, and privacy of consumer information in the
files of Consumer Reporting Agencies (CRAs) and protects consumers
from the willful and/or negligent inclusion of inaccurate
information in their background check reports. [GN]


BADGER DAYLIGHTINING: Fails to Pay All Wages, "Shaw" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRYAN SHAW, as an individual and on behalf of all employees
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BADGER DAYLIGHTINING CORP.
dba NEVADA BADGER DAYLIGHTING CORP., an Indiana corporation, the
Defendants, Case No. BC686602 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 12, 2017),
seeks to recover all wages due, including overtime pay under the
California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to provide meal and
rest periods or compensation in lieu, failed to pay wages upon
termination of employment, failed to reimburse business expenses;
and failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements upon
payment of wages.

Badger Daylighting is a publicly traded Canadian company. The
company was founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Calgary,
Alberta.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
          Atoy H. Wilson, Esq.
          MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
          249 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone No.: (562) 590 5550
          Facsimile No.: (562) 590 8400
          E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
                  kodenbreit@mahonev-law.net
                  awilson@mahoney-law.net


BANCO SANTANDER: "Gonzalez" Shareholder Remains in Federal Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Carmen Consuelo Cerezo of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Puerto Rico denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand
the case, DIONISIO TRIGO GONZALEZ and ANA RITA SUAREZ SEIN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and
derivatively on behalf of FIRST PUERTO RICO TAX-EXEMPT TARGET
MATURITY FUND II, INC.; FIRST PUERTO RICO TAX-EXEMPT TARGET
MATURITY FUND III, INC.; FIRST PUERTO RICO TAX-EXEMPT TARGET
MATURITY FUND IV, INC.; FIRST PUERTO RICO TARGET MATURITY FUND V,
INC.; and FIRST PUERTO RICO TAX-EXEMPT TARGET MATURITY FUND VII,
INC. Plaintiffs, v. BANCO SANTANDER, S.A.; SANTANDER BANCORP;
BANCO SANTANDER PUERTO RICO; SANTANDER SECURITIES LLC; SANTANDER
ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC; JUAN CARLOS BATLLE; FRANCISCO JAVIER
HIDALGO; LUIS ROIG; ROMAN BLANCO; FREDY F. MOLFINO; FERNANDO L.
BATLLE; MARIO F. GAZTAMBIDE; FRANCISCO MARRERO MELENDEZ; JOSE E.
VASQUEZ BARQUET; and ANTONIO ARIAS III Defendants, v. FIRST PUERTO
RICO TAX-EXEMPT TARGET MATURITY FUND II, INC.; FIRST PUERTO RICO
TAX-EXEMPT TARGET MATURITY FUND III, INC.; FIRST PUERTO RICO
TAXEXEMPT TARGET MATURITY FUND IV, INC.; FIRST PUERTO RICO TARGET
MATURITY FUND V, INC.; and FIRST PUERTO RICO TAXEXEMPT TARGET
MATURITY FUND VII, INC. Nominal Defendants, Civil 16-2868CCC (D.
P.R.).

On Sept. 16, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the
Defendants in state court, asserting derivative and class claims,
contending that the Defendants breached their fiduciary and
contractual duties as to a number of closed-end Santander funds
and as to the funds' investors in violation of various state laws.
The closed-end Santander funds in question are First Puerto Rico
Tax-Exempt Target Maturity Fund II, Inc., First Puerto Rico Tax-
Exempt Target Maturity Fund III, Inc., and First Puerto Rico Tax-
Exempt Target Maturity Fund V, Inc., incorporated in Puerto Rico
that pool capital to earn income by investing in securities.  The
Funds, part of the Santander "First Puerto Rico Funds," were
offered exclusively to individuals having their principal
residence in Puerto Rico and to others whose principal office and
principal place of business was located in Puerto Rico.

The complaint alleges that SAM served as the investment advisor,
Santander Securities as the primary underwriter and primary broker
dealer and Banco Santander Puerto Rico as the primary transfer
agent, administrator and custodian of the First Puerto Rico Funds.
The overall management of the business and affairs of the First
Puerto Rico Funds were vested with its Board of Directors.  In
order to purchase shares of the Funds, shareholders were required
to enter into a binding contract for securities and services
referred to as the Puerto Rico Residency Representation Letter
which incorporated by reference the terms of the Funds'
prospectuses.  The Plaintiffs further allege that Santander
Securities served as underwriter for a significant portion of the
bonds issued by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and its political
subdivisions, organizations, agencies and instrumentalities.

The putative shareholder derivative and class action was removed
by Defendant Banco Santander, S.A. from the Court of First
Instance of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Superior Court of San
Juan, on Oct. 25, 2016 pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act
of 2005.  The Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Remand on Nov. 15,
2016 arguing that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the action
based on the "local controversy" exception under CAFA.  They
contend that they and the class' principal injuries were caused by
the Defendants' wrongdoing and, because the funds were offered
only to Puerto Rico residents, there can be no doubt that the
injuries were incurred in Puerto Rico.

Judge Cerezo denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand on Sept. 29,
2017.  She concluded that the Plaintiffs' own allegations defeat
their primary argument that the principal injuries resulting from
the Defendants' alleged misconduct was localized and did not
extend beyond the shores of Puerto Rico.  Additionally, the filing
of other class actions in the District founded on essentially
similar allegations, such as Civil No. 12-1663(CCC), Roman et al
v. UBS Financial Services, Inc., et al, and Civil No. 17-
2243(CCC), Ponsa-Rabell et al v. Santander Securities, L.L.C.,
militate against the applicability of the "local controversy"
exception to the case.  The Plaintiffs did not discharge their
burden of proof, as the party seeking remand, that would entitle
them to avail themselves of the narrow local controversy exception
to CAFA jurisdiction.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 1, 2017 Statement of Reasons
is available at https://is.gd/pJycYi from Leagle.com.

Dionisio Trigo-Gonzalez, Plaintiff, represented by Harold D.
Vicente-Colon -- hdvc@vc-law.net -- Vicente & Cuebas.

Dionisio Trigo-Gonzalez, Plaintiff, represented by Harold D.
Vicente-Gonzalez, Vicente & Cuebas & Luis Sanchez-Betances --
lsb@sbsmnlaw.com -- Sanchez-Betances, Sifre & Munoz-Noya Law
Offices, PSC.

Ana Rita Suarez-Sein, Plaintiff, represented by Harold D. Vicente-
Colon, Vicente & Cuebas, Harold D. Vicente-Gonzalez, Vicente &
Cuebas & Luis Sanchez-Betances, Sanchez-Betances, Sifre & Munoz-
Noya Law Offices, PSC.

Banco Santander, S.A., Defendant, represented by Andrew W. Stern -
- ASTERN@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP, pro hac
vice, Nicholas P. Crowell -- NCROWELL@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin
LLP, pro hac vice, Jason R. Aguilo-Suro -- jaguilo@pmalaw.com --
Pietrantoni Mendez & Alvarez, LLC, Sara L. Velez-Santiago --
svelez@pmalaw.com -- Pietrantoni Mendez & Alvarez & Nestor Mendez-
Gomez -- nmendez@pmalaw.com -- Pietrantoni Mendez & Alvarez.

Santander Bancorp, Defendant, represented by Nestor Mendez-Gomez,
Pietrantoni Mendez & Alvarez, Jason R. Aguilo-Suro, Pietrantoni
Mendez & Alvarez, LLC & Sara L. Velez-Santiago, Pietrantoni Mendez
& Alvarez.

Banco Santander Puerto Rico, Defendant, represented by Nestor
Mendez-Gomez, Pietrantoni Mendez & Alvarez, Jason R. Aguilo-Suro,
Pietrantoni Mendez & Alvarez, LLC & Sara L. Velez-Santiago,
Pietrantoni Mendez & Alvarez.

Santander Securities LLC, Defendant, represented by Nestor Mendez-
Gomez, Pietrantoni Mendez & Alvarez, Jason R. Aguilo-Suro,
Pietrantoni Mendez & Alvarez, LLC & Sara L. Velez-Santiago,
Pietrantoni Mendez & Alvarez.

Santander Asset Management LLC, Defendant, represented by Nestor
Mendez-Gomez, Pietrantoni Mendez & Alvarez, Jason R. Aguilo-Suro,
Pietrantoni Mendez & Alvarez, LLC & Sara L. Velez-Santiago,
Pietrantoni Mendez & Alvarez.

Luis Roig, Defendant, represented by Nestor Mendez-Gomez,
Pietrantoni Mendez & Alvarez & Jason R. Aguilo-Suro, Pietrantoni
Mendez & Alvarez, LLC.

Fredy Molfino, Defendant, represented by Nestor Mendez-Gomez,
Pietrantoni Mendez & Alvarez & Jason R. Aguilo-Suro, Pietrantoni
Mendez & Alvarez, LLC.

Mario Gaztambide, Defendant, represented by Alfredo Fernandez-
Martinez, Delgado & Fernandez & Pedro Hernandez-Freire.

Francisco Marrero-Melendez, Defendant, represented by Alfredo
Fernandez-Martinez, Delgado & Fernandez & Pedro Hernandez-Freire.

Jose Vasquez-Barquet, Defendant, represented by Alfredo Fernandez-
Martinez, Delgado & Fernandez & Pedro Hernandez-Freire.


BANGLA TIMES: Alam Seeks Unpaid OT, Minimum Wage under Labor Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
MD Nurul Alam, on behalf of himself and all persons similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Desh Bangla Inc.; The Bangla Times
Inc.; and Choudhury S. Hasan, the Defendants, Case No. 717196/2017
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., Dec. 12, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime,
minimum wage and spread of hours compensation, maximum liquidated
damages, prejudgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay and
willfully failed to pay Plaintiff all wages/commissions owed to
him (non-overtime and overtime wages, etc.) within the time
required by New York Labor Law.

Desh Bangla is a Bangladeshi grocery store in Brooklyn, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
          27005 79th Avenue
          New Hyde Park, NY 11040-1546
          Telephone: (718) 669 0714
          E-mail: mgangat107@gmail.com


BAODING CFC: "Liu" Class Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wen Long Liu, individually and on behalf all other employees
similarly situated v. Baoding CFC Inc. d/b/a "Baoding CFC", Bin
Chen, Nisa Chen, Case No. 712992/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., November 28,
2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage, overtime wages,
spread of hours compensation, damages for failure to provide wage
statements, damages for failure to provide wage notice at the time
of hiring, liquidated damages, interest, costs, and attorneys'
fees for violations of the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a restaurant located at
42-05 162nd Street, Flushing, NY 11358. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul Mendez, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-18 391h Avenue, Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Telephone: (718) 353-8522
      Facsimile: (718) 353-6288
      E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


BARKLEY COURT: Cal. App. Flips Statutory Rates Ruling in "Burd"
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned TARA R. BURD, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.
BARKLEY COURT REPORTERS, INC., Defendant and Respondent, Case No.
B271694 (Cal. App.), Judge Victoria M. Chavez of the Court of
Appeals of California for the Second District, Division Two,
reversed the trial court's judgment that the statutory rates apply
only to official reporters employed by the court.

The Plaintiff is an attorney with her own law firm.  The Defendant
is a California corporation that provides certified shorthand
reporting services.  The Plaintiff retained the Defendant to serve
as an official court reporter pro tempore at a June 27, 2013
hearing in the Los Angeles County Superior Court.  She requested a
transcript of the hearing and paid the Defendant approximately
$587 for the hearing transcript.  The charges included a $6.10 per
page fee for the transcript, a $250 half-day per diem, $20 for a
PDF copy of the transcript and exhibits, $20 for delivery of the
original transcript, and a $42 fee for transcript production.

The Plaintiff filed the instant action against the Defendant on
May 30, 2014 alleging two causes of action: violation of sections
69950 and 69954, and violation of the California Unfair
Competition law predicated on violations of sections 69950 and
69954.  She sought, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, declaratory relief, damages, fees, and costs.

The Defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings,
arguing that the statutory transcription rates set forth in
sections 69950 and 69954 apply only to official reporters employed
by the courts, and not to privately retained certified shorthand
reporters who serve as official reporters pro tempore.

Following a Jan. 8, 2016 hearing at which the parties presented
their arguments, the trial court granted the Defendant's motion as
to all causes of action.  Judgment was subsequently entered in the
Defendant's favor, and the appeal followed.

Judge Chavez explains that neither section 69950 nor section 69954
distinguishes between court reporters employed by the superior
court and privately retained court reporters.  Section 69950 does
not use the terms "reporter," "official reporter," or "official
reporter pro tempore."  The statute prescribes the fee for
transcription of an original and subsequent copies of a transcript
without reference as to what sort of court reporter -- official,
pro tempore, court employed, or privately retained -- performs the
transcription.  The plain language of the statutes indicates that
the prescribed transcription fees are intended to apply to court
reporters generally, and are not limited to court reporters
employed by the superior court.

The Judge finds that the trial court did not apply the plain
language of sections 69950 and 69954, but instead considered the
statutes in the context of article 9 as a whole.  While
acknowledging that the language of Article 9 is not perfectly
consistent with an intention not to regulate rates for all
reporters who transcribe courtroom proceedings, the trial court
nevertheless concluded that the statutory scheme prescribed fee
limits that apply only to court reporters employed by the courts
or by local governments.

Judge Chavez concludes that the plain language of sections 69950
and 69954 apply statutory transcription rates to official
reporters and official reporters pro tempore, when producing
transcripts of court proceedings, whether employed by the court or
privately retained by a party.  The trial court accordingly erred
by concluding that the statutory rates apply only to official
reporters employed by the court.  For these reasons, the Judge
reversed the trial court's judgment.  The Plaintiff is awarded her
costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 29, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/8smC5R from Leagle.com.

Patterson Law Group, James R. Patterson --
jim@pattersonlawgroup.com -- and Allison H. Goddard --
ali@pattersonlawgroup.com; Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter
and Todd D. Carpenter -- tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com -- for
Plaintiff and Appellant.

Lichtfield Cavo, Marc V. Allaria -- allaria@litchfieldcavo.com --
and Joseph P. Tabrisky -- tabrisky@litchfieldcavo.com; Dykema
Gossett, Jeffrey G. Huron -- jhuron@dykema.com -- Phu C. Nguyen,
and Jyoti P. Avila -- javila@dykema.com -- for Defendant and
Respondent.

Horvitz & Levy, Lisa Perrochet -- lperrochet@horvitzlevy.com --
and Eric S. Boorstin -- eboorstin@horvitzlevy.com -- as Amicus
Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.

Richard L. Manford for California Court Reporters Association,
Inc. as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.


BARNES & NOBLE: "Hartpence" Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled CHRISTINE N. HARTPENCE,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, the
Plaintiff, v. BARNES & NOBLE, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
170602515, was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of
Philadelphia, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) on Dec. 8, 2017. The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-05491-CMR to the proceeding. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Cynthia M. Rufe.

Barnes & Noble, a Fortune 500 company, is the bookseller with the
largest number of retail outlets in the United States, and a
retailer of content, digital media, and educational products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas More Holland, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS MORE HOLLAND
          1522 Locust St.
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 592 8080
          Facsimile: (215) 592 8550
          E-mail: tmh@tmhlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Daniel H. Aiken, Esq.
          DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
          ONE LOGAN SQUARE
          18th & Cherry Sts.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 988 2942
          E-mail: daniel.aiken@dbr.com


BAYER HEALTHCARE: "Johnson" Remanded to Missouri State Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ronnie L. White of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, Eastern Division, remanded the case, TIFFANY
JOHNSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BAYER HEALTHCARE, LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:17-CV-1533-RLW (E.D. Mo.) to the Circuit
Court for the Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit, City of St. Louis,
State of Missouri.

The Plaintiffs filed the action in the Circuit Court for the
Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit, City of St. Louis, State of
Missouri, on March 30 10, 2017.  They allege injuries resulting
from their use of Essure(R) permanent birth control system.  They
are citizens of the States of Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas,
California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada,
New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

The Plaintiffs contend that there are several Named Plaintiffs
that are not completely diverse with the Defendants.  As admitted
by the Defendants, Bayer Corp. is a citizen of Indiana and New
Jersey.  Defendant Bayer HealthCare is a citizen of Delaware, New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Germany.  Defendant Bayer Essure Inc. is
a citizen of Delaware and New Jersey.  Defendant Bayer Healthcare
Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a citizen of Delaware and New Jersey.

On May 18, 2017, the Defendants removed the action to the Court on
the basis of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section
1332(a), federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section
1331, and under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA").  Although
there appears to be a lack of complete diversity based upon the
face of the Petition, the Defendants argue that they are not
subject to personal jurisdiction with respect to the non-Missouri
Plaintiffs' claims.  They further assert that personal
jurisdiction should be resolved before subject matter jurisdiction
because it presents the "simpler question."

In response, the Plaintiffs maintain that remand is appropriate
because complete diversity does not exist and their claims are not
fraudulently joined.  They also put forth that the Court does not
have federal question jurisdiction.  Finally, they maintain that
removal under CAFA is not appropriate because the Court cannot
consider the pending petitions in Hinton v. Bayer Corp., L. Jordan
v. Bayer Corp., Black v. Bayer Corp., Hines v. Bayer Corp., and
McClain v. Bayer Corp., to be tried in conjunction, and the Court
cannot aggregate these plaintiffs named in separate petition to
create federal jurisdiction under CAFA.

Judge White holds that there is not complete diversity on the face
of the Petition and no basis for fraudulent joinder.  The
Plaintiffs' claims are not fraudulently joined, and complete
diversity is absent.  The Plaintiffs have filed suit against the
Defendants for injuries caused by the same contraception system
and arising out of the same practices for those products.  He
finds that common issues of law and fact are likely to arise in
the litigation.  Therefore, the Judge holds that joinder is proper
and complete diversity does not exist.

The Judge also holds that there is no federal cause of action
under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ("FDCA").  The
purported federal issues raised in the Plaintiffs' Complaint are
not substantial and cannot form the basis for federal question
jurisdiction.  As held by other courts, accepting federal
jurisdiction in a medical device products liability case such as
this would disrupt the federal-state balance contemplated by
Congress.  Therefore, he declines to find federal question
jurisdiction.

Finally, Judge White holds that the case cannot be combined with
Hinton, Jordan, Black, Hines, and McClain to form a single mass
action under CAFA.  CAFA's "mass action" jurisdictional provision
confers federal jurisdiction over civil actions in which the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the monetary relief
claims of 100 or more persons are proposed to be tried jointly on
the ground that the plaintiffs' claims involve common questions of
law or fact.  The Plaintiffs have not joined 100 or more
Plaintiffs in a single complaint, nor have they attempted to
consolidate the Hinton, Jordan, Black, Hines and McClain actions.
Therefore, the Judge holds that CAFA does not apply and CAFA
cannot form a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction.  The
case will be remanded for further proceedings.

Accordingly, Judge White granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand
and remanded the matter to the Circuit Court for the Twenty-Second
Judicial Circuit, City of St. Louis, State of Missouri.  He denied
as moot all other motions.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 29, 2017 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/MP2ksa from Leagle.com.

Tiffany Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Eric D. Holland --
eholland@allfela.com -- HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC.

Tiffany Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Patrick R. Dowd --
pdowd@allfela.com -- HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC & Randall S. Crompton,
HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC.

Kristen Money, Plaintiff, represented by Eric D. Holland, HOLLAND
LAW FIRM LLC, Patrick R. Dowd, HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC & Randall S.
Crompton, HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC.

Nikita Langston, Plaintiff, represented by Eric D. Holland,
HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC, Patrick R. Dowd, HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC &
Randall S. Crompton, HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC.

Tenekia Rollins, Plaintiff, represented by Eric D. Holland,
HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC, Patrick R. Dowd, HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC &
Randall S. Crompton, HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC.

Julie Aguilera, Plaintiff, represented by Eric D. Holland, HOLLAND
LAW FIRM LLC, Patrick R. Dowd, HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC & Randall S.
Crompton, HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC.

Cristina Alfaro, Plaintiff, represented by Eric D. Holland,
HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC, Patrick R. Dowd, HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC &
Randall S. Crompton, HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC.

Jessica Arroyo, Plaintiff, represented by Eric D. Holland, HOLLAND
LAW FIRM LLC, Patrick R. Dowd, HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC & Randall S.
Crompton, HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC.

Christina Askin, Plaintiff, represented by Eric D. Holland,
HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC, Patrick R. Dowd, HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC &
Randall S. Crompton, HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC.

Alina Azios, Plaintiff, represented by represented by Eric D.
Holland, HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC, Patrick R. Dowd, HOLLAND LAW FIRM
LLC & Randall S. Crompton, HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC.

Bayer Corp., Defendant, represented by W. Jason Rankin --
jrankin@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER BROOM.

Bayer HealthCare LLC, Defendant, represented by W. Jason Rankin,
HEPLER BROOM.

Bayer Essure, Inc., Defendant, represented by W. Jason Rankin,
HEPLER BROOM.

Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Defendant, represented by
W. Jason Rankin, HEPLER BROOM.


BERNARD L. MADOFF: Shulman Trustees File Fraud Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that a new lawsuit
accuses a lawyer representing hundreds of victims defrauded by
Bernard Madoff of cheating her own clients through overbilling,
discouraging settlements and having conflicts of interest.

The proposed class-action complaint was filed on Nov. 29 against
Becker & Poliakoff LLP and Chaitman LLP over the alleged conduct
of Helen Chaitman, who has been perhaps the most visible lawyer
representing victims of Mr. Madoff since his December 2008 arrest.
Mr. Madoff, 79, is serving a 150-year prison term.

"We have no comment," Ms. Chaitman said in an email.  Becker &
Poliakoff, her former employer, did not immediately respond to
requests for comment.

The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan by
trustees of the Florence Shulman Pourover Trust, a defendant in a
2010 lawsuit by Irving Picard, a court-appointed trustee
liquidating Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC.

Mr. Picard has recovered roughly $12.8 billion for former Madoff
customers by suing people and companies he believes enabled or
benefited from the fraud, including "net winners" that withdrew
more money from Madoff's firm than they put in.

He considers the Shulman trust a net winner, and sued it to
recover $1.62 million of "fictitious profits."  Dylan Ruga, the
Shulman trustees' lawyer, said the trust lost a seven-figure sum
with Madoff.

In the Nov. 29 complaint, the Shulman trustees said
Ms. Chaitman's "self-promotion as a savior for other Madoff
victims paid off" with a large base of clients.

But they said this left her with an "irreconcilable" conflict by
representing three groups of plaintiffs with competing interests:
net winners, "net losers" who lost money, and "early investors"
whose alleged profits predated the fraud.

The Shulman trustees also said Ms. Chaitman misled net winners by
saying Mr. Picard would never settle for less than all he sought,
enabling her to bill for "unnecessary" and "often unproductive"
work, and did not specify on invoices what work she did.

Both law firms "billed and were paid for needless and quixotic
legal work, ostensibly for the benefit of FSPT and members of the
proposed class, but which in reality only benefited defendants in
the form of increased fees," the complaint said.

"Net winners and net losers are inherently in conflict with each
other because the only money available to pay net losers comes
from net winners," Ruga said in an interview.  "Lawyers who have
conflicts like Ms. Chaitman must disgorge their fees."

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for clients of both law
firms.

The case is Shulman et al v. Becker & Poliakoff LLP et al, U.S.
District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 17-09330.
[GN]


BIG PHARMA: Steuben County to Join Opioid Crisis Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Evening Tribune reports that Steuben County will join a class
action lawsuit seeking payment of damages from any and all persons
or entities responsible for creating the opioid addiction
epidemic.

County legislators voted unanimously to join counties and
municipalities across the state in the effort to curb opioid
addiction and recover the soaring local costs in law enforcement,
mental health and social services caused by drug addiction.  The
effort will include large prescribers as well as the
pharmaceutical industry, county Manager Jack Wheeler said.

"We see this as a response to the cry from the public to 'do
something' that we have heard at all our forums this year,"
Mr. Wheeler said.  "Well, this is something we can do."

The county hosted three substance abuse forums in Bath, Hornell
and Corning focused on the devastating impact of opioids and other
addictive substances.  The forums also included information on
supportive services through local agencies.

The action is similar to a class action lawsuit Steuben joined in
1998 against four major tobacco growers in the U.S. The lawsuit
resulted in a decline in production, compensation and funding for
campaigns designed to curtail tobacco use.

In other action, county legislators:

Appointed county Deputy Manager Mitch Alger as the executive
director of the independent Steuben County Land Bank Corporation.
The appointment simply formalizes Alger's work in representing the
county on the corporation board and makes communication with the
state more efficient, Mr. Wheeler told Steuben lawmakers.

Authorized a public hearing on the eight-year review of
Agricultural District No. 10.

Designated the Steuben County Conference and Visitors' Bureau as
the Official Tourism Promotion Agency for the county. [GN]


BOFI HOLDING: Judgment on Pleadings Bid in Securities Suit OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE BofI HOLDING, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case
No. 3:15-cv-02324-GPC-KSC (S.D. Cal.), Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
granted the Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, and
granted the Plaintiff leave to amend its complaint.

The Plaintiff filed its first Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint ("CAC") on April 11, 2016.  On Sept. 27, 2016, the Court
issued an order granting in part and denying in part a motion to
dismiss premised on the ground that the CAC's allegations did not
meet the heightened pleading standards applicable to securities
class actions.  In that ruling, the Court rejected the Defendants'
challenges to the Plaintiff's claims against Defendants BofI and
Garrabrants, but granted dismissal of the Plaintiff's claims
against Defendants Micheletti, Grinberg, Mosich, and Argalas.

On Nov. 25, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Class
Action Complaint ("SAC"), which added allegations relevant to its
Section 20(a) claims against Defendants Micheletti, Grinberg,
Mosich, and Argalas.  The Defendants again moved to dismiss.  The
Court again granted in part and denied in part.  It found the new
allegations sufficient to support plausible Section 20(a) claims
against all the Defendants.  It revisited its previous analysis
with respect to the Plaintiff's Section 10(b) claims against
Defendants BofI and Garrabrants, and concluded that the
Plaintiff's allegations stated plausible securities fraud claims
only with respect to BofI and Garrabrants's statements about (i)
BofI's loan underwriting standards and (ii) internal controls and
compliance infrastructure.  The Court dismissed the Plaintiff's
Section 10(b) claims to the extent that they were premised on BofI
and Garrabrants's alleged misrepresentations about BofI's
allowance for loan losses, net income and diluted shares, loan-to-
value ratio, and lending partnerships.

On Sept. 23, 2017, the Defendants filed the now-pending motion for
judgment on the pleadings.  Their new theory is that the SAC does
not contain sufficient allegations of loss causation.  They argue
that the "corrective disclosures" relied upon by the Plaintiff --
the Erhart whistleblower action and the related New York Times
coverage, as well as a litany of articles about BofI published on
the website Seeking Alpha -- did not disclose the falsity of the
actionable misrepresentations and were merely duplicative of
publicly available information.

Upon review of the Erhart Complaint and the various articles
referred to in the SAC, Judge Curiel concludes that -- even
considering all of these documents together -- the SAC fails to
identify a relevant corrective disclosure.  Some of the Seeking
Alpha articles identified in the SAC are relevant to BofI's loan
underwriting standards, others are relevant to BofI's compliance
infrastructure, and some are not relevant to either.  However,
according to the Judge, the SAC does not identify a sufficient
corrective disclosure of the falsity of Garrabrant's statements
about BofI's loan underwriting standards or its compliance
infrastructure.

In sum, Judge Curiel holds the SAC fails to identify corrective
disclosures of the falsity of Garrabrants' statements that the
Court has found to be actionable.  In the absence of any other
indication that the Defendants' misrepresentation caused the
Plaintiff economic loss, the SAC fails to state a claim for
securities fraud.  As a result, he granted the Defendants' motion
for judgment on the pleadings.  He, however, also granted the
Plaintiff leave to amend the SAC to cure the deficiencies
discussed.  The Plaintiff may file a Third Amended Complaint
within 21 days of the date of the Order.

If the Plaintiff chooses to amend its complaint, the Judge reminds
the Plaintiff that there is little correlation between a
complaint's length and the sufficiency of its allegations.  While
the pleading standards applicable to the Plaintiff's claims may be
heightened, that fact does not abrogate Rule 8's requirement that
a complaint be short and plain.  To the contrary, even under
heightened pleading standards it is the duty and responsibility,
especially of experienced counsel, to state the essentials in
short, plain and non-redundant allegations.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 1, 2017 Order is available at
https://is.gd/gsFj8a from Leagle.com.

Paul J. Grinberg, Defendant, represented by John P. Stigi, III --
jstigi@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.

Nicholas A. Mosich, Defendant, represented by John P. Stigi, III,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.

James S. Argalas, Defendant, represented by John P. Stigi, III,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.

Houston Municipal Employees Pension System, Plaintiff, represented
by Daniel P. Chiplock -- dchiplock@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein LLP, pro hac vice, Joy Kruse --
jkruse@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, Katherine
Collinge Lubin -- klubin@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, Michael Joseph Miarmi -- mmiarmi@lchb.com -- Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, pro hac vice & Richard M. Heimann --
rheimann@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP.

BofI Holding, Inc., Defendant, represented by Alejandro E. Moreno
-- amoreno@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter &
Hampton, LLP & John P. Stigi, III, Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton.

Gregory Garrabrants, Defendant, represented by Alejandro E.
Moreno, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP & John P. Stigi,
III, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.

Andrew J. Micheletti, Defendant, represented by John P. Stigi,
III, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.

John Marco, Movant, represented by John P. Stigi, III, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton & Laurence M. Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.


BUCKEYE TRANSPLANT: "Nguyen" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA NGUYEN, c/o Attorney Scott Perlmuter 2012 W. 25th Street,
Ste. 716 Cleveland, Ohio 44113, On behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BUCKEYE TRANSPLANT
SERVICES, LLC c/o its Statutory Agent Jeff Arrington 12224 Road K
Ottawa, OH 45875; JEFF ARRINGTON, 12224 Road K Ottawa, OH 45875;
and JILL ARRINGTON, 12224 Road K Ottawa, OH 45875, the Defendants,
Case No. 3:17-cv-02607-JZ (N.D. Ohio, Dec. 14, 2017), seeks
compensatory damages in the amount of unpaid wages, as well as
liquidated damages in an equal amount pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Buckeye Transplant Services describes itself as "the leading
provider in offering specialized 24-hour on call services for
transplant centers nationwide." Buckeye's website states that
"[s]ince [its] inception in 2008," it has "partnered with
transplant centers across the country to manage organ offers
through Donor Screening, Organ Call Coverage, Transportation
Coordination, Donor Management, Facilitation of Organ Recovery and
Transplantation processes, and Transplant Patient Calls."

To provide these services, Buckeye employs 20 or more employees
who work as transplant coordinators.  The Plaintiff worked as a
transplant coordinator for Buckeye Transplant Services from
February 28, 2014 through December 10, 2017. The Plaintiff, as
well as the Potential Opt-Ins who may join this case pursuant to
29 U.S.C. section 216(b), were in fact non-exempt employees of
Defendants under the FLSA, but were unlawfully classified by
Defendants as "independent contractors."

Buckeye controlled the compensation its transplant coordinators
earned for their work. Buckeye paid transplant coordinators "on an
hourly base rate," at a rate set unilaterally by Buckeye and with
no additional opportunity for compensation. Plaintiff was always
paid by an hourly rate which increased over time solely at
Buckeye's discretion. Plaintiff and other transplant coordinators
submitted weekly timekeeping information into Buckeye's computer
and were paid at their "hourly base rate" for the hours they
worked.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott D. Perlmuter, Esq.
          TITTLE & PERLMUTER
          2012 West 25th Street, Ste. 515
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 308 1522
          E-mail: scott@tittlelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Thomas A. Downie
          CHAGRIN LAW
          46 Chagrin Falls Plaza #104
          Chagrin Falls, Ohio 44022
          440-973-9000
          E-mail: tom@chagrinlaw.com


CANADA: Settles LGBP Purge Class Action for $145 Million
--------------------------------------------------------
McKiggan Hebert Lawyers on Nov. 29 disclosed that following the
official apology by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for the
state-sponsored, systemic oppression, and rejection of LGBTQ
citizens, McKiggan Hebert Lawyers has announced that an Agreement
in Principle was recently reached between counsel for the class
members and the Department of Justice to settle the LGBTQ Purge
class action lawsuit.

The "LGBT Purge" refers to the Canadian government's systematic
campaign between the 1950s and the 1990s to identify and purge
lesbians, gay men, and those suspected of being gay from the
Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence.

"It caused an enormous amount of pain, anguish and heartache to
those impacted by this horrible movement initiated by the
government," stated John McKiggan -- john@mckigganhebert.com --
partner at McKiggan Hebert Lawyers.  "This purge, which lasted for
decades, denied individuals their basic human rights and treated
fellow Canadians like outcasts."

"I am pleased that after a great deal of hard work the parties
have managed to reach an Agreement in Principle to settle the
class-action," stated Mr. McKiggan.  "Not only does the settlement
provide compensation to address the harms suffered by class
members, it also provides significant funding to reconciliation
measures to I help class members heal and to educate Canadians
about this chapter of our history."

McKiggan Hebert LLP is co-counsel in this class action with Koskie
Minsky LLP and Cambridge LLP, IMK LLP.  McKiggan Hebert Lawyers
also recognizes the efforts of the representative plaintiffs,
Alida, Martine and Todd in leading this groundbreaking class-
action lawsuit and the courage they showed in sharing their deeply
personal stories.

Highlights of Settlement

   -- A total financial settlement valued at up to $145 million
   -- A fund for individual compensation valued at up to $110
million
   -- Individual compensation will range based on harm suffered
from a minimum of $5,000 up to a maximum of $150,000
   -- A fund for Reconciliation and Memorialization measures of at
least $15 million

Next Steps & Settlement Details
There are several steps that must be completed before this
settlement is finalized and funds are available to victims.  The
Minutes of Settlement must be finalized and submitted to the Court
for approval. Class Members will also be given notice of a
fairness hearing and will have the opportunity to "opt out" if
they choose.  If more than 250 class members opt out, the
government has the option of cancelling the deal. The claim will
be administered by a neutral third party, who will accept
applications for payment and determine which class members are
entitled to payment and how much they are entitled to receive.
[GN]


CEDARHURST: Sued for Storing Employee's Biometric Information
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lhalie Castillo, writing for Madison Record, reports that a
Madison County woman alleges her former Edwardsville employer
illegally stored and collected her biometric information.

Dicha Jamerson filed a complaint on behalf of herself and on
behalf of all others similarly situated on Nov. 17 in the Madison
County Circuit Court against Cedarhurst of Edwardsville Holdings,
Cedarhurst Memory Care of Edwardsville LLC, et al. alleging that
they violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act
(BIPA).

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that the
defendants collected, captured, stored and used her biometric
information when she was an employee of the defendants to track
time and attendance.  She alleges she was never informed in
writing that the biometric information was collected and she never
permitted in writing for the defendant to use this information.

The plaintiff seeks an order certifying this case as a class
action, actual and statutory damages, litigation expenses and any
further relief that the court may deem appropriate.  She is
represented by John J. Driscoll and Christopher J. Quinn of The
Driscoll Firm PC in St. Louis.

The lawsuit is at least the second such proposed class actions
alleging violations of the BIPA filed in local courts.

An expert in employment and labor law has predicted that the
number of biometric lawsuits will grow due to a unique facet the
BIPA law.

Passed by the state legislature in 2008 to ostensibly protect
people against identity theft, the act places restrictions on the
collection, storage and disclosure of personal biometric
information by businesses.

It requires businesses to obtain consent before collecting
biometric data on people and sets limits on how long such
information can be stored.  It also places restrictions on the
disclosure or use of such information after a business collects
it.

Karla Grossenbacher, an attorney and partner at Seyfarth Shaw in
Washington, D.C., said one reason that there has been a recent
rise in the number of lawsuits regarding the collection of
physiological data is because the practice has become more
commonly used by businesses today.  When the BIPA was passed in
2008, the use of biometrics data was still in its infancy.

Madison County Circuit Court case number 17-L-1582 [GN]


CENTRA TECH: Rensel Sues over Sale of Cryptocurrency Securities
---------------------------------------------------------------
JACOB ZOWIE THOMAS RENSEL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CENTRA TECH, INC.,
SOHRAB SHARMA, RAYMOND TRAPANI, ROBERT FARKAS, WILLIAM HAGNER, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-24500-JLK (S.D. Fla., Dec. 13, 2017),
seeks compensatory, injunctive, and rescissory relief, providing
rescission and repayment of all investments into the Centra ICO,
and securing and conserving those funds until repayment.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated against Centra Tech for Defendants'
violations of the Securities Act of 1933. Specifically, in
connection with the Centra Initial Coin Offering, Defendants
raised more than $30 million in digital cryptocurrencies by
offering and selling unregistered securities in direct violation
of the Securities Act.

According to the complaint, between July 30, 2017 and October 5,
2017, the Defendants ran the Centra ICO during which they received
more than $30 million in digital currency investments in exchange
for Centra Tokens. There are conflicting reports as to the actual
amount raised, some reports indicate that the amount raised may
have been closer to $50 million. The purported primary purpose of
the Centra ICO was to raise capital to operate the "world's first
Multi-Blockchain Debit Card with a Smart and Insured Wallet". In
other words, the product to be offered was a debit card that would
function on the Visa and Mastercard networks and allow instant
transactions using digital currencies. Further, the Centra ICO
claimed to be intended to raise capital to create an online
marketplace called "cBay" that would be similar to Amazon and
eBay. Additionally, Centra Tech recently has claimed to be
creating their own Centra blockchain. The Defendants have made a
feeble attempt to portray the Centra ICO as a sale of "utility-
based tokens" that were "not securities, shares or investments."
The core offer during the Centra ICO was 200 CTR Tokens for Ether
("ETH"). The Centra ICO was a clear offer and sale of securities
because, inter alia, Defendants touted, and Plaintiff and other
Centra ICO investors reasonably expected, that the CTR Tokens
received in exchange for their investments would be worth more
than the ETH, Bitcoin (BTC), Litecoin (LTC), or other currencies
invested. Additionally, Defendants have explicitly referred to the
ICO participants as "investors" and repeatedly stressed the
"growth potential" of the CTR Token.

Centra Tech -- https://centra.tech/ -- is a Delaware Corporation,
headquartered in Miami Beach, Florida.  Centra Tech offers
blockchain products such as a Wallet to store digital assets, a
Prepaid Card to spend the digital assets, and three soon to be
released products and services, which include a Marketplace to buy
goods with the digital assets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donald J. Enright, Esq.
          Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
          John A. Carriel, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
          1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 524 4290
          Facsimile: (202) 337 1567

               - and -

          Emily C. Komlossy, Esq.
          Ross A. Appel, Esq.
          KOMLOSSY LAW P.A.
          4700 Sheridan St., Suite J
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Telephone: (954) 842 2021
          Facsimile: (954) 416 6223
          E-mail: eck@komlossylaw.com
                  raa@komlossylaw.com


CKE RESTAURANTS: Aguilar Seeks Minimum Wage, OT under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
HERMELINDA AGUILAR, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CKE RESTAURANTS HOLDINGS,
INC., a Delaware Corporation; CARL'S JR. RESTAURANTS LLC, a
Delaware Corporation; CARL'S JR. FUNDING LLC, a Delaware
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case
No. BC686601 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 12, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wage and overtime under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants consistently required
Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class to perform work past their scheduled
eight hours of work, however, Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class were
not compensated for hours worked in excess of eight hours per day
or 40 hours per week. This was a routine and habitual practice,
which required Plaintiff and those similarly situated to work many
hours "off the clock."[BN]

CKE Restaurants is the parent company of the Carl's Jr., Hardee's,
Green Burrito, and Red Burrito quick-service restaurant brands.
The company's headquarters are located in Franklin, Tennessee.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
          Atoy H. Wilson, Esq.
          MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
          249 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone No.: (562) 590 5550
          Facsimile No.: (562) 590 8400
          E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
                  kodenbreit@mahonev-law.net
                  awilson@mahoney-law.net


CITIGROUP INC: Employees in 401(k) Suit Get Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Colby Hamilton, writing for New York Journal, reports that class
status was granted on Nov. 27 to Citigroup Inc. employees suing
the managers of their 401(k)s during the early 2000s, even as
recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent saw the court reverse itself
on an issue of standing for a potential class representative.

U.S. District Judge Sidney Stein of the Southern District of New
York said the high court's ruling in California Public Employees'
Retirement System v. ANZ Securities earlier this year required him
to drop one of the potential class representatives, Sherri Harris,
from consideration.

In his opinion and order, Judge Stein agreed with the defendant
members of the investment committees at Citigroup at the time that
Harris' claims were, in fact, time-barred based on a reading of
ANZ Securities.

The Supreme Court's decision made clear that the tolling test
established in American Pipe and Construction v. Utah is a kind of
equitable tolling, meaning it could not be use to toll relevant
Securities Act statutes of repose, and that statutory breach of
fiduciary duty responsibility language in the U.S. code itself
represented a statute of repose.

As such, Judge Stein wrote that ANZ found the American Pipe
tolling applied "not only to opt-out plaintiffs who elect to file
individual suits, but also to putative class members seeking to
intervene in a pre-existing class action."  Ms. Harris, therefore,
was barred from raising an individual claim and should not have
been allowed to be a named plaintiff, even as she is still
eligible to be part of the class.

The potential for that was solidified further in Judge Stein's
order, which dismissed attempts by defendants to sink class
certification in the suit.  At the forefront was the argument that
the named plaintiffs weren't invested in all of the funds at the
heart of the allegation that managers invested in Citigroup
proprietary funds saddled investors with millions in fees that
could have been avoided.

"In this Circuit, plaintiffs do not need to point to
individualized injuries with respect to each plan investment in
order to establish constitutional standing in a derivative suit
brought pursuant to" statuary fiduciary responsibility rules,
Stein wrote.

Judge Stein rejected defendants' argument that the appellate
court's summary order in In re UBS ERISA Litigation, which upheld
a district court's decision that loss alone in a defined
contribution plan wasn't enough to establish injury-in-fact, as a
plan can lose value even if an individual plaintiff's account does
not.  The Second Circuit's summary order, however, did not undo
its holding in Long Island Head Start Child Development Services
v. Economic Opportunity Commission of Nassau County, that allowed
for an assertion of claims in a derivative capacity, which the UBS
decision did not touch.

"Here, plaintiffs have sued in a representative capacity and
allege that the plan suffered millions of dollars a year in losses
as a result of defendants' disloyal and imprudent decisions to
offer the nine affiliated funds as investments," Judge Stein
wrote.  "The fact that only some of these alleged losses
manifested themselves in the named plaintiffs' individual accounts
does not deprive plaintiffs of their standing to seek redress on
behalf of the plan for the broader injuries the plan incurred."

The judge went on to find the plaintiffs easily met the appellate
court's two-prong threshold test for standing, finding they had
alleged personal harm and that the same set of concerns of the
nine involved funds were shared by the potential members.

Judge Stein limited class standing to participants in the 401(k)
plan between October 2001 and December 2005.  Plaintiffs
Marya Leber and Sara Kennedy were appointed class representatives.

McTigue Law name attorney J. Brian McTigue and Bailey & Glasser
partner Gregory Porter -- gporter@baileyglasser.com -- were
appointed class counsel, while Keller Rohrback partner David
Preminger -- dpreminger@kellerrohrback.com -- was appointed
liaison counsel. None could be reached for comment on Judge
Stein's order.

Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison partner Lewis Clayton --
lclayton@paulweiss.com -- led the defendants' legal team.  He also
could not be reached for comment. [GN]


CONN APPLIANCES: Williams Sues over Telemarketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------------
MICHAELINE WILLIAMS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. CONN APPLIANCES, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 5:17-cv-01264 (W.D. Tex., Dec. 14, 2017), seeks to enjoin
CAI from placing any further telephone calls to Mrs. Williams and
the class in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, CAI has a practice of hoarding as many
potentially valid phone numbers for a particular account as
possible. CAI routinely uses the System to call more than one or
all of these hoarded numbers which have become associated with a
customer's account, including cell phone numbers, even when the
number does not belong to the customer or a co-borrower. In
addition to entering telephone numbers for non-customers into
credit applications that its employees learn of during the sales
or collections process, CAI has a practice of identifying phone
numbers from public or commercial databases that it believes, but
does not know to be, valid numbers for its customers using a
practice known as skip-tracing.

For example, Conn's 2017 Annual 10-K Report to the SEC states it
"utilize[s] current technologies that assist us in locating
contact information for customers who have moved and left no
contact information." Numbers obtained through skip-tracing often
locates cell phone numbers that belong to an individual with a
similar name or address, but not the individual CAI is intending
to reach and who it has no consent to call.

CAI knows that the individuals it calls at these hoarded numbers
did not consent to receive calls to the numbers, and that many of
the individuals are not actually its customer, borrowers, or co-
borrowers, but it places continuous and repeated calls to them
because it may achieve its goal of harassing them or their family-
member-customer into making payment.

Conn Appliances owns and operates a chain of retail home
appliances stores. The company is based in The Woodlands,
Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Russell S. Thompson IV, Esq.
          THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC
          5235 E. Southern Ave. D106-618
          Mesa, AZ 85206
          Telephone: (602) 388 8898
          Facsimile: (866) 317 2674
          E-mail: rthompson@consumerlawinfo.com


CVS HEALTH: "Prescott" Suit Transferred to Dist. of New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled JEANINE PRESCOTT, MICHAEL BEWLEY
SCOTT STUMELLO, JULIA BOSS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, and TYPE 1 DIABETES DEFENSE FOUNDATION,
also known as: T1DF, the Plaintiffs, v. CVS HEALTH CORPORATION,
CAREMARK RX, L.L.C., CAREMARK RX, INC., EXPRESS SCRIPTS HOLDING
COMPANY, EXPRESS SCRIPTS INC., UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC., OPTUMRX
INC., ABBOTT LABORATORIES, ABBOTT DIABETES CARE INC., ABBOTT
DIABETES CARE SALES CORPORATION, BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC, ASCENSIA
DIABETES CARE US INC., LIFESCAN, INC., JOHNSON & JOHNSON, and
ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-
00803, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey (Trenton) on Dec. 14, 2017. The New Jersey
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-13066-BRM-LHG to
the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Brian R.
Martinotti.

According to the complaint, like the skyrocketing price of
insulin, the list prices of glucose test strips -- the focus of
this case -- are artificially inflated as a result of a scheme and
enterprise among four dominant manufacturers and the three largest
PBMs. In this "Test Strip Pricing Scheme," the manufacturer
Defendants set two different prices for test strips--a publicly-
available "list" price and an undisclosed lower "net" price that
the PBMs actually pay for the test strips.

And, also like insulin, test strips are a big business. In 2015,
the global glucose monitoring and diabetes management market was
valued at over $10 billion. Every year, diabetes patients in the
United States spend close to $4 billion on the disposable strips.
As shown in the below figure, test strips comprise a significant
component of the global diabetes care market.

Attorneys for Michael Bewley:

          Derek W Loeser, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK
          1201 3rd Ave., Ste 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101-3052
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          E-mail: dloeser@kellerrohrback.com

Attorneys for Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.

          James F. Hurst, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAW, LLP
          35 West Wacker Drive, 41st Floor
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 558-5600
          E-mail: jhurst@winston.com

Attorneys for Ascensia Diabetes Care US Inc.

          Fred B Burnside, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE (SEA)
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2200
          Seattle, WA 98101-3045
          Telephone: (206) 757 8106
          Facsimile: (206) 757 7016

Attorneys for Roche Diagnostics Corporation

          Frank R. Volpe, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN
          1501 K STREET, N.W.
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: 202 736 8000
          Facsimile: 202 736 8711
          E-mail: fvolpe@Sidley.com


CYAN INC: 1998 Securities Reform Statute "Gibberish", Court Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Mann, writing for SCOTUSblog, reports that the key word in
the Nov. 28 argument in Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees
Retirement Fund was "gibberish" -- the characterization by several
of the justices of the text Congress provided in the Securities
Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998.  The argument revealed
the justices' frustration at the statute's sloppy craftsmanship.

The case involves the interplay between two sections of the
federal securities laws. 15 U.S.C. Sec. 77v states that the
"district courts . . . shall have jurisdiction . . ., concurrent
with State . . . courts, except as provided in section 77p of this
title with respect to covered class actions, of . . . actions . .
. to enforce any liability . . .created by [the Securities Act of
1933]."  However, as I explained in more detail in my preview,
nothing in Section 77p restricts the jurisdiction of state courts
over actions to enforce the Securities Act of 1933.  The
petitioner, Cyan (the defendant in the class action), argues that
the provision bars concurrent jurisdiction over all "covered class
actions," whether based on state law or federal law, pointing to a
definition of covered class actions in Section 77p.  The class-
action plaintiffs, Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund and
others, argue that the provision bars jurisdiction over "mixed"
state- and federal-law actions, pointing to a provision in Section
77p that bars securities class actions that rely on state (as
opposed to federal) law.  The government, offering yet another
reading, agrees with the plaintiffs that the statute bars only the
actions that rely on state law, but argues that defendants can
remove all actions (based on state or federal law) from state
court to federal court.

All the participating justices resisted the idea that any of those
three readings flows readily from the actual language of Section
77v quoted above.  So, for example, when Neal Katyal, representing
Cyan, summarized his position that the statute broadly bars all
state-court securities class actions -- whether based on federal
law or state law -- Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg responded that
"Congress chose a rather obtuse way of saying that federal courts
shall have exclusive jurisdiction.  I could have simply said, in
covered class actions related to claims under the '33 Act, federal
courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction, period, and that would
be clear and everybody would understand and you would prevail. But
the Congress certainly took a[n] odd route to getting there."
After suggesting that "this body could have written a much better
statute than our friends across the street," Mr. Katyal contended
that "the anomaly on the other side is far worse."

When Mr. Katyal tried to discuss the purpose of the statute as
opposed to the text, Justice Elena Kagan resisted: "Could we . . .
just talk about the text before we speak about the purpose?"
Justice Kagan then focused directly on what she saw as the central
weakness of Mr. Katyal's reading:

[T]he natural way to read that is we look at 77p, the whole thing,
and we see what's the "except" that's provided [there].  We don't
look to an ancillary definitional provision that all it does is
define a term.  We look for a rule that might be in conflict, that
could be taken to be in conflict, with the jurisdictional
provision. . . . So, . . . it just seems as though your
interpretation does a very odd thing textually when you read
"except as provided" in Section 77p to say let's look to a
definition in that section.

Mr. Katyal tried repeatedly to justify his reading, but Justice
Kagan closed the discussion by commenting: "[I]f your reading were
right, Mr. Katyal, it would be written something like: 'Except
with respect to [covered] class actions as defined in' -- not 'as
provided by' -- 'as defined in 77p(f)(2)' -- not just '77p.'"

Justice Sonia Sotomayor shared Justice Kagan's doubts about
Mr. Katyal's reading.  For her, the point of departure was "the
presumption, and one that exists when there's an ambiguity, that
says we presume in favor of concurrent jurisdiction."  Given the
apparent ambiguity of the statute, she contended that Mr. Katyal
was calling for "a fairly extreme result . . . taking a very
strong presumption, turning it on its head, and saying we're
ousting state courts o[f] jurisdiction o[ver] securities actions
that have nothing to do with federal law."

Justice Sotomayor appeared particularly exercised by the
application of Mr. Katyal's reading to bar state-law actions even
if they weren't pre-empted by the Securities Act, asking:

In what other situation where we do not have a federal law that
preempts a state law, have we ever permitted the federal
government to tell the states that they can't adjudicate a case
under their own law?

You can pass a federal law that says this federal law precludes
these actions.  But if you don't have one that says that, . . .
how can you order the state court not to adjudicate a claim that
is not precluded, . . . that is expressly not [pre]cluded?

Things didn't go much more smoothly for Allon Kedem, arguing on
behalf of the government for the view that Congress intended to
permit removal of all actions to federal court.  Justice Samuel
Alito for one found that reading untenable:

Do you really think that whoever wrote this removal provision
thought about all this stuff that you're telling us now? . . . If
they set out to do what you say this does, and they decided this
is the way we're going to do it, I think it's so far from reality
that it really strains credulity.

Mr. Kedem did, however, have the distinction of receiving a
sympathetic comment.  Justice Stephen Breyer posited a drafter
"given a task / / /to do two things . . . to  . . . get rid
of these state actions [and] to remove the federal act cases into
federal court."  For him, "this is the language that does it."  But
Justice Breyer immediately qualified his comment by suggesting
that the removal result for which Mr. Kedem argued was so
eccentric that "I would expect there would be a report and in this
report there would be an explanation such as you gave me of the
[text].  And my guess is there is no such report."  Mr. Kedem had
to concede, as Alito suggested, that there is nothing in the
legislative record to suggest that Congress had intended the
removal reading that the government posited.  Moreover, because
the case in fact was not removed from state court, several
justices (most notably Ginsburg and Justice Anthony Kennedy)
seemed to think that the court could not properly consider
Mr. Kedem's reading in this case even if the justices did find it
plausible.

The forceful questioning continued when Thomas Goldstein appeared
on behalf of the plaintiffs, arguing that the statute should be
read to match the jurisdictional provisions in section 77v to the
preclusion provisions in section 77p, a position that would permit
purely federal actions (like this one) to proceed in the state
courts.  Justice Neil Gorsuch commented that
Mr. Goldstein's reading left the statute so "superfluous" that it
was "stating the blindingly obvious, . . . closing a door twice."

Alito also criticized Mr. Goldstein's reading: "What sense does
that . . . make? The . . . state courts have concurrent
jurisdiction over '33 Act claims, except if a lawyer is foolish
enough to include in the state court complaint the state claims
that fall within the . . . prohibition . . . What sense does that
make?"

Mr. Goldstein countered that Section 77v is "not intended to do
very much.  It's a conforming amendment. We don't think that the
statute . . . is intended to accomplish very much."  But Justice
Ginsburg characterized Mr. Goldstein's reading as a "road to
nowhere" for the provision.

A comment of Justice Alito near the beginning of Mr. Katyal's
presentation captured the justices' frustration with the statutory
language:

Our late colleague [Antonin Scalia] wrote a book called Reading
Law, which provides guidance about how you read statutes. And I
looked through that to see what we are supposed to do when
Congress writes gibberish.  And that's what we have here. You said
it's obtuse.  That's flattering. And we have very smart lawyers
here who have come up with creative interpretations, but this is
gibberish.  It's . .  just gibberish.

Sharing Justice Alito's perspective, Justice Gorsuch later asked
Goldstein whether "[s]peaking of gibberish, aren't we stuck with
gibberish your way too? I mean, it seems like gibberish all the
way down here."

For Justice Alito, the drafting went far beyond the normal range
of ambiguity or lack of clarity.  Indeed, he suggested at one
point that the statute in this case was so poorly crafted as to
make the judicial task impossible: "I mean, all the readings that
everybody has given to all of these provisions are a stretch.  I'm
serious.  Is there a certain point at which we say this means
nothing, we can't figure out what it means, and, therefore, it has
no effect, it means nothing?" Presumably the justices won't issue
an opinion concluding that the statute means nothing. But the
tenor of the argument suggests that they may have a hard time
finding a reading to which all of them can subscribe.


DEL TACO: Jaffey Has Until Jan. 5 to Reply to Stay/Dismissal Bids
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL JAFFEY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DEL TACO RESTAURANTS,
INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-CV-02600-
JCM-PAL (D. Nev.), Judge of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada granted the parties stipulation that the
Plaintiff will file his opposition to the Motion to Stay and
Motion to Dismiss on or before Jan. 5, 2018 and Del Taco will file
its reply in support of the Motions on or before Jan. 26, 2018.

On Oct. 5, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a putative class action
complaint against Del Taco.  On Oct. 26, 2017, pursuant to the
parties' Joint Stipulation, the Court extend Del Taco's deadline
to respond to the complaint by to Nov. 22, 2017.

On Nov. 21, 2017, Del Taco filed its Motion to Stay and Motion to
Dismiss.  The Plaintiff's deadline to file his opposition to the
Motions is currently Dec. 5, 2017, and Del Taco's deadline to file
its reply in support of the Motions is currently Dec. 12, 2017.

Due to the holiday season, the relative complexity of the issues
presented, and the counsel's pre-existing business commitments,
the Plaintiff will require additional time to prepare his
opposition to both Motions, and Del Taco will require additional
time to prepare its reply briefs.

The parties have agreed to a briefing schedule for the Motion.
The stipulated briefing schedule agreed upon by the parties will
not alter any event or deadline already affixed by Court order.
The parties have stipulated and agreed that the Plaintiff will
file his opposition to the Motion on or before Jan. 5, 2018 and
Del Taco will file its reply in support of the Motion on or before
Jan. 26, 2018.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 29, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/o05Qjd from Leagle.com.

Michael Jaffey, Plaintiff, represented by Steven Lezell Woodrow --
swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com -- Woodrow & Peluso, LLC, pro hac vice.

Michael Jaffey, Plaintiff, represented by Patrick Harry Peluso --
ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com -- Woodrow & Peluso, LLC, pro hac vice &
Marc P. Cook, Cook and Kelesis, LTD.

Del Taco Restaurants, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew L.
Satenberg -- asatenberg@manatt.com -- Manatt, Phelps & Phillips,
pro hac vice, LeAnn Sanders -- lsanders@alversontaylor.com --
Alverson, Taylor, Mortensen & Sanders, Liam O'Gorman-Hoyt --
lhoyt@alversontaylor.com -- Alverson Taylor Mortensen & Sanders &
Matthew B. Golper -- mgolper@manatt.com -- Manatt, Phelps &
Phillips, LLP, pro hac vice.


DR REDDY'S: Faces Securities Class Action in New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------
The Economic Times reports that drug firm Dr Reddy's Laboratories
said it has been served a securities class action lawsuit in the
US for alleged violations of federal securities laws.

The lawsuit filed at the District Court for New Jersey seeks
damages to compensate the class of investors for a 'purported
decline' in the company's share price allegedly caused by the
misstatements or omissions.

"US Securities class action lawsuit has been served on the company
in the US by the lead plaintiff," Dr Reddy's Laboratories said in
a filing to BSE.

As intimated earlier, the company believes that the asserted
claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself
against the allegation, it added.

Regarding the lawsuit, earlier in August, Dr Reddy's had said: "On
August 25, 2017, a law firm representing a purported investor in
the company filed a purported class action lawsuit against the
company, its CEO and CFO in the US District Court for the District
of New Jersey alleging violation of the US federal securities
laws."

The company had said that the lawsuit represents a class of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's
publicly traded shares on the New York Stock Exchange between June
17, 2015 through August 10, 2017.

The lawsuit alleged that the company made materially false and/or
misleading statements or omissions in connection with its
corporate quality system, it had added.

The allegation is specifically in connection with a warning letter
from the USFDA dated November 6, 2015 and a letter from Regierung
von Oberbayern in Germany, dated August 10, 2017, Dr Reddy's said.
[GN]


DYNAMIC LEDGER: MacDonald Sues over Sale of Cryptocurrencies
------------------------------------------------------------
BRUCE MACDONALD, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. DYNAMIC LEDGER SOLUTIONS,
INC., a Delaware corporation, TEZOS STIFTUNG, a Swiss Foundation,
KATHLEEN BREITMAN, an Individual, ARTHUR BREITMAN, an Individual,
TIMOTHY COOK DRAPER, an individual, DRAPER ASSOCIATES, JOHANN
GEVERS, DIEGO PONZ, GUIDO SCHMITZKRUMMACHER, BITCOIN SUISSE AG,
NIKLAS NIKOLAJSEN, and DOES 1-100, INCLUSIVE, the Defendants, Case
No. 3:17-cv-07095-RS (N.D. Cal., Dec. 13, 2017), is a class action
brought on behalf of all persons who purchased Tezos tokens by
contributing fiat currency (e.g., U.S. Dollars) or other
consideration (including the blockchain-based digital currencies
bitcoin (BTC) and/or Ethereum ("ETC" or "ether")) to the Tezos
"Initial Coin Offering" ("ICO") in July 2017. Tezos tokens are
securities within the meaning of the California Corporations Code.
As such, any offering or sale of such securities are required to
be qualified under Cal. Corp
Code sections 25111, 25112 or 25113. But in violation of
California Corporations Code section 25110 and California's Unfair
Competition Law. The Defendants engaged in an illegal sale of
unqualified securities by offering and selling Tezos tokens
without qualifying the securities pursuant to the California
Corporations Code.

Tezos Foundation, a Swiss company seeking non-profit status,
currently holds the digital currencies paid by Plaintiff and other
investors, and describes itself as simply "an organization
dedicated to promoting the Tezos protocol. The Foundation has no
apparent legal oversight or compulsion to do anything at all, and
has admitted to gradually converting ICO proceeds into more
traditional assets such as "cash, stocks, bonds, and precious
metals" in order to "diversify" its assets.

In short, the ICO for the Tezos tokens was an illegal offer and
sale of securities for which no qualification was in effect, and
as to which no exemption from qualification was sought or
available. The ICO was a generalized solicitation made using
statements posted on the Internet and distributed throughout the
world, including in the United States, and the securities were
offered and sold to Plaintiff and the general public. Therefore,
under Cal. Corp Code section 25503, Plaintiff and the Class are
entitled to recover the consideration paid for the Tezos tokens
with interest thereon at the legal rate, or the equivalent in
monetary damages plus interest at the legal rate from the date of
purchase.  Moreover, unless the Defendants are permanently
restrained and enjoined from dissipating the proceeds of the ICO,
they will continue to engage in the acts, practices, and courses
of business set forth in this Complaint, including, but not
limited to, the conversion, selling, and dissipation of ICO
proceeds collected from the Class.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Reed R. Kathrein, Esq.
          Peter E. Borkon, Esq.
          Danielle Charles, Esq.
          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: 510 725 3000
          Facsimile: 510 725 3001
          E-mail: reed@hbsslaw.com
                  peterb@hbsslaw.com
                  daniellec@hbsslaw.com
                  steve@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
          Joel A. Fleming, Esq.
          Jacob A. Walker, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          155 Federal Street, Suite 400
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 398 5600
          E-mail: jason@blockesq.com
                  joel@blockesq.com
                  jake@blockesq.com


ELECTRONIC TRANSACTION: Dismissal of Olde Gulf Club Suit Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard Lowell Nygaard of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case,
OLDE HOMESTEAD GOLF CLUB, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CLASS
REPRESENTATIVE, Appellant, v. ELECTRONIC TRANSACTION SYSTEMS
CORPORATION, Case No. 16-4140 (3d Cir.).

ETS processes electronic payments and provides other services to a
wide array of merchants, including retail stores, restaurants, and
golf courses around the country.  The company is headquartered in
Loudoun County, Virginia, and is incorporated within that
Commonwealth.  ETS clients are required to sign a Merchant
Application and Agreement ("MAA"), a seven-page contract that
governs the relationship between ETS and its clients.  ETS and the
Club executed a new MAA in March of 2007.  The MAA contains a
forum selection clause, stating that any litigation that arises
between the parties will be brought in the state court in Loudoun
County.

Then, in December of 2007, ETS asked the Club to execute another
MAA, which the Club did.  This newly executed contact contained
the same forum selection clause as the one agreed-to in March,
2007.  The signed agreement was faxed to ETS, but that
transmission only included the first three pages of the document.
The final four pages of the MAA, which included the forum
selection clause, were not sent.

In July of 2016, the Club filed a complaint in the District Court
alleging that ETS breached the MAA by overbilling.  The Club also
alleged that ETS violated federal law by charging fees in excess
of the mandated maximum for certain transactions.  It also
attempted to certify a class to include other merchants who
executed MAAs with ETS.  The Club averred that ETS failed to
provide it (and other putative class members) with a copy of the
forum selection clause, and that the clause was both unenforceable
and unconscionable in any event.  ETS filed a motion to dismiss,
arguing forum non conveniens given the existence of the forum
selection clause.

The District Court held a hearing and ruled from the bench.  It
identified three issues: the Club's contention that it never saw
the forum selection clause, the validity of that clause, and
whether the clause was enforceable.  After dismissing the Club's
argument that it never saw the forum selection clause, the
District Court ruled that the clause was valid and should be
enforced.  It then dismissed the Club's complaint without
prejudice to it being re-filed in the appropriate state court.

The Club timely appealed, raising three issues.  First, it argues
that the District Court erred by ruling the forum selection clause
binding.  Next, the Club claims the District Court erred as to the
validity of the clause.  The enforceability -- or lack thereof --
of the clause is the focus of the Club's last argument.

First, Judge Nygaard finds that given the lack of evidence that
the Club never received the forum selection clause, the District
Court did not err by holding the Club to the terms and conditions
of the MAA.  Like the District Court, the Judge rejects the Club's
position that the clause is procedurally unconscionable because it
was not included in the MAA they executed because it is not
supported by the record.  He likewise rejects the Club's argument
that the forum selection clause violates public policy.  It seems
to him, and as noted by the District Court, the only public policy
implicated by these proceedings is the one favoring the
enforcement of forum selection clauses in these types of contracts
between these sophisticated parties.

Finally, Judge Nygaard holds that the District Court correctly
noted that the Club did not meet its heavy burden.  Not only will
Virginia law apply in the case, but ETS' headquarters, records,
and witnesses are located in that jurisdiction.  The only
connection the Club has to Pennsylvania is that its headquarters
is located there.  It was not an abuse of discretion for the
District Court to enforce the forum selection clause.

For these reasons, Judge Nygaard affirmed the District Court's
ruling dismissing the cause.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 29, 2017 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/CaiNEF from Leagle.com.


EQUIFAX INC: ICBA Files Class Action Over July 2017 Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tara M. Swaminatha, Esq. and India K. Scarver, Esq., of Squire
Patton Boggs, in an article for Lexology, wrote that in another
lawsuit against Equifax, the Independent Community Bankers of
America (ICBA), on behalf of thousands of community banks, seeks
to hold Equifax accountable for the July 2017 data breach that
potentially affected more than 145.5 million consumers.  ICBA,
along with Bank of Zachary and First State Bank, filed the class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia.

In analogous litigation, two open issues exist:

(1) First, whether alleging the threat of future harm -- as
opposed to alleging actual harm suffered -- is sufficient to
establish Article III standing, and

(2) Whether plaintiffs allege defendants' acts or omissions with
sufficient specificity.

Article III Standing for Threat of Future Harm vs. Actual Harm
Suffered

In the ICBA complaint, since Plaintiffs do allege actual harm
suffered, in addition to the threat of future harm, Article III
standing is likely established.  Specifically, Plaintiffs allege
actual harm suffered from having had the immediate need to
mitigate and rectify fraudulent transactions (i.e., monetary harm
from reissuing cards, stopping transactions, current monitoring
efforts, fielding questions from consumers).  Plaintiffs allege a
threat of future injury from: (i) having to continue monitoring
the "certainly impending risk" of fraudulent use of their
customers' stolen identities; (ii) further monetary injury
resulting from consumer emotional distress -- those emotionally
distressed consumers may choose to forego banking services,
instead opting to use cash, which ICBA argues will hurt revenue
from transaction fees, ATM fees, interest and other monetary
charges; and (iii) significant costs that will be incurred to
implement additional methods to determine customer authentication
and credit worthiness.

In analogous litigation, many plaintiffs only allege the threat of
future harm.  The Supreme Court may settle a circuit split on
whether such theoretical harm is sufficient to establish Article
III standing. On December 12, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
holds an open workshop for public commentary on the topic.

Alleging Defendants' Acts with Sufficient Specificity

Data breach plaintiffs often allege that the mere fact that a
defendant suffered a data breach sufficiently demonstrates that
the defendant (must have) behaved badly.  Absent allegations that
a defendant, for example, failed to fix a known insecurity, some
courts reject such vague allegations.  These plaintiffs face a
particular challenge prior to discovery because acts or omissions
that could have caused or enabled a data breach are not often
public.  In the Equifax case, however, Plaintiffs cite allegations
of specific wrongdoing likely gleaned from media reports,
including that Equifax actively mishandled its data security as
evidenced by (i) not following known industry standards and prior
recommendations, and (ii) failing to monitor its security systems.
All this, Plaintiffs claim, opened the door for hackers to access
the personally identifiable information and Payment Card Data of
millions of Americans.

Demands

ICBA demands that Equifax compensate community banks and other
financial institutions for "misfeasance" in failing to implement
recommended security protocols and failing to detect the presence
of hackers for weeks.  ICBA also demands Equifax employ "adequate"
security protocols consistent with industry standards to protect
personally identifiable information and Payment Card Data. [GN]


EXACTECH INC: "Pappalardo" Suit Challenges Osteon Merger
--------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY PAPPALARDO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. EXACTECH, INC., WILLIAM
PETTY, DAVID W. PETTY, JAMES G. BINCH, WILLIAM B. LOCANDER,
RICHARD C. SMITH, FERN S. WATTS, W. ANDREW KRUSEN, JR., OSTEON
HOLDINGS, L.P., OSTEON MERGER SUB, INC., and TPG CAPITAL L.P., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00303-MW-GRJ (N.D. Fla., Dec. 14,
2017), seeks to enjoin Defendants from taking any steps to
consummate a proposed merger transaction, including filing a
definitive proxy statement with the Securities and Exchange
Commission or otherwise causing a Definitive Proxy to be
disseminated to Exactech's shareholders, unless and until certain
material information is included in the Definitive Proxy or
otherwise disseminated to Exactech's Shareholders.

Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of the public
stockholders of Exactech, Inc. against Exactech's Board of
Directors for their violations of Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, arising out of the Board's
attempt to sell the Company to TPG Capital, L.P. through its
affiliate Osteon Holdings, L.P. and its wholly-owned subsidiary
Osteon Merger Sub, Inc.

The Defendants have violated the Exchange Act by causing a
materially incomplete and misleading preliminary proxy statement
to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
December 4, 2017, the lawsuit claims.  The Proxy recommends that
Exactech shareholders vote in favor of a proposed transaction
whereby Exactech is acquired by TPG. The Proposed Transaction was
first disclosed on October 23, 2017, when Exactech and TPG
announced that they had entered into a definitive merger agreement
pursuant to which TPG will acquire all the outstanding shares of
common stock of Exactech for $42.00 per share. Exactech and TPG
announced on December 4 that the Merger Agreement had been amended
to reflect a new price of $49.25 per share. The deal is valued at
approximately $737 million and is expected to close in the first
quarter of 2018.

The Proxy is materially incomplete and contains misleading
representations and information in violation of Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act. Specifically, the Proxy contains
materially incomplete and misleading information concerning the
sales process, financial projections prepared by Exactech
management, as well as the financial analyses conducted by J.P.
Morgan Securities LLC, Exactech's financial advisor.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cullin O'Brien, Esq.
          CULLIN O'BRIEN LAW, P.A.
          6541 NE 21st Way
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33308
          Telephone: (561) 676 6370
          Facsimile: (561) 320 0285
          E-mail: cullin@cullinobrienlaw.com

               - and -

          Shane T. Rowley, Esq.
          ROWLEY LAW PLLC
          Danielle Rowland Lindahl
          50 Main Street, Suite 1000
          White Plains, NY 10606
          Telephone: (914) 400 1920
          Facsimile: (914) 301 3514


FCA US: "Canfield" Suit Moved to District of Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Timothy Canfield, Andrew Cattano,
Dennis Peck, Steven Spratley, Susan Stebbins, and Yvette Taylor,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. FCS US LLC formerly known as: Chrysler Group LLC,
the Defendant, Case No. N17C-10-00198 WCC, was removed from
Delaware Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware (Wilmington) on Dec. 12, 2017. The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-01789-UNA to the
proceeding.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Peter Bradford deLeeuw, Esq.
          Jeffrey S. Goddess, Esq.
          ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A.
          Mellon Bank Center, Suite 1401
          P.O. Box 1070
          919 Market Street
          Wilmington, DE 19899-1070
          Telephone: (302) 656 4433
          E-mail: bdeleeuw@rmgglaw.com
                  jgoddess@rmgglaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Somers S. Price, Jr.
          POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON, LLP
          1313 N. Market St., Hercules Plaza, 6th Flr.
          P.O. Box 951
          Wilmington, DE 19899-0951
          Telephone: (302) 984 6000
          E-mail: sprice@potteranderson.com


FIRST CHOICE: "Vincent" Suit Seeks OT Compensation under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID VINCENT, the Plaintiff, v. FIRST CHOICE PLUMBING SOLUTIONS,
LLC, and MANUEL DURAN, individually, the Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-14430-RLR (S.D. Fla., Dec. 12, 2017), seeks to recover
overtime compensation as required by federal law and the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants hired Plaintiff as an employee in September 2016,
and he worked for them until February 2017. The Plaintiff then
started working for Defendants again in September 2017, and he
worked for them until December 2017. Plaintiff does not recall the
precise date that he was employed by Defendants. The Defendants
kept the Plaintiff's work hours using a software program called
"Service Fusion." Defendants would routinely sign Plaintiff out of
the system, despite the fact that he continued performing work on
behalf of the Defendants. While working for Defendants, Plaintiff
and the Class performed non-exempt duties as plumbing assistants.
Specifically, Plaintiff's job duties included but were not limited
to loading work trucks, repairing plumbing leaks, clearing blocked
drains, installing water heaters, cleaning toilets, determining
the source of water leaks etc.

The Defendants paid Plaintiff an hourly rate of $10.00 per hour on
his check, and an additional $3.00 per hour in cash "off the
books." Defendants refused to employ Plaintiff unless he agreed to
this arrangement. While working for Defendants, Plaintiff was
never paid at an overtime rate, regardless of the number of hours
Plaintiff worked. Defendants also refused to pay Plaintiff at all
for his last week of wages. Instead of paying Plaintiff,
Defendants called the sheriff's department and lodged a complaint
so that Plaintiff could not return to obtain his final paycheck.

The Defendants never compensated Plaintiff or the Class at an
overtime rate, despite the fact that they routinely worked in
excess of 50 hours within a single work week. The Defendant First
Choice Plumbing Solutions, LLC is a company that performs plumbing
services that suffers persons such as Plaintiff and the Class to
labor on its behalf for its business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Dennis Card, Jr., Esq.
          Darren R. Newhart., Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW ORGANIZATION, P.A.
          721 US Highway 1, Suite 201
          North Palm Beach, FL 33408
          Telephone: (561) 822 3446
          Facsimile: (305) 574 0132
          E-mail: dennis@cloorg.com
                  darren@cloorg.com


FLEXI HOLIDAY: Responds to Class Action Over Timeshare Agreements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Cairns, writing for Moneyweb, reports that earlier in
November consumer rights lawyer Trudie Broekmann was planning a
class action suit against holiday clubs on behalf of at least 70
of her clients.  She argues that not only do none of the contracts
she has seen between holiday clubs and their members comply with
legislation, but that the companies do not deliver on their
obligations.

Mrs Broekmann also noted that she had legally cancelled 48
contracts on behalf of clients, mostly with Quality Vacation Club
and Flexi Holiday Club.  However, she had received no response
from these two companies to her letters.

Flexi Holiday Club has now disputed this, claiming that it has "no
record of any cancellations facilitated by Trudie Broekmann
attorneys". The company also claimed that "other than stating that
timeshare agreements are 'illegal and don't comply with the legal
requirements', Mrs Broekmann has provided no specifics".

Yet Moneyweb is in possession of a letter from Broekmann addressed
to Club Leisure Management, which is Flexi Holiday Club's
management company that was sent both by email and registered post
on August 31 this year.  It not only serves to cancel her clients'
contract, but lays out extremely detailed reasons for doing so.

Complaints

Flexi Holiday Club also claimed that Mrs Broekmann misrepresented
how many complaints had been laid against holiday clubs at the
National Consumer Commission (NCC).  In a press release, she had
noted that, according to NCC commissioner Ebrahim Mohamed, the
Department of Trade and Industry had received several thousand
complaints about the industry.

"The number of NCC complaints quoted by Trudie Broekmann differs
substantially from the number quoted to the industry by the NCC,"
Flexi Club claimed.  "To put this matter into context, the number
of complaints received by the NCC Public Inquiry and lodged with
the Consumer Goods and Services Ombud totals 440, which
constitutes 0.1% of all timeshare weeks owned."

Mrs Broekmann was however only quoting information already in the
public domain.  Mohamed has been quoted in the media as saying
that thousands of complaints have been received, and Moneyweb has
also reported on how the Freedom Front Plus has submitted more
than 4 000 complaints to the NCC on behalf of consumers.

Court action

Given that the NCC has already conducted public hearings and is
engaged in addressing issues in the industry, Flexi Holiday Club
also questioned why Mrs Broekmann still felt it was necessary to
take the issue to court.

"Considering that class actions are known to be amongst the most
protracted and costly means of consumer resolution and that the
NCC Inquiry Panel is expected to make recommendations in the first
quarter of next year, which at the very least will include new
consumer protection and possibly legislative reforms, why would
Mrs Broekmann engage in legal action knowing that it is likely
that such action may become redundant?" the company asked.

Mrs Broekmann however argues that, on the contrary, class actions
are known to settle quickly after a class has been registered and
that legislative reform won't help her clients.

"A class action is specifically provided for in the CPA, and is an
efficient way of dealing with broad-spectrum consumer complaints,"
she points out.  "I am waiting for the NCC's report on their
investigation into the industry before I finalise my strategy, but
I expect they will only recommend legislative reform, which is a
slow and uncertain process and most likely will not assist my
clients who already have timeshare, as legislation cannot have a
retroactive effect."

She added that the benefit of a class action is that the legal
costs are spread between claimants, which makes them manageable.

False pretenses

Flexi Holiday Club also urged consumers to "consult with their
personal attorneys before participating in any class action to
avoid contributing financially to an undertaking which may never
materialise, or which is specifically designed to extort monies
from consumers under false pretenses, as occurred in Europe".

Moneyweb asked whether Flexi Club was suggesting that
Mrs Broekmann was deliberately extorting money from her clients,
but the company responded that:

"We are merely urging consumers to act with caution to prevent a
repeat of what happened in Europe where attorneys, or entities
purporting to be attorneys, extorted money from consumers under
the pretext of a pending class action, which ultimately never
materialised.  We have also written to Mrs Broekmann to request a
list of the complaints against Flexi Holiday Club to engage with
her to achieve a swift resolution for these consumers, however we
have not yet received a response."

Mrs Broekmann however notes that she is under no obligation to
disclose her legal strategy.  She also pointed out that the legal
profession is regulated and lawyers can be removed from the roll
if they are found to have misled clients or undertaken litigation
under false pretences.

"The class action will only go ahead once the legal team is
satisfied that the legal grounds are sound, the best strategy is
being employed and enough consumers are committed to take part to
make the legal charges relatively affordable," Mrs Broekmann said.
"We intend to engage at least one senior advocate and we are
obtaining input from counsel who have already launched a class
action in South Africa, so there will be a legal team of
heavyweights who will all have to be convinced that the remedy I
suggest can be achieved before we start approaching consumers to
join up." [GN]


FORCE FRAMING: Orozco Seeks Minimum Wage, OT under Labor Code
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE OROZCO, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FORCE FRAMING, INC., a
California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, the Defendants,
Case No. BC686094 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 13, 2017), seeks to
recover minimum wage and overtime wages under California Labor
Code.

The Plaintiff has worked for Defendants as a laborer since 2016,
but has been on a medical leave of absence since approximately
August 24, 2017. Throughout his employment with Defendants,
Plaintiff was paid on a piece-rate basis, whereby he was paid a
pre-determined rate per square foot based on the framing projects
he completed. Plaintiff was compensated exclusively on a piece-
rate basis, and Defendants did not maintain any record of the
hours worked by Plaintiff.

Additionally, throughout his employment with Defendants, Plaintiff
regularly worked in excess of 8 hours per day and/or 40 hours per
week. However, as a result of being compensated solely on a piece-
rate basis, the Plaintiff was not compensated at one and one half
times his regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 8
hours per day and/or 40 hours per week, and was therefore deprived
of all overtime compensation. Further, as a result of Defendants'
failure to record the hours Plaintiff worked.

The Plaintiff did not receive all overtime compensation to which
he was entitled. Lastly, Defendants' failure to compensate
Plaintiff and other piece-rate employees for non-productive time
has resulted in a failure to compensate these employees at one-
and-a-half times the regular rate of pay for overtime hours, as
non-productive wages are required to be included in the regular
rate of pay for purposes of determining overtime compensation.

Force Framing is in the framing contractor business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


G SECURITY: "Osorio" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
CINDY LEE OSORIO, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. G SECURITY SERVICES LLC, d/b/a
PATROL SERVICES OF ORLANDO, and JOHN GRASTA, the Defendants, Case
No. 6:17-cv-02138-JA-GJK (M.D. Fla., Dec. 14, 2017), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendant PSO is a private security business.  GRASTA is the
Captain and Manager of PSO. In that position, GRASTA exercises
significant control over the company's operations, has the power
to hire and fire employees, the power to determine salaries, the
responsibility to maintain employment records and has operational
control over significant aspects of the company's day-to-day
functions.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from April 2, 2017
through June 25, 2017 as a security officer. During this time
period, Defendants failed to pay any overtime compensation to
Plaintiff or other similarly situated security officers. The
Defendants failed to comply with the FLSA because Plaintiff, and
other similarly situated security officers, were regularly
required to work in excess of 40 hours a workweek were not paid
overtime compensation as required by the FLSA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jay P. Lechner, Esq.
          WHITTEL & MELTON, LLC
          One Progress Plaza
          200 Central Avenue, #400
          St. Petersburg, FL 33701
          Telephone: (727) 822 1111
          Facsimile: (727) 898 2001
          E-mail: Pleadings@theFLlawfirm.com
                  lechnerj@theFLlawfirm.com
                  sonia@theFLlawfirm.com


GALARDI SOUTH: "Ross" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARK ROSS, the Plaintiff, v. GALARDI SOUTH ENTERPRISES CONSULTING,
INC. and RED EYED, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-05119-
WSD (N.D. Ga., Dec. 13, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and
other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked as Security
Officer for Defendants out of Defendants' worksite located at 2555
Chantilly Drive, Atlanta, GA 30324.  The Plaintiff worked out of
the principal office address that both Galardi and Red Eyed
shared.  Plaintiff guarded the exterior of Defendants' properties
and provided security duties for specific events.  Plaintiff
worked in this capacity from March 2012 through July 2017. The
Plaintiff earned a rate of pay of $9.00 an hour. The Defendant
agreed to pay Plaintiff wages for work performed by Plaintiff.
Plaintiff accepted this agreement and did work for Defendant.
During his employment, Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40
hours a week, but was not paid time and one-half his regular rate
of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per work week during
one or more work weeks.

According to the lawsuit, Defendants subjected class members to
the same illegal practice policy by not paying Plaintiff and those
similarly situated correct overtime wages. The Defendants employed
security officers who were improperly paid overtime wages in the
State of Georgia within the past three years.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adian Miller, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          191 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 4200
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 496 7332
          Facsimile: (404) 496 7428
          E-mail: armiller@forthepeople.com


GATEWAY ENERGY: Court Junks "Bell" Fraud Suit Without Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Katherine B. Forrest of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted the Defendants' motions to
dismiss the case, DANIELLE BELL, ERIN HITCHNER, and JONATHAN W.
WALKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiffs, v. GATEWAY ENERGY SERVICES CORPORATION and
DIRECT ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-3893 (KBF)
(S.D. N.Y.).

On May 23, 2017, the Plaintiffs commenced the purported class
action against two energy providers, the Defendants.  They allege
in sum that they were misled into contracting with Gateway for
energy services by certain false promises.  The Defendants raised
the threshold issue in their respective motions to dismiss of
whether the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the
Plaintiffs' claims.

Judge Forrest finds that the allegations that Direct Energy
dominates Gateway or even sets consumer prices fall short of
asserting that Direct Energy injured these Plaintiffs in any way.
And clear precedent in this circuit holds that the plaintiffs may
not bring class actions against non-injurious defendants, even
when they are affiliates of one another.  Because the Plaintiffs
here -- who contracted only with Gateway -- have no direct claim
against Direct Energy, and because they have no standing to assert
any claims that might exist on behalf of Direct Energy's other
(non-Gateway) customers, she concludes that Direct Energy must be
dismissed as a Defendant from the case.

With Direct Energy dismissed from the case, the Judge next turns
to the question of whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over
the claims against the one remaining Defendant -- Gateway.  She
concludes that the Court does not.  The Court, like all federal
courts, is one of limited jurisdiction.  It cannot hear a case
unless it has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims
asserted, and plaintiffs bear the burden on that issue.  Further,
the Plaintiffs must carry their burden with respect to subject
matter jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.  When a
factual challenge to the court's jurisdiction has been raised, the
court may resolve any disputed jurisdictional fact issues by
referring to evidence outside of the pleadings.

Judge Forrest further concludes that CAFA's exclusion set forth in
28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(4)(B) applies.  It is clear from the SAC
that Gateway is the "primary defendant" in the case.  All of the
Plaintiffs contracted directly with Gateway, and Gateway is
alleged to have made the actionable misrepresentations (some
predating the acquisition by Direct Energy).  Because greater than
two-thirds of all proposed Plaintiffs and Gateway are citizens of
New York, which is the state the action was filed, 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332(d)(4)(B) applies and the Court has no jurisdiction to
hear the action.  Without CAFA, the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' claims, and the case must be
dismissed.

For the reasons she states, Judge Forrest granted without
prejudice the Defendants' respective motions to dismiss the SAC.
She directed the Clerk of Court to terminate all open motions and
to terminate the action.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 29, 2017 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/CVV1vb from Leagle.com.

Danielle Bell, Individually and all behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Nick Suciu, III --
nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com -- Barbat Mansour & Suciu PLLC.

Danielle Bell, Individually and all behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin Laukaitis --
klaukaitis@kohnswift.com -- Kohn, Swift, & Graf, P.C. & Jonathan
Shub -- jshub@kohnswift.com -- Kohn, Swift, & Graf, P.C..

Erin Hitchner, Individually and all behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin Laukaitis, Kohn, Swift,
& Graf, P.C. & Jonathan Shub, Kohn, Swift, & Graf, P.C..

Jonathan W. Walker, Individually and all behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin Laukaitis,
Kohn, Swift, & Graf, P.C. & Jonathan Shub, Kohn, Swift, & Graf,
P.C..

Gateway Energy Services Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Andrew M. Edison -- andrew.edison@emhllp.com -- Edison, McDowell &
Hetherington LLP, Diane Wizig -- diane.wizig@emhllp.com -- Edison,
McDowell & Hetherington, LLP, Michael D. Matthews --
matt.matthews@emhllp.com -- Edison, McDowell & Hetherington LLP,
Steven Miles Lucks -- slucks@fishkinlucks.com -- Fishkins Lucks
LLP & Zachary Winthrop Silverman -- zsilverman@fishkinlucks.com --
Fishkin Lucks LLP.

Direct Energy Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew M.
Edison, Edison, McDowell & Hetherington LLP, Diane Wizig, Edison,
McDowell & Hetherington, LLP, Michael D. Matthews, Edison,
McDowell & Hetherington LLP, Steven Miles Lucks, Fishkins Lucks
LLP & Zachary Winthrop Silverman, Fishkin Lucks LLP.


GENESIS LOGISTICS: Settlement in "Aguirre" Has Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled GARMALIEL AGUIRRE, LUIS BERNAL, KAREEM CRAIG,
GREG GUERRERO, MARTHA HILDEBRAND, BRET LAMBOURNE, MATTHEW
LAMBOURNE, DAN LE BOEUF, CARLOS MARTINEZ, BRIAN MATA, JOHN M.
ORTEGA, ANTHONY ORTIZ, HENRY RENDON, KENNY SWAILS, and all other
"aggrieved" employees, Plaintiffs, v. GENESIS LOGISTICS INC., an
Ohio corporation, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
SACV12-00687 JVS (KESx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge James V. Selna of the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted
final approval of the parties' Class Action Settlement and
Stipulation Agreement.

Having previously granted preliminary approval of the parties'
Settlement Agreement, the matter now comes before the Court for
final approval of the proposed settlement set forth in the
Settlement Agreement.

Judge Selna granted final approval of the proposed settlement set
forth in the Settlement Agreement.  He finds that the proposed
settlement is, in all respects, fair, adequate and reasonable and
directs the Parties to effectuate the Settlement Agreement
according to its terms.

The Judge approved the proposed allocation of the Gross Settlement
Fund as set forth in the Settlement Agreement as well as the Class
Counsel's requests for $2,333,333 in attorneys' fees and
$61,635.94 in costs to be paid from the Gross Settlement Fund
provided for in the Settlement Agreement.

The Class Counsel will not be entitled to any other award of
attorneys' fees or costs in any way connected with the action.
Any separate appeal from the Order as to the Class Counsel
Attorneys' Fees and Costs and/or the Class Representative
Enhancement will not operate to terminate or cancel the Settlement
Agreement or otherwise affect the finality of the Order.

The Judge also approved the enhancement payment of $5,000 to
$15,000 each to the Class Representatives (for a total of
$190,000) from the Gross Settlement Fund.  He approved the
following tiered enhancement awards:

    a. Tier One: $15,000 Garmaliel Aguirre Brian Mata Monica
Torres Martha Hildebrand Henry Rendon Bret Lambourne Kenny Swails

    b. Tier Two: $10,000 Luis Bernal Quincy Jefferson John M.
Ortega Greg Guerrero Dan Le Boeuf Anthony Ortiz

    c. Tier Three: $5,000 Kareem Craig Matthew Lambourne Nicho
David Vera Juan Gonzalez Carlos Martinez

Judge Selna further approved the payment of $1,000,000 of the
Gross Settlement Amount as PAGA penalties from the Gross
Settlement Fund.  This $1,000,000 will be distributed with 75%
($750,000) going to the California Labor and Workforce Development
Agency, and the remaining 25% ($250,000) being divided equally
among the Settlement Class Members and included in their
Settlement Awards.  He approved the payment of $12,250 to the
Claims Administration from the Gross Settlement Fund.

For all other purposes, the Judge entered the judgment under the
terms of his Order, and dismissed the case with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 29, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/tlxlr5 from Leagle.com.

Garmaliel Aguirre, Plaintiff, represented by Aashish Y. Desai --
aashish@desai-law.com -- Desai Law Firm PC.

Garmaliel Aguirre, Plaintiff, represented by Maria Adrianne De
Castro, Desai Law Firm PC.

Luis Bernal, Plaintiff, represented by Aashish Y. Desai, Desai Law
Firm PC & Maria Adrianne De Castro, Desai Law Firm PC.

Kareem Craig, Plaintiff, represented by Aashish Y. Desai, Desai
Law Firm PC & Maria Adrianne De Castro, Desai Law Firm PC.

Greg Guerrero, Plaintiff, represented by Aashish Y. Desai, Desai
Law Firm PC & Maria Adrianne De Castro, Desai Law Firm PC.

Martha Hildebrand, Plaintiff, represented by Aashish Y. Desai,
Desai Law Firm PC & Maria Adrianne De Castro, Desai Law Firm PC.

Bret Lambourne, Plaintiff, represented by Aashish Y. Desai, Desai
Law Firm PC & Maria Adrianne De Castro, Desai Law Firm PC.

Matthew Lambourne, Plaintiff, represented by Aashish Y. Desai,
Desai Law Firm PC & Maria Adrianne De Castro, Desai Law Firm PC.

Dan Le Boeuf, Plaintiff, represented by Aashish Y. Desai, Desai
Law Firm PC & Maria Adrianne De Castro, Desai Law Firm PC.

Carlos Martinez, Plaintiff, represented by Aashish Y. Desai, Desai
Law Firm PC & Maria Adrianne De Castro, Desai Law Firm PC.

Genesis Logistics, Defendant, represented by Matthew A. Hodel --
mhodel@hodelwilks.com -- Hodel Wilks LLP, Ashley E. Merlo --
amerlo@hodelwilks.com -- Hodel Wilks LLP, Frederick L. Wilks --
fwilks@hodelwilks.com -- Hodel Wilks LLP, James E. Davidson --
james.davidson@icemiller.com -- Ice Miller LLP, pro hac vice, Paul
L. Bittner -- paul.bittner@icemiller.com -- Ice Miller LLP, pro
hac vice & John Patrick Gilligan -- john.gilligan@icemiller.com --
Ice Miller LLP.


GOOGLE INC: Faces iPhone Data Snooping Class Action in UK
---------------------------------------------------------
Tom Warren, writing for The Verge, reports that Google may be
forced to pay out compensation to more than 5 million Brits if a
class action lawsuit in the UK is successful.  A group, labeling
itself "Google You Owe Us," is taking Google to court, claiming it
unlawfully collected personal information by bypassing privacy
settings on Apple's iPhone Safari browser.  Google, Facebook, and
several other online advertising networks were caught in 2012
using a workaround to bypass restrictions, allowing the companies
to deposit cookies on an iPhone even if the device was set to
block them.

While Google claimed at the time its practice was limited to the
company's failed Google+ initiative, the UK lawsuit alleges that
Google used the workaround to track "internet browsing history,
which Google then used to sell a targeted advertising service."
Google's revenues rely on selling targeted ads, and obtaining as
much personal information on its users to sell services and
recommend products.

Richard Lloyd, former director of consumer body Which? In the UK,
is taking Google to court alongside law firm Mischon de Reya.  "I
believe that what Google did was simply against the law.  Their
actions have affected millions, and we'll be asking the courts to
remedy this major breach of trust," explains Lloyd in an interview
with The Guardian.  "Through this action, we will send a strong
message to Google and other tech giants in Silicon Valley that
we're not afraid to fight back if our laws are broken."

The case is rather unique in the UK against a giant tech company.
While there have been numerous class action lawsuits in the US
against big tech companies, the practice isn't as widespread in
the UK.  Google was forced to pay a $22.5 million fine for the
same Safari privacy breach back in 2012. At the time it was one of
the highest fines the Federal Trade Commission had administered.
Britain's High Court will hear the case some time next year, and
if the action is successful then iPhone users from 2011-2012 will
be able to claim part of the damages. Google says it will defend
the case.  "This is not new," says a Google spokesperson.  "We
have defended similar cases before.  We don't believe it has any
merit and we will contest it." [GN]


GOOGLE INC: Jan. 5 Reply Deadline on "Sweet" Dismissal Bid
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled JAMES SWEET; CHUCK MERE; ZOMBIE GO BOOM, LLC,
DBA ZOMBIEGOBOOM, Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE, LLC; YOUTUBE, LLC; and
DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-03953-EMC (N.D.
Cal.), Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, continued
the Plaintiff's deadline to file opposition to the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss to Jan. 25, 2018 from Dec. 14, 2017.

On July 13, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a purported Class Action
Complaint against the Defendant, and served the Complaint on the
Defendant on Aug. 4, 2017.  On Oct. 26, 2017, he filed their First
Amended Complaint ("FAC") against the Defendant, and served the
FAC on the Defendant on Oct. 26, 2017.  The Defendant filed, on
Nov. 30, 2017, a Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff's FAC.

Pursuant to Northern District of California Local Rule 7-3(a), the
Plaintiff's deadline to file an opposition to the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss is Dec. 14, 2017, only 14 days after the
Defendant's filing of their Motion.  Said Motion is scheduled to
be heard on Jan. 4, 2018.

The Plaintiff's lead counsel will be out of the country for a
period of time encompassing the Motion to Dismiss' hearing date,
the parties wish to continue the Plaintiff's deadline to file
their opposition to the Defendant's Motion, and to research and
respond adequately to the Defendant's issues raised in their
Motion.

The parties have stipulated and agreed to extend the deadline to
Jan. 25, 2018 for the Plaintiff to file their opposition to
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.  They've agreed to extend the
deadline to Feb. 8, 2018 for the Defendant to respond to the
Plaintiff's opposition to the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

The parties will request the Court to vacate the Jan. 4, 2018,
hearing date for the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint
and set the hearing date for March 1, 2018.  They request that the
case management conference currently scheduled for March 1, 2018,
be continued to May 3, 2018.

Judge Chen granted the parties' stipulation.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 1, 2017 Order is available at
https://is.gd/lO4BML from Leagle.com.

James Sweet, Plaintiff, represented by Todd Michael Friedman, Law
Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C.

James Sweet, Plaintiff, represented by Adrian Bacon, Law Offices
of Todd M. Friedman, P.C.

Chuck Mere, Plaintiff, represented by Todd Michael Friedman, Law
Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. & Adrian Bacon, Law Offices of
Todd M. Friedman, P.C.

Zombie Go Boom, LLC dba ZombieGoBoom, Plaintiff, represented by
Todd Michael Friedman, Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. &
Adrian Bacon, Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C.

Google, Inc., Defendant, represented by Anthony J. Weibell --
aweibell@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Lena Ting
Yi Wong -- lwong@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati,
Maura Lea Rees -- MRees@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich &
Rosati & Eli Bard Richlin -- erichlin@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich and Rosati PC, pro hac vice.

YouTube, LLC, Defendant, represented by Anthony J. Weibell, Wilson
Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati A Professional Corporation.

Google LLC, Defendant, represented by Anthony J. Weibell, Wilson
Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati A Professional Corporation.


HAT WORLD: Court Grants Conditional Certification in "Ward"
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MATTHEW WARD, on behalf of himself individually and
on behalf of other similarly situated current or former employees,
Plaintiff, v. HAT WORLD, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02557-
TWP-MJD (S.D. Ind.), Judge Tanya Walton Pratt of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division,
granted Ward's Motion for conditional certification and denied the
request for a hearing.

Hat World is a Minnesota corporation that operates a retail
business out of Indianapolis, Indiana.  Ward previously was
employed by Defendant Hat World as a regional loss prevention
investigator ("RLPI").  As a salaried employee, he often worked
more than 40 hours per week, yet Hat World failed to pay him any
overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours. Because he
was not paid overtime wages, Ward initiated the lawsuit against
Hat World under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and under
similar state law provisions.

The Plaintiff asks the Court to conditionally certify a collective
action for the FLSA claim and permit notice to potential
Plaintiffs who similarly have worked or are working for Hat World
as RLPIs and who have not been paid for overtime work.  Also
before the Court is Ward's Request for Oral Argument on his
Motion.

Judge Pratt finds that the arguments advanced by each party and
the evidence offered in support show that RLPIs employed by Hat
World have similar job responsibilities, are subject to similar
company policies and practices, and are paid under a similar
compensation structure.  Additionally, there appears to be no
dispute that all RLPIs have been similarly classified by Hat World
as "exempt" employees.  Whether that "exempt" classification is
actually appropriate is at the heart of the parties' dispute and
is a merits question.  It appears that Ward and the potential
Plaintiffs are similarly situated employees who were subject to a
common policy, plan, or practice.  The issue to be resolved later
on the merits is whether that common policy, plan, or practice
violated the law.  Therefore, the Judge concludes that Ward has
met his burden of making a modest factual showing that he is
similarly situated to the potential Plaintiffs to conditionally
certify a collective action against Hat World.

Therefore, Judge Pratt granted Ward's Motion and conditionally
certified the FLSA claim as a collective action for the class of
all RLPIs who are working or have worked for Hat World at any time
in the past three years and during their employment worked, at any
time, in excess of 40 hours in a given week.

The Judge ordered that Hat World to produce the Employee
Information of all current and former RLPIs who are or were
employed by Hat World during the three-year period prior to the
date of the Order.  She also ordered Hat World to provide the
Employee Information in a usable electronic format to counsel for
Ward within 14 days from the entry of the Order.

She authorized that the proposed "Notice of Right to Join Lawsuit"
and corresponding "Consent to Join" form submitted by Ward at
Filing No. 52-1 at 4-7 and Filing No. 52-1 at 8 may be issued to
those individuals whose names are provided by Hat World as
required by the Order.  The Notice will be mailed within seven
days after Hat World provides the Employee Information.  The
"Consent to Join" form will be enclosed with the Notice, along
with a self-addressed, postage paid return envelope.  Ward is
permitted to send subsequent mailings of this Notice.  The Notice
and Consent forms will be mailed by first-class mail or overnight
delivery.

The potential Plaintiffs will have 60 days after the deadline for
mailing of the Notice of Right to Join Lawsuit to return a Consent
to Join form to opt-in to the litigation, unless the parties agree
to permit late filings or good cause can be shown as to why the
form was not returned prior to the deadline.

Judge Pratt denied as moot Ward's Request for Oral Argument on His
Motion for Conditional Collective Action Certification.  She notes
that Attorneys Scott McKay, Curt Hineline, and James Morrison are
not registered for electronic filing in the district despite
having been ordered to do so.  The Clerk of Court is not required
to mail hard copies to the unregistered attorneys.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 29, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/927gdM from Leagle.com.

MATTHEW WARD, Plaintiff, represented by Scott J. McKay, LAW
OFFICES OF SCOTT MCKAY.

MATTHEW WARD, Plaintiff, represented by Marina Visan, CARSON &
NOEL PLLC, pro hac vice & Todd W. Wyatt -- todd@carsonnoel.com --
CARSON & NOEL PLLC, pro hac vice.

HAT WORLD INC., Defendant, represented by James Raymond Morrison -
- jmorrison@bakerlaw.com -- BAKER HOSTETLER LLP, Bonnie Keane
DelGobbo -- bdelgobbo@bakerlaw.com -- BAKER HOSTETLER LLP, Joel
Griswold -- jcgriswold@bakerlaw.com -- BAKER HOSTETLER LLP, John
Conlaeth McIlwee -- jmcilwee@bakerlaw.com -- BAKER & HOSTETLER &
Curt Roy Hineline -- chineline@bakerlaw.com -- BAKER HOSTETLER
LLP.


HEIGHTS TOWER: Bid to Decertify "Pietrzycki" Class Denied
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JASON PIETRZYCKI, on behalf of himself and all other
plaintiffs similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HEIGHTS TOWER
SERVICE, INC., and MARK MOTTER, Defendants, Case No. 14 C 6546
(N.D. Ill.), Magistrate Judge Jeffrey T. Gilbert of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, the
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, and the Defendants'
Motion to Decertify.

On Aug. 25, 2014, Pietrzycki filed the original complaint in the
case on behalf of himself and similarly situated persons.  A
little less than one year later, Pietrzycki filed the Second
Amended Complaint, which is the extant complaint at the present
time.  The Second Amended Complaint asserts two counts.  Count I
is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and Count
II under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL").  Both counts
allege the Defendants underpaid the Plaintiffs for their overtime
work.

The Plaintiffs now have refined their case to two claims, which
are identical under the two statutes.  First, they claim HTS
should have counted Drive Time as "hours worked" for the purposes
of determining how many overtime hours they worked.  Second, they
claim HTS should have included the amounts paid at the Drive Time
Rate when determining each of their regular rate.

On April 1, 2015, at the joint request of the parties, the Court
conditionally certified a FLSA collective action.  The following
year, Pietrzycki moved to certify a Rule 23 class and the
Defendants moved to decertify the collective action.  Based on the
parties' arguments and the record then before it, the Court
certified, under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and
(3), a class of Illinois workers under the IMWL that is comprised
of all current and former HTS Tower Technicians and Foremen who
received compensation for Drive Time as reflected in HTS's payroll
records and who worked in Illinois since August 25, 2011.  The
Court denied the motion to decertify the collective action.

After the Court's ruling, the Defendants sought additional
discovery, which they were permitted to take.  This was followed
by the current round of motion practice.  The parties have filed
cross-motions for summary judgment.  The Defendants also have
filed a motion to decertify the Rule 23 class action and the FLSA
collective action.  The Court heard oral argument on the pending
motions on July 31, 2017.

Magistrate Judge Gilbert concludes that the Plaintiffs have not
shown based on the undisputed facts that Drive Time counts as
hours worked and the Defendants have not shown based on the
undisputed facts that Drive Time does not count as hours worked.
Therefore, the Judge cannot grant summary judgment to either party
on the issue of whether the Defendants improperly excluded Drive
Time from their calculation of hours worked by the Plaintiffs
including for purposes of determining overtime.  He, however, goes
on to address the Plaintiffs' argument that the Defendants
improperly calculated their regular rate by not including payments
made at the Drive Time Rate in that calculation, including for
purposes of paying overtime compensation, because that could be
helpful in moving the case forward to an eventual resolution.

To sum up, Magistrate Judge finds that HTS had a non-written
contract with employees to compensate them for the activity of
traveling as passengers in a vehicle regardless of whether it was
an HTS truck or a personal vehicle.  HTS also had a custom or
practice of compensating employees for traveling as passengers in
an HTS truck.  It remains an open question whether HTS had a
custom or practice of compensating employees for traveling as
passengers in a personal vehicle, but that issue is not material
in light of HTS's non-written contract.  Therefore, if the
Plaintiffs can prove that the Defendants violated the FLSA, then
the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947 ("PPA") will not shield the
Defendants from liability on their hours worked or regular rate
claims.  Accordingly, he says the Defendants have not shown they
are entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on the PPA given
the undisputed facts in the present record.

For all of these reasons, Magistrate Judge Gilbert denied the
Plaintiffs' and the Defendants' motions for summary judgment.

With respect to the Defendant's Motion to Decertify, the
Magistrate Judge disagrees with the Defendants to the extent they
contend HTS did not have a custom, practice, or contract to
compensate employees for the activity of traveling as passengers
in a vehicle.  He says whether HTS had a custom or practice of
compensating for travel as passengers in a personal vehicle
remains an open question.  But the answer to that question is not
determinative for the reasons discussed.

Based on the arguments asserted by the Plaintiffs at summary
judgment, Drive Time potentially may be hours worked if it is more
than ordinary home-to-work commuting.  At this time, therefore,
the question with respect to personal vehicles is not a basis upon
which to decertify the class.  For the reasons he explained,
Magistrate Judge Gilbert denied the Defendants' Motion to
Decertify.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 29, 2017 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/0q1tws from Leagle.com.

Jason Pietrzycki, Plaintiff, represented by John C. Kunze, The
Fish Law Firm.

Jason Pietrzycki, Plaintiff, represented by Kimberly A. Hilton,
The Fish Law Firm, P.C. & David J. Fish -- dfish@fishlawfirm.com -
- The Fish Law Firm, P.C..

Heights Tower Service, Inc, Defendant, represented by Douglas P.
Holthus -- dholthus@mrrlaw.com -- Mazanec, Raskin & Ryder Co.,
LPA, pro hac vice & Michael H. McColl -- mmccoll@fgppr.com --
Foran, Glennon, Palandech Ponzi & Rudloff PC.

Mark Motter, Defendant, represented by Douglas P. Holthus,
Mazanec, Raskin & Ryder Co., LPA, pro hac vice & Michael H.
McColl, Foran, Glennon, Palandech Ponzi & Rudloff PC.


HILL'S PET: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Vanzant" ICFA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois dismissed the case, HOLLY BLAINE
VANZANT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. HILL'S PET NUTRITION INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 17 C 2535 (N.D. Ill.).

Plaintiffs Holly Blaine Yaruant and Dana Land allegedly owned cats
that had serious health problems.  After appointments with
veterinarians, the veterinarians allegedly prescribed Prescription
Cat Food to treat the health problems of their cats.  The
Prescription Cat Food is allegedly made by the Defendant.  The
Plaintiffs allegedly used the prescriptions from the veterinarians
to purchase the Prescription Cat Food from Defendant Petsmart,
Inc.  They allegedly continued to purchase the Prescription Cat
Food for years.

The Plaintiffs contend that the prescriptions are not required by
law and that the prescription requirement is deceptive and allows
HPN and Petsmart to profit by selling the Prescription Cat Food at
above-market prices.  They contend that the Prescription Cat Food
does not contain any ingredient that cannot be found in other non-
prescription pet food.  The Plaintiffs also contend that the use
of the word "prescription" and similar wording deceives consumers
into believing that the product has been evaluated by the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration.

The Plaintiffs include in the amended complaint claims brought
against HPN alleging a violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Business Practices Act ("ICFA")(Count I), ICFA
claims brought against Petsmart (Count II), unjust enrichment
claims brought against HPN (Count III), and unjust enrichment
claims brought against Petsmart (Count IV).

The Defendants move to dismiss all claims.
  They argue that the Plaintiffs have not pled sufficient facts to
support an ICFA claim, that the ICFA claim is barred by the ICFA
safe harbor exemption, that the Plaintiffs have failed to plead
their ICFA claims with particularity, and that the ICFA claims
cannot stand.

Judge Der-Yeghiayan granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss.  He
explains that the FDA is the regulatory authority that is charged
with overseeing therapeutic pet food and the Plaintiffs cannot
seek to impose stricter requirements upon the Defendants in
pursuing their ICFA claims.  The Defendants are thus protected by
the safe harbor exception in Section 10b(1).

The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs' case rests on their claims
that the Defendants, which are private corporate entities, somehow
are engaging in fraud or unfair practices by following the
guidance of the FDA.  He says there is simply no basis in the law
to support such a notion.  If, as Plaintiffs now claim, they had
known all they know about prescription pet food, they would not
have paid the amount sought in the marketplace for such food, they
could have chosen to forego the therapeutic food for their cats.
There is no deception based on the face of the Plaintiffs' own
pleadings.  Based on this, the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
ICFA claims is granted.

Finally, with respect to unjust enrichment, Judge Der-Yeghiayan
says the Seventh Circuit has stated that when the unjust
enrichment claim is premised on the same fraud underlying the ICFA
claim, and there was no valid underlying fraud, both the ICFA
claim and the unjust enrichment claim fail.  The Plaintiffs'
unjust enrichment claims are premised on the same alleged
deception that supported their ICFA claims.  Therefore, the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the unjust enrichment claims is
granted.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 29, 2017 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://is.gd/23pUPv from Leagle.com.

Holly Blaine Vanzant, Plaintiff, represented by Ellen M. Carey --
ecarey@fordellp.com -- Forde Law Offices LLP.

Holly Blaine Vanzant, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin Michael
Forde -- mforde@fordellp.com -- Forde Law Offices LLP & Michael K.
Forde, Forde Law Offices LLP.

Dana Land, Plaintiff, represented by Ellen M. Carey, Forde Law
Offices LLP, Kevin Michael Forde, Forde Law Offices LLP & Michael
K. Forde, Forde Law Offices LLP.

Hill's Pet Nutrition, Inc., Defendant, represented by Hannah
Chanoine -- hchanoine@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, pro hac
vice, John C. Gekas -- john.gekas@saul.com -- Saul Ewing Arnstein
& Lehr LLP & Richard B. Goetz -- rgoetz@omm.com -- O'Melveny &
Myers, pro hac vice.

PetSmart, Inc., Defendant, represented by Eileen Regina Ridley --
eridley@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner Llp, Alan R. Ouellette --
aouellette@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner Llp, John Louis Litchfield
-- jlitchfield@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner Llp & Zaldwaynaka L.
Scott -- zscott@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner.

Medical Management International, Inc. d/b/a Banfield Pet
Hospital, Defendant, represented by Brett Michael Doran --
doranb@gtlaw.com -- Greenbert Traurig LLP, Francis A. Citera --
citeraf@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP & John E. Schmidtlein
-- jschmidtlein@wc.com -- Williams & Connolly LLP, pro hac vice.

BluePearl Vet, LLC, Defendant, represented by Brett Michael Doran,
Greenbert Traurig LLP, Benjamin M. Greenblum, Williams & Connolly
LLP, pro hac vice & Francis A. Citera, Greenberg Traurig, LLP.


HILLSTONE HEALTHCARE: "Smith" Suit Seeks OT Wages under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
Doniele Smith, 784 S. Broadleigh Rd., Apt. G Columbus, Ohio 43209,
on behalf of herself and other members of the general public
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Hillstone Healthcare Inc.
c/o Matthew Dapore 979 Brule Ct. Westerville, Ohio 43081; and
Cornerstone Innovations, Inc. c/o Steven Oddo 3745 Medina Road
Medina, Ohio 44256, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01075-JLG-EPD
(S.D. Ohio, Dec. 12 , 2017), seeks to recover overtime wages and
all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938,
the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay
Act.

The Plaintiff was jointly employed by Defendants as an STNA from
May 2017 when Defendants jointly purchased and/or began jointly
operating Isabelle Ridgway through August 2017. As an STNA,
Plaintiff was an hourly, non-exempt employee of Defendants as
defined in the FLSA and the Ohio Acts. During her employment with
Defendants, the Plaintiff was not fully and properly paid for all
of her compensable hours worked because Defendants did not
properly calculate her regular rate of pay for the purposes of
lawfully paying her for her overtime hours worked, resulting in
unpaid overtime wages.

The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek. The Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees were compensated on an hourly, not a
salary or fee basis. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees received compensation at an hourly rate for all hours
worked, plus additional remuneration for work performed during
specific shift(s) and/or day(s).

Hillstone Healthcare has management of three nursing homes.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and similarly situated employees:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1457 S. High St.
          Columbus, Ohio 43207
          Telephone: (614) 949 1181
          Facsimile: (614) 386 9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

               - and -

          Peter Contreras, Esq.
          CONTRERAS LAW, LLC
          PO Box 215
          Amlin, Ohio 43002
          Telephone: (614) 787 4878
          Facsimile: (614) 923 7369
          E-mail: peter.contreras@contrerasfirm.com


HOLTGER BROS: "McChesney" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
JACOB MCCHESNEY, Individually and on behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. HOLTGER BROS., INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00824-SWW (E.D. Ark., Dec. 13, 2017),
seeks to recover declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties and
costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of
Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and other field workers
lawful overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40
hours per week and lawful compensation for all hours worked.

According to the complaint, for at least three years prior to the
filing of this Complaint, the Defendant has willfully and
intentionally committed violations of the FLSA.

As a field worker, Plaintiff's primary duties were to dig,
construct and install fiber optic wire in locations in the field.
Plaintiff was classified as an hourly employee the entire duration
of his employment with Defendant and paid an hourly rate. During
his shifts, Plaintiff almost always worked in excess of 40 hours
per week throughout his tenure with Defendant. Other field workers
worked similar hours. The Plaintiff and other field workers were
not paid for all hours worked, nor were they paid properly for
overtime. The Plaintiff and the other field worker employees were
and are entitled to a their regular rate for all hours worked
under 40 per week and overtime compensation in the amount of 1.5
times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of
40 in a week.

Holtger Bros., Inc. is a family- owned and operated turnkey
utility contractor.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HOME CAPITAL: West Face Opts Out of Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Shecter, writing for Financial Post, reports that
alternative asset manager West Face Capital, which opted out of a
class-action settlement with Home Capital Group Inc. last summer,
has given the mortgage lender a draft statement of claim that
asserts damages of $70 million for alleged misrepresentation in
Home Capital's disclosure.

Home Capital issued a statement on Nov. 28 disclosing receipt of
the draft claim, which has not been filed in court.

West Face says it was short shares of Home Capital from April 2013
to April 2015.

"West Face covered its short position during a period in which
West Face now believes that market prices of Home Capital shares
were inflated due to incomplete public disclosures by Home
Capital," West Face said in a statement on Nov. 28.

Between late 2014 and early 2015, Home Capital discovered some
mortgage brokers had submitted falsified income information for
borrowers.  The discovery, and steps taken by the company
including cutting ties with a number of brokers, caused mortgage
originations to fall.

The Ontario Securities Commission took issue with the company's
disclosure of the problem, and Home Capital, along with three
former executives, settled with the OSC this summer over
allegations the company failed to comply with continuous
disclosure obligations and made misleading statements to its
investors.

The episode caused the shares to drop dramatically, to less than
$6 in May 2017 from more than $55 in August 2014.

West Face said on Nov. 28 that the firm "elected to opt out" of
the related class action lawsuit that was settled in August for
$29.5 million, and "raised its claim with Home Capital directly."

For its part, Home Capital said it "believes it has valid
defences" against the allegations made by West Face.

"If West Face commences the claim, the company intends to fully
defend its conduct, as well as to investigate the conduct of the
various short sellers and the propriety of their actions whether
acting alone or in concert with others," Home Capital said.

West Face said the firm has not traded shares of Home Capital
since April 2015.

"West Face acted alone in its short position and did not act in
concert with any other short sellers," the firm said in its
statement.

Allan Coleman, a partner at law firm Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP
in Toronto, said nothing prohibits short sellers from
participating in securities class action lawsuits, but their loss
calculation can differ significantly from investors who hold a
long position in the stock.

"If you are a short seller, you may fall within the class
definition because you may have acquired shares during the class
period," said Mr. Coleman.  "But you may not have suffered any
loss as measured by the relevant sections of the Securities Act."

He said class action lawsuits that seek damages for misleading
disclosure are often structured to calculate losses based on the
difference between what an investor pays for the stock and the
price at which they sell the shares after the disclosure is
corrected.

In the case of a short seller, who borrows stock betting the price
will fall, the actual purchase and disposition of the share to
cover the short position is almost simultaneous, meaning there
could be no loss if such a calculation were used, Coleman said.

In addition, the crucial time for a short seller isn't what
happens to the share price after the misleading disclosure is
corrected, but what happens to the stock between when the short
position is taken and when it is covered.

"I have not seen the draft statement of claim, but what I suspect
a short seller such as West Face could claim is that . . . had the
alleged misrepresentation not been made, or been revealed between
them taking the short position and covering the short position,
the stock would have dropped in price and then they would have
bought and covered their short position at a much lower price," he
said. "In other words, they would have profited from the short
position or at least lost less."

Mr. Coleman said it is rare in Canada for large investors to opt
out of class actions because think they can get a better deal on
their own.

"In typical circumstances, the reason why an investor would opt
out and pursue their own action . . . is that their position is
large enough that they believe they can exert a better settlement
or better result than the class counsel can achieve on behalf of
the class," he said. [GN]


HOMESIDE FINANCIAL: "Cunningham" Stayed Pending ACA Int'l. Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Marvin J. Garbis of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Maryland stayed the case, CRAIG CUNNINGHAM, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HOMESIDE
FINANCIAL, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. MJG-17-2088 (D. Md.)
pending the D.C. Circuit's decision in ACA Int'l, et al. v. FCC on
the validity and meaning of the FCC's ruling with regard to the
definition of automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS").

Cunningham filed a putative class action against Homeside
asserting violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA").  He alleges that Homeside placed telemarketing calls to
his cellular telephone number for the purposes of advertising its
services using an automated dialing system.  He alleges that he
did not consent to receive the calls.  Since telemarketing
campaigns generally place calls to thousands or millions of
potential customers, he is suing on behalf of a proposed
nationwide class of others who also received illegal telemarketing
calls.

Homeside asserts that it only contacts customers who have
consented to receive calls, and the dialing equipment it uses is
not an ATDS for purposes of the TCPA.  It filed the instant motion
to stay proceedings, requesting that the Court stay the matter
pending the D.C. Circuit's decision in ACA Int'l on the validity
and meaning of the FCC's ruling with regard to the definition of
ATDS.

Judge Garbis concludes that the resolution of the meaning of an
ATDS will directly affect the case, either by having a dispositive
effect on the claims or at least by focusing discovery.  Because
the D.C. Circuit Court has the exclusive jurisdiction to review
the FCC ruling, its ruling will be binding.  Staying the case
pending the ruling will permit the Court and the parties to
evaluate the viability of the Plaintiff's claims under the most
complete precedent and streamline the proceedings.  Therefore, the
Plaintiff is unlikely to be prejudiced by a stay that could reduce
the burden of litigation on both parties.  Further, a stay could
promote the efficient use of judicial resources.

The Judge is, however, mindful of the Plaintiff's concern
regarding an indefinite stay.  Since oral argument in the ACA
Int'l case was over a year ago, a decision will not likely remain
pending for long.  The stay is not indefinite because it is
directly tied to the proceedings in that case.  Upon issuance of
the opinion in ACA Int'l, either party may move to lift the stay.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Garbis granted the Defendant's
Motion to Stay Proceedings, and stayed the case until further
Order.  It will remain stayed until the issuance of the opinion
from the D.C. Circuit.  The Judge directed the parties to notify
the Court within seven days of the D.C. Circuit opinion's filing.
Either party may provide status reports as deemed appropriate.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 1, 2017 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/6KT6jr from Leagle.com.

Craig Cunningham, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony I. Paronich --
anthony@broderick-law.com -- Broderick and Paronich PC, pro hac
vice.

Craig Cunningham, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian K. Murphy --
murphy@mmmb.com -- Murray Murphy Moul and Basil LLP, pro hac vice,
Jonathan P. Misny -- misny@mmmb.com -- Murray Murphy Moul and
Basil LLP, pro hac vice & Stephen Howard Ring -- shr@ringlaw.us --
Stephen H Ring PC.

Homeside Financial LLC, Defendant, represented by Patrick R.
Buckler -- patrick.buckler@wbd-us.com -- Womble Bond Dickinson
(US) LLP & Hillary Victoria Colonna -- hillary.colonna@wbd-us.com
-- Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP.


HOTELS.COM LP: OTC Charges Ruling in Tax Ordinance Suit Vacated
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS, On Behalf Of Itself
And All Other Similarly Situated Texas Municipalities, Plaintiff-
Appellee Cross-Appellant, v. HOTELS.COM, L.P.; HOTWIRE,
INCORPORATED; TRIP NETWORK, INCORPORATED, doing business as
Cheaptickets.com; EXPEDIA, INCORPORATED; INTERNETWORK PUBLISHING
CORPORATION, doing business as Lodging.Com; ORBITZ, L.L.C.;
PRICELINE.COM, INCORPORATED; SITE59.COM, L.L.C.; TRAVELOCITY.COM,
L.P.; TRAVELWEB, L.L.C.; TRAVELNOW.COM, INCORPORATED, Defendants-
Appellants Cross-Appellees, Case No. 16-50479 (5th Cir.), Judge
Rhesa Hawkins Barksdale of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit vacated the district court's judgment that the service fee
an online travel company ("OTC") charges for facilitating a hotel
reservation is included in the cost of occupancy, and, therefore,
subject to the municipalities' hotel occupancy tax ordinances.

An OTC website allows a traveler to compare the rates for
airlines, hotels, and rental-car companies, as well as request
reservations from them.  Regarding the ordinances at issue, OTCs
do not own, operate, or manage hotels; instead, they transmit
information and payments between travelers and hotels.  The OTC
retains its service fee as compensation for its online services.
Therefore, although the hotel determines the discounted room rate,
an OTC decides the total amount the traveler pays when booking
through the OTC's website.  The OTC later forwards the amount of
the discounted room rate and applicable taxes to the hotel, which
remits the taxes to the taxing authority.  The OTC is the merchant
of record in the transaction with the traveler.

In 1987, the Texas legislature authorized municipalities to impose
a tax on a person who pays for the use or possession or for the
right to the use or possession of a room that is in a hotel.
Pursuant to this enabling act, Texas municipalities enacted hotel
occupancy tax ordinances.

San Antonio filed the diversity action in May 2006, against OTCs
for violations of the Texas tax code and municipal ordinances, and
for conversion.  In May 2008, the district court certified a class
of 175 Texas municipalities whose ordinances contain language that
requires every person owning, operating, managing or controlling
any hotel to collect and remit hotel occupancy taxes.  After the
class was certified, however, two cities, including Houston, opted
out.

The remaining 173 municipalities (cities) sought, inter alia,
money damages for unpaid or underpaid hotel occupancy taxes, and a
declaration that an OTC is required to collect and remit hotel
occupancy taxes based on the amount it collects for the discounted
room rate and service fee (the retail rate).

A jury trial began on Oct. 5 2009, to determine whether OTCs
"control" hotels and are therefore subject to the ordinances.  On
Oct. 27, 2009, the cities and the OTCs moved for judgment as a
matter of law; the court denied the motions from the bench the
next day.  Almost two years after the jury verdict, the court, on
July 1, 2011, rendered its findings of fact and conclusions of
law, concluding the retail rate paid the OTC by the traveler,
rather than the discounted room rate the OTC pays the hotel, is
subject to the hotel occupancy tax.

On a parallel track, in 2007, Houston, which, as noted, opted out
of the class action, and the Houston Sports Authority had sued
OTCs in Texas state court to recover claimed unpaid occupancy
taxes.  The Houston ordinance levied a tax upon the cost of
occupancy of any room furnished by any hotel.  Houston and the
Sports Authority asserted "the cost of occupancy" was the retail
rate the consumer paid the OTC.  By summary judgment, the trial
court rejected their claims.  And, on Oct. 25, 2011, an
intermediate Texas court of appeals affirmed, holding the tax
applied only to the discounted-room-rate] amounts paid to hotels.

In the class action at hand, OTCs moved the district court to
amend its findings and conclusions in the light of Houston,
claiming, under the Erie doctrine, the court was required to rule
that, as a matter of Texas law, only the discounted room rate the
OTC pays the hotel is subject to hotel occupancy taxes.  Despite
previously acknowledging the scope of the tax base is a "pure
question of law", the court denied OTCs' motion on the grounds
that the Houston holding was specific to the Houston ordinance,
and the larger evidentiary record in the class action compelled a
different result.

On April 4, 2013, nearly four years after trial, the district
court entered its first final judgment, awarding cities
$55,146,489 in unpaid taxes, interest, and penalties.  OTCs then
pursued a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, or
alternatively, motion for new trial; the court denied both motions
on Feb. 20, 2014.  Two years later, the court issued an amended
final judgment of $84,123,089 to include increased penalties, as
well as the taxes and interest that had accrued since the first
judgment in April 2013.

The appeal and cross-appeal present numerous issues.  OTCs claim,
inter alia, they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law, or
alternatively, a new trial.

Judge Barksdale holds that the differing language in the
ordinances does not affect the outcome.  Dallas-type ordinances
tax the amount paid by the occupant of the room to the hotel.
Moreover, the taxable consideration excludes costs not related to
cleaning and readying the room or space for occupancy.  Only the
discounted room rate the OTC pays to the hotel can be related to
cleaning and readying the room or space for occupancy.  Similarly,
the Judge says San Antonio-type ordinances tax the amount paid for
a sleeping room to include all goods and services provided by the
hotel.  Again, only the discounted room rate paid to the hotel
covers services provided by the hotel.

Moreover, Cities concede OTCs have been collecting taxes on the
discounted room rate paid to the hotel, and the hotels have been
remitting them.  Because the only monetary amounts at issue in the
class action are those not included in the scope of the hotel
occupancy tax base, as limited by his holding, the Judge holds
OTCs are not liable.

For these reasons, Judge Barksdale vacate the judgment and
rendered the judgment for OTCs.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 29, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/Qld7y5 from Leagle.com.

David E. Keltner -- david.keltner@kellyhart.com -- for Defendant-
Appellant Cross-Appellee.

Alan B. Rich, for Plaintiff-Appellee Cross-Appellant.

Rosemary Tyson Snider -- rsnider@mckoolsmith.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellee Cross-Appellant.

Ricardo Gonzalez Cedillo, for Defendant-Appellant Cross-Appellee.

Gary Cruciani -- gcruciani@mckoolsmith.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellee Cross-Appellant.

Deborah Lynne Klein, for Plaintiff-Appellee Cross-Appellant.

Brian Scott Stagner -- brian.stagner@kellyhart.com -- for
Defendant-Appellant Cross-Appellee.

Marianne Marsh Auld, for Defendant-Appellant Cross-Appellee.

Deborah Savarese Sloan -- dsloan@jonesday.com -- for Defendant-
Appellant Cross-Appellee.

Steven D. Wolens -- swolens@mckoolsmith.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellee Cross-Appellant.

Derek Montgomery, for Defendant-Appellant Cross-Appellee.

Anne Marie Seibel -- aseibel@bradley.com -- for Defendant-
Appellant Cross-Appellee.

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

Stacy Rene Horth-Neubert -- stacy.horth-neubert@skadden.com -- for
Defendant-Appellant Cross-Appellee.

Thomas M. Sims -- tsims@baronbudd.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellee
Cross-Appellant.


HSBC CARD: Settlement in "Medeiros" Suit Has Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, GAIL MEDEIROS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. HSBC CARD
SERVICES, INC. and HSBC TECHNOLOGY & SERVICES (USA), INC.,
Defendants. TERRY J. FANNING, et al., Plaintiffs, v. HSBC CARD
SERVICES INC. and HSBC TECHNOLOGY & SERVICES (USA), INC.,
Defendants. STEFAN O. LINDGREN, Plaintiff, v. HSBC CARD SERVICES,
INC. AND HSBC TECHNOLOGY & SERVICES (USA), INC., Defendants, Case
Nos. 2:15-cv-09093-JVS-AFM, 8:12-cv-00885-JVS-RNBx, 14-cv-05615-
JVS-RNBx (C.D. Cal.), Judge James V. Selna of the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California granted final
approval of the Settlement Agreement and Release dated Aug. 25,
2016.

Judge Selna finally approved the Agreement and finds that the
terms constitute, in all respects, a fair, reasonable and adequate
settlement as to all Settlement Class Members in accordance with
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Judge finally certified the Settlement Class for settlement
purposes defined as all persons in California who received a
telephone call between March 23, 2009 and May 1, 2012 from or on
behalf of HSBC and whose call was recorded or monitored by or on
behalf of HSBC Card Services or HSBC Technology & Services (USA)
Inc.

She approved the plan of distribution for the Settlement Fund as
set forth in the Agreement.  The Claims Administrator is ordered
to comply with the terms of the Agreement with respect to
distribution of Settlement Awards, the Second Distribution and
disposition of any Remaining Funds thereafter.  Should any
Remaining Funds be distributed, the Judge approved the Rose
Foundation's Consumer Privacy Rights Fund as the cy pres
recipient.

Judge Selna dismissed these Actions, with prejudice, without costs
to any party, except as expressly provided for in the Agreement.

She also approved the Class Counsel's application for
$4,333,333.33, which is 33-1/3% of the Settlement Amount, as
reasonable attorneys' fees, and an additional $340,120 to
reimburse them for litigation costs actually incurred.  The Class
Counsel may elect to have all or part of their attorneys' fees
award paid in periodic payments through a structured settlement
arrangement entered into prior to payment of such fees to Class
Counsel.

Notwithstanding any term in the Agreement to the contrary, any
fees awarded to the Class Counsel to be so structured will be paid
by the Settlement Fund to an assignment company(ies) pursuant to
assignment and release agreements reasonably acceptable to the
Claims Administrator ("Assignment Agreements").  The Class Counsel
has no present right to payment of any structured fees that are
the subject of Assignment Agreements.  Prior to the payment by the
Settlement Fund under any Assignment Agreement, Class Counsel will
indemnify and hold harmless the Claims Administrator administering
the Settlement Fund.  The Judge authorized the Claims
Administrator and Settlement Fund to execute documents and take
such actions as may be necessary to effectuate the assignment and
payment of fees under any Assignment Agreement.

The Judge awarded service awards in the amount of $5,000 each for
Plaintiffs Fanning and Lindgren, and service awards in the amount
of $1,500 each for the other Plaintiffs.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 29, 2017 Final Approval Order
and Judgment is available at https://is.gd/02ifSB from Leagle.com.

Gail Medeiros, Plaintiff, represented by David J. McGlothlin, Hyde
and Swigart APC.

Gail Medeiros, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua B. Swigart --
josh@westcoastlitigation.com -- Hyde and Swigart, Seyed Abbas
Kazerounian, Kazerouni Law Group APC & Todd M. Friedman, Todd M
Friedman Law Offices PC.

Tracy T. Bomberger, Plaintiff, represented by David J. McGlothlin,
Hyde and Swigart APC, Joshua B. Swigart, Hyde and Swigart, Seyed
Abbas Kazerounian, Kazerouni Law Group APC & Todd M. Friedman,
Todd M Friedman Law Offices PC.

Peter Morrissey, Plaintiff, represented by David J. McGlothlin,
Hyde and Swigart APC, Joshua B. Swigart, Hyde and Swigart, Seyed
Abbas Kazerounian, Kazerouni Law Group APC & Todd M. Friedman,
Todd M Friedman Law Offices PC.

Julie Pulatie, Plaintiff, represented by David J. McGlothlin, Hyde
and Swigart APC, Joshua B. Swigart, Hyde and Swigart, Seyed Abbas
Kazerounian, Kazerouni Law Group APC & Todd M. Friedman, Todd M
Friedman Law Offices PC..

Terry J Fanning, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Azra Z.
Mehdi, The Mehdi Firm PC, Elizabeth J. Arleo, Arleo Law Firm PLC,
Eve H. Cervantez -- ecervantez@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler
Berzon LLP, Michael Rubin -- mrubin@altshulerberzon.com --
Altshuler Berzon LLP & P. Casey Pitts --
cpitts@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP.

Stefan O Lindgren, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Azra Z.
Mehdi, The Mehdi Firm PC, Elizabeth J. Arleo, Arleo Law Firm PLC,
Eve H. Cervantez, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Michael Rubin, Altshuler
Berzon LLP & P. Casey Pitts, Altshuler Berzon LLP.

HSBC Card Services Inc, Defendant, represented by Arjun P. Rao --
arao@stroock.com -- Stroock and Stroock and Lavan LLP, Shannon
Elizabeth Dudic -- sdudic@stroock.com -- Stroock and Stroock and
Lavan LLP & Julia B. Strickland -- jstrickland@stroock.com --
Stroock and Stroock and Lavan LLP.

HSBC Technology & Services (USA) Inc., Defendant, represented by
Arjun P. Rao, Stroock and Stroock and Lavan LLP, Shannon Elizabeth
Dudic, Stroock and Stroock and Lavan LLP & Julia B. Strickland,
Stroock and Stroock and Lavan LLP.

Christine Chavez, Objector, represented by Timothy R. Hanigan --
trhanigan@gmail.com -- Lang Hanigan and Carvalho LLP.


HSBC HOLDINGS: Plaintiff in Failed Class Action Faces $1MM Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Chisholm, writing Investment Executive, reports that a
retail investor who failed in a class-action bid against HSBC
Holdings PLC has been hit with more than $1 million in costs.  The
result could have a dampening effect on other representative
plaintiffs who believe they have a case against a major bank.

The November ruling from the Ontario Superior Court reviews the
factors that led to the representative plaintiff's failure to
certify a class action for misrepresentation and concludes that
much of the drive behind the lawsuit was "entrepreneurial."

The ruling by Justice Paul Perell notes that the plaintiff,
Ontario resident Wai Kan Yip, bought shares in HSBC Holdings on
the Hong Kong Stock Exchange; the firm's shares trade in Hong Kong
and London, but on no Canadian exchange.

The decision notes that Mr. Yip "alleged that the putative class
members were misled by HSBC Holdings (which was regulated by
foreign regulators) making false disclosures about compliance with
anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing laws and about
its nonparticipation in an illegal scheme to manipulate benchmark
interest rates used by banks across the world."

Mr. Yip alleged that a $7-billion decline in the shares was due to
the allegations, which surfaced in 2012.

Although there may be situations in which shares issued and traded
on foreign exchanges are the subject of successful investor
lawsuits in Ontario, Justice Perell concluded that this case did
not fall within those situations.  Justice Perell also concluded
that Ontario was not the appropriate jurisdiction for the class
action, based on convenience, and that the U.K. was the "natural
forum."

In disputing the costs request made by HSBC Holdings (the ultimate
parent of HSBC Canada), Mr. Yip's lawyers argued that he was a
"retail investor of modest means with a modest personal stake in
the litigation and who tried to access justice on behalf of
Canadian investors," the decision notes.

However, Justice Perell did not agree with that characterization:
"There is a make-believe quality to Mr. Yip's lawyers'
characterization of Mr. Yip's lawsuit and of HSBC Holdings'
defence to it.  It is a fantasy to suggest that when Mr. Yip and
his entrepreneurial class counsel sued a foreign defendant for $20
billion, later reduced to the not trifling $8 billion, that they
did not reasonably anticipate that HSBC Holdings would spend
$0.0001 billion to defend itself."

The decision continues: "The proposed class action was not
altruistic litigation; it was entrepreneurial litigation.  Mr. Yip
and others willingly traded in foreign stock exchanges with no
reasonable expectation that Ontario law might follow them overseas
but with the knowledge that the foreign stock markets were
regulated by foreign regulators." [GN]


ICHIBAN GROUP: Court Narrows Claims in "Zhang" Labor Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mae A. D'Agostino of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of New York granted in part and denied in part
the Defendants' motion to dismiss the case, XUE HUI ZHANG,
Plaintiff, v. ICHIBAN GROUP, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No.
1:17-CV-148 (MAD/TWD) (N.D. N.Y.).

On Feb. 9, 2017, Plaintiff Xue Hui Zhang filed the complaint in
the putative class action against Defendants Ichiban Group,
Ichiban Food Services, Inc., Chen & Ju, Inc., David Ip, Shiow Fei
Ju, Shin Shii Ju, Chwon Tzu Ju, Liping Ju, Tyng Quh Ju, and Tommy
Ju.  The Plaintiff alleges, among other claims, numerous
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York
Labor Law ("NYLL").

The Plaintiff alleges that he was employed by Defendants Ichiban
Goup, Ichiban Food, and Chen & Ju.  He further alleges that those
three entities were, and continue to be, a single and joint
employer and have had a high degree of interrelated and unified
operation, and share common management, centralized control of
labor relations, common ownership, common control, common website,
common business purposes and interrelated business goals.  David
Ip, Shiow Fei Ju, Shin Shii Ju, Chwon Tzu Ju, Liping Ju, Tyng Quh
Ju, and Tommy Ju are individuals who owned and operated the
businesses that employed the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff worked as a chef at a restaurant located at 1652
Western Avenue in Albany, New York, which was allegedly owned by
the Defendants, from Nov. 20, 2008 to Dec. 7, 2015 for
approximately 70 hours per week.  He alleges that he made a flat
salary every month, which ranged from $2,700 to $3,300.
Additionally, the Plaintiff was provided with a dormitory that he
shared with approximately 10 coworkers.  He alleges that he was
given only 15 minutes or less to eat meals, he was not paid
minimum wage, and he was never provided with any overtime
compensation.

The Plaintiff claims that the conditions of his employment
violated the FLSA and the NYLL, as well as other state and federal
laws.  He his FLSA claims individually and pursuant to the FLSA's
collective action mechanism, and he brings his NYLL claims as part
of a putative class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23.  On May 11, 2017, the Defendants moved to dismiss
the complaint in its entirety arguing that the Plaintiff's claims
should be dismissed for insufficient service of process and for
failure to state a claim.  The Plaintiff submitted an opposition,
and the Defendants filed a reply.

In moving to dismiss the complaint as to Chen & Ju, Inc., and its
shareholders Liping Ju and Tyng Quh Ju, the Defendants provide
extrinsic evidence meant to disprove the Plaintiff's claims,
including a sales contract and multiple affidavits.  To consider
such evidence would convert their motion to dismiss into a motion
for summary judgment, which the Judge D' Agostino declines to do
at this stage.  Therefore, the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
complaint against Defendants Liping Ju, Tyng Quh Ju, and Chen &
Ju, Inc., for failure to state a claim will be denied.

Although the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated 26
U.S.C. Section 7434, the complaint does not include any factual
allegations supporting that claim.  Judge D'Agostino finds that
the Plaintiff merely states the elements of a claim under 26
U.S.C. Section 7434 and asserts that he is entitled to relief. The
pleading standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2)
requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic
recitation of a cause of action's elements will not do.
Therefore, he will dismiss the Plaintiff's claim under 26 U.S.C.
Section 7434.

The Judge will also dismiss the Plaintiff's claim under New York
Labor Law section 162.  Despite his allegations, his claim must be
dismissed because under N.Y. Lab. Law Section 162 (requiring meal
periods), no private statutory right of action exists to enforce
it.

Finally, the Judge finds that there was a Department of Labor
investigation and a compliance conference that the Plaintiff did
not even attend; there was no formal hearing.  Furthermore, the
Plaintiff provides just three separate documents relating to the
DOL investigation, and it is not entirely clear whether these
documents resolve his complaint.  Therefore, according to the
Judge, the action is not barred by res judicata.

After carefully reviewing the entire record in the matter, the
parties' submissions and the applicable law, and for the stated
reasons, Judge D'Agostino granted in part the Defendants' motion
to dismiss as to the Plaintiff's claims under 26 U.S.C. Section
7434 and New York Labor Law section 162; and denied in part as to
all other claims.

The Judge ordered that the service was not proper as to Defendants
David Ip, Shiow Fei Ju, Shin Shii Ju, or Chwon Tzu Ju, and the
Plaintiff is granted a 30-day extension of time to serve those
Defendants; if the Plaintiff fails to properly serve them within
30 days, then any of those Defendants that is not properly served
will be dismissed.

While he does not make a finding as to whether or not Defendants
Ichiban Group, Ichiban Food Services, were properly served, Judge
D'Agostino granted the Plaintiff a 30-day extension of time to
serve those Defendants; if the Plaintiff fails to serve them
within 30 days, then the Defendants may renew their motion to
dismiss for improper service of process as to those Defendants in
a properly filed motion for summary judgment.

The Judge directed the Clerk of the Court to serve a copy of the
Memorandum-Decision and Order on all parties in accordance with
the Local Rules.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 1, 2017 Memorandum-Decision
and Order is available at https://is.gd/Hr3vJ2 from Leagle.com.

Xue Hui Zhang, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by John Troy -- johntroy@troypllc.com --
John Troy & Associates, PLLC.

Ichiban Group, LLC, doing business as Ichiban Japenese & Chinese
Restaurant doing business as Takara, Defendant, represented by
Matthew J. Mann -- info@mannlawpc.com, Mann Law Firm, PC.

Ichiban Food Services, Inc., doing business as Ichiban Japanese &
Chinese Restaurant doing business as Takara, Defendant,
represented by Matthew J. Mann, Mann Law Firm, PC.

Chen & Ju, Inc., doing business as Ichiban Japanese & Chinese
Restaurant doing business as Takara, Defendant, represented by
Matthew J. Mann, Mann Law Firm, PC.

David L Ip, Defendant, represented by Matthew J. Mann, Mann Law
Firm, PC.

Shiow Fei Ju, Defendant, represented by Matthew J. Mann, Mann Law
Firm, PC.

Shin Shii Ju, Defendant, represented by Matthew J. Mann, Mann Law
Firm, PC.

Chwon Tzu Ju, Defendant, represented by Matthew J. Mann, Mann Law
Firm, PC.

Liping Ju, Defendant, represented by Matthew J. Mann, Mann Law
Firm, PC.

Tyng Quh Ju, Defendant, represented by Matthew J. Mann, Mann Law
Firm, PC.

Tommy Ju, Defendant, represented by Matthew J. Mann, Mann Law
Firm, PC.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: "Vana" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Impax Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN VANA, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. IMPAX LABORATORIES, INC., ATLAS
HOLDINGS, INC., K2 MERGER SUB CORPORATION, LESLIE Z. BENET, PAUL
M. BISARO, J. KEVIN BUCHI, ROBERT L. BURR, ALLEN CHAO, MARY K.
PENDERGAST, PETER R. TERRERI, JANET S. VERGIS, and AMNEAL
PHARMACEUTICALS LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-07079 (N.D.
Cal., Dec. 12, 2017), seeks to enjoin Defendants and all persons
acting in concert with them from proceeding, consummating, or
closing a proposed transaction, and in the event Defendants
consummate the Proposed Transaction, rescinding it and setting it
aside or awarding rescissory damages.

This action stems from a proposed "Up-C" transaction announced on
October 17, 2017, pursuant to which Impax Laboratories and its
subsidiaries, Holdco and K2 Merger Sub Corporation, will be
acquired by Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC.

On October 17, 2017, Impax's Board of Directors caused the Company
to enter into a Business Combination Agreement with Amneal, which
was amended on November 2, 2017. Pursuant to the terms of the
Merger Agreement, (i) Merger Sub will merge with and into Impax,
with Impax surviving the merger as a direct wholly owned
subsidiary of Holdco; (ii) Impax will convert into a Delaware
limited liability company to be named Impax Laboratories, LLC;
(iii) Holdco will contribute all of the equity interests of Impax
to Amneal in exchange for certain equity interests of Amneal; (iv)
Holdco will operate as a new holding company, which will be
renamed Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; (v) New Amneal will issue
shares of Class B common stock to the existing members of Amneal;
and (vi) New Amneal will become the managing member of Amneal.

In connection with the Proposed Transaction, each share of common
stock of Impax will be converted into the right to receive one
share of New Amneal Class A common stock. Holders of Impax common
stock immediately prior to the Proposed Transaction will
collectively hold approximately 25%, and the Existing Amneal
Members will hold approximately 75%, of the voting and economic
interests in the combined businesses of Impax and Amneal under New
Amneal. Following the closing of the Proposed Transaction and a
private sale of New Amneal common stock to certain institutional
investors including TPG Improv Holdings, L.P. and funds affiliated
with Fidelity Management & Research Company pursuant to a purchase
agreement, Existing Amneal Members will hold approximately 60% of
the voting power of the outstanding shares of New Amneal common
stock and the PIPE Investors will hold approximately 15% of the
voting power of the outstanding New Amneal common shares.

On November 21, 2017, defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration
Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The
Registration Statement omits material information with respect to
the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Registration Statement
false and misleading. Accordingly, plaintiff alleges herein that
defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the
Registration Statement.

Impax is a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on developing,
manufacturing and marketing generic and branded products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Schumacher, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          155 Jackson Street, #1903
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 855 8995
          Facsimile: (302) 654 7530
          E-mail: ms@rl-legal.com


IMPAX LABORATORIES: "Stone" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Amneal Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID STONE, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. LESLIE Z. BENET, PAUL M. BISARO, J.
KEVIN BUCHI, ROBERT L. BURR, ALLEN CHAO, MARY K. PENDERGAST, PETER
R. TERRERI, JANET S. VERGIS, IMPAX LABORATORIES, INC., ATLAS
HOLDINGS, INC., K2 MERGER SUB CORPORATION, AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS,
LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-07123 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 14,
2017), seeks to enjoin Defendants from holding the stockholder
vote on a proposed merger transaction and taking any steps to
consummate the Proposed Transaction unless and until material
information is disclosed to Impax stockholders sufficiently in
advance of the vote on the proposed transaction or, in the event
the proposed transaction is consummated, to recover damages
resulting from the Defendants' violations of the Exchange Act.

This action is brought as a class action by Plaintiff on behalf of
himself and the other public holders of the common stock of Impax
against the Company and the members of the Company's board of
directors for violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection with the proposed
merger of Impax with privately held Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC,
through Atlas Holdings, Inc. and K2 Merger Sub Corporation.

On October 17, 2017, Impax announced it had entered into a
Business Combination Agreement, dated October 17, among itself,
Holdco, Merger Sub and Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, in connection
with the Proposed Transaction. Under the terms of the BCA, Amneal
will own approximately 75% of the voting power of the new,
publicly traded holding company, Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and
Impax's shareholders will own approximately 25% of the voting
power. However, there is no definitive offer price and Impax's
public shareholders are left in the dark as to the true value of
this deal.

Following the closing of the Proposed Transaction and a private
sale of the combined company's common stock to certain
institutional investors, including TPG Improv Holdings, L.P. and
funds affiliated with Fidelity Management & Research Company
pursuant to a purchase agreement, current Amneal members will own
approximately 60% of the voting power of the outstanding shares of
the combined company's common stock and the PIPE Investors will
hold approximately 15% of the voting power of the outstanding
combined company's common shares.+

On November 21, 2017, to convince Impax shareholders to vote in
favor of the Proposed Transaction, the Board authorized Holdco to
file a materially incomplete and misleading registration statement
on Form S-4 with the SEC, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act.  While Defendants are touting the fairness of
the Proposed Transaction to the Company's stockholders in the S-4,
they have failed to disclose certain material information that is
necessary for stockholders to properly assess the fairness of the
Proposed Transaction, thereby rendering certain statements in the
S-4 incomplete and misleading. The Proposed Transaction has been
unanimously approved by the Boards of Directors of Amneal and
Impax, and is also supported by the management teams of both
companies. However, it is subject to the satisfaction of customary
closing conditions, such as the receipt of regulatory approvals
and Impax's shareholder approval. The Proposed Transaction is
expected to close in the first half of 2018. Plaintiffs contend
that it is imperative that the material information that has been
omitted from the S-4 is disclosed to the Company's stockholders
prior to the forthcoming stockholder vote so that they can
properly exercise their corporate suffrage rights.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Marc G. Reich, Esq.
          Adam T. Hoover, Esq.
          REICH RADCLIFFE & HOOVER LLP
          4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 550
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 975 0512
          Facsimile: (949) 208 2839
          E-mail: mgr@reichradcliffe.com
                  adhoover@reichradcliffe.com

               - and -

          Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq.
          LIFSHITZ & MILLER
          821 Franklin Ave., Suite 209
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 493 9780
          Facsimile: (516) 280 7376
          E-mail: jml@jlclasslaw.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: Call Center Agents Not Paid OT, Rivenbark Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
SHANNON RIVENBARK, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., the
Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-03786 (S.D. Tex., Dec. 14, 2017),
seeks to recover overtime wages, liquidated damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the provisions of Sections
207 and 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

The Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members are those persons who
are current and former non-exempt employees of Chase who worked in
call centers and were responsible for answering customer phone
calls and assisting customers with their Chase bank account(s).
The Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members routinely work (and
worked) in excess of 40 hours per workweek.

According to the complaint, Chase has knowingly and deliberately
failed to compensate Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members for
all hours worked in excess of forty hours each workweek on a
routine and regular basis in the last three years. The Plaintiff
and the Putative Class Members did not and currently do not
perform work that meets the definition of exempt work under the
FLSA.[BN]

Attorneys in Charge for Plaintiff and Putative Class Members:

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          Austin W. Anderson
          Lauren E. Braddy
          Carter T. Hastings
          ANDERSON2X, PLLC
          819 N. Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, Texas 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452-1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
          E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
                  austin@a2xlaw.com
                  lauren@a2xlaw.com
                  carter@a2xlaw.com


KATANGA MINING: Jan. 29 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, notified investors that a
class action lawsuit has been filed against Katanga Mining Limited
("Katanga" or the "Company") (OTCMKTS: KATFF) and certain of its
officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired Katanga securities between February 11, 2016 through
November 19, 2017, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the
firm's site: http://www.bgandg.com/katff

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

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Katanga engaged in improper accounting
practices; (2) there were material weaknesses in Katanga's
internal control over financial reporting; and (3) consequently,
Katanga's public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/katffor you may contact Peretz Bronstein,
Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484.  If you suffered a loss
in Katanga you have until January 29, 2018 to request that the
Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  In addition to representing institutions and other
investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the
firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial
litigation, as well as securities arbitration. [GN]


KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORES: Judge Junks Suit Over Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Booth, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal judge
has dismissed a purported Telephone Consumer Protection Act class
action against Kohl's Department Stores Inc. because the plaintiff
failed to follow explicit instructions for stopping text messages
from the company.

U.S District Judge Brian Martinotti, sitting in Trenton, dismissed
the lawsuit filed by lead plaintiff Amy Viggiano, an Ocean County
resident, against Kohl's on Nov. 27.

Judge Martinotti said in his opinion that while Ms. Viggiano may
have received unwanted text messages from Kohl's, there was no
evidence that the retailer knowingly and purposefully violated the
TCPA.

The TCPA was enacted in 1991 and, in part, requires companies that
send out texts, emails, faxes and the like to provide means for
consumers from receiving solicitations.  The act prohibits one
party from using an automated dialing system to send a commercial
message with the recipient's consent.

Ms. Viggiano filed the complaint on behalf of herself and an
unspecified number of other plaintiffs that she estimated could be
in the "tens of thousands," according to Judge Martinotti's
opinion.

But Judge Martinotti dismissed the case because Ms. Viggiano
failed to follow Kohl's specific instruction that the only way to
unsubscribe from the text messages was to reply with a text that
read "STOP."

Instead, according to Judge Martinotti, Ms. Viggiano sent several
messages in response such as: "I've changed my mind and don't want
to receive these anymore," "Please do not send any further
messages," and "I don't want these messages anymore.  This is your
last warning!"

In response, Kohl's texted her that it didn't understand her
requests.

The promotional texts from Kohl's continued, and Ms. Viggiano
filed her lawsuit.

Judge Martinotti, in his ruling, said the instructions in Kohl's
texts were clear.

The lawsuit, Judge Martinotti said, did not allege that Kohl's
deliberately made it difficult or impossible to opt out of the
text messages.

"To the contrary, the facts in the complaint suggest plaintiff
herself adopted a method of opting out that made it difficult or
impossible for defendant to honor her request," the judge said,
taking guidance from a February ruling by the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California in Epps v. Earth Fare,
which he said dealt with "nearly identical facts."

The court in Epps found that the plaintiff's TCPA claim failed
because "heeding defendant's opt-out instruction would not have
plausibly been more burdensome on plaintiff than sending verbose
requests to terminate the messages." And, like Judge Martinotti,
the court in Epps also said the plaintiff failed to allege the
defendant made it "difficult or impossible to effectuate
revocations."

Judge Martinotti rejected Ms. Viggiano's claims that her demands
were "unequivocal written withdrawals of consent."

Rules issued by the Federal Communications Commission are clear
that "a caller may not designate a method of opting out 'in ways
that make it difficult or impossible to effectuate revocation,'"
Judge Martinotti said, quoting the regulations. "Plaintiff's
arguments to the contrary defy both the FCC's rulings and common
sense."

Ms. Viggiano was represented by Gerald Clark, who runs a firm in
Red Bank.  Kohl's was represented by Jeffrey Jacobson --
jjacobson@kelleydrye.com -- of the New York office of Kelley Drye
& Warren.  Neither returned phone calls seeking comment. [GN]


LAWRENCE LIVERMORE: Oakland Court Decertifies Retirees' Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Independent reports that an Oakland court reversed itself,
decertifying the "class" of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
retirees three years after certifying it in a lawsuit aimed at
regaining University of California health care.

The surprise decertification order was issued on Nov. 27 by
Superior Court Judge George Hernandez, the judge who certified the
class in 2014.

In his reversal, Hernandez acknowledged that certification is
normally established early in a legal proceeding.  That is not an
"iron clad standard," however, particularly if it becomes clear
that "individual issues will engulf the litigation," he wrote.

That appears to be the case now, he indicated. In his judgment, it
has not actually been established that "any members of the
putative class (of retirees) were damaged" by the loss of
University of California health care.

A class-action trial might be appropriate if the main question is
the extent of individual damages -- but not if it remains to be
resolved "whether each class member has in fact been damaged at
all."

UC health care benefits were available to the LLNL retirees from
the time of the Laboratory's founding in 1952 until 2008, shortly
after a for-profit consortium took over for the University as
manager of the national defense laboratory.

The retirees considered the loss of UC health care to be a
violation of promises made during their careers at the Laboratory
-- promises on which some of them based career decisions.  They
filed suit in 2010, and the suit became a class action four years
later.

Following certification, the retirees spent many thousands of
dollars compiling lists of those who might be eligible for UC
health care and their survivors, sparring with University counsel
and representatives of LLNL over the completeness of records
provided by those institutions.

Neither the retirees nor the University commented publicly on the
decertification order.  At the time the Independent went to press,
the retirees had not decided on next steps, which include the
possibility of appeal. [GN]


LIFE PARTNERS: Pillar Funds' Appeal from Class Certs Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In the Matter of: LIFE PARTNERS, INCORPORATED Debtor.
PHILIP M. GARNER, and all other similarly situated; CHRISTINE
DUNCAN; STEVE SOUTH, as Trustee for, and on behalf of South Living
Trust; MICHAEL ARNOLD; JANET ARNOLD; DOCTOR JOHN S. FERRIS;
REORGANIZED LIFE PARTNERS, INCORPORATED, formerly known as Life
Partners, Incorporated, ET AL, Appellees, v. PILLAR LIFE
SETTLEMENT FUND I, L.P., PILLAR II LIFE SETTLEMENT FUND, L.P.,
PILLAR 3 LIFE SETTLEMENT FUND, L.P., PILLAR 4 LIFE SETTLEMENT
FUND, L.P., PILLAR 5 LIFE SETTLEMENT FUND, L.P., ET AL,
Appellants, Case No. 16-11436 (5th Cir.), the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed as moot Pillar Funds'
appeal on the approval of a bankruptcy proceeding's Settlement
Agreement and class certifications.

Michael Arnold, Janet Arnold, Dr. John S. Ferris, Christine
Duncan, and Steven South as Trustee for and on behalf of South
Living Trust ("Arnold Plaintiffs") filed a class action against
LPI in Texas state court ("Arnold State Court Action"), alleging
that LPI sold unregistered securities in violation of the Texas
Securities Act ("TSA").  The Arnold Plaintiffs sought rescission
as well as attorneys' fees, costs, and interest.  The trial court
concluded that life settlements were not securities and dismissed
the suit.  The Dallas Court of Appeals reversed, holding that life
settlements were securities as a matter of law.  The Texas Supreme
Court unanimously affirmed-life settlements are securities under
the TSA.

LPHI voluntarily commenced chapter 11 bankruptcy while the Arnold
State Court Action was pending in the Texas Supreme Court.  The
bankruptcy court affirmed the U.S. Trustee's appointment of H.
Thomas Moran as the chapter 11 trustee ("Trustee").  The Trustee
filed petitions for chapter 11 bankruptcy for LPI and another Life
Partners company, which were the operating subsidiaries of LPHI.
The bankruptcy court then consolidated these proceedings
("Bankruptcy Cases").  It also lifted the automatic stay so the
Texas Supreme Court could render its decision in the Arnold State
Court Action.

Philip M. Garner, Duncan, and South ("Garner Plaintiffs") filed an
adversary proceeding in the Bankruptcy Cases on behalf of a class
of LPI investors, seeking a declaration that: (i) the class
members were the beneficial owners of the life settlements; and
(ii) the life settlements were not part of LPI's bankruptcy estate
("Garner Class Adversary").  The parties and the district court
referred to the dispute regarding the ownership of the life
settlements as the "Ownership Issue."  The resolution of the
Ownership Issue was complicated by the fact that most investors
purchased fractional interests in life settlements from LPI,
rather than whole life insurance policies.

The Arnold Plaintiffs filed a second adversary proceeding in the
Bankruptcy Cases ("Arnold Class Adversary"). The Arnold Plaintiffs
asserted claims under the TSA on behalf of a class of LPI
investors for rescission of their purchases of life settlements.
They also sought attorneys' fees, costs, and interest.  The Garner
Plaintiffs and the Arnold Plaintiffs ("Named Plaintiffs") later
moved to consolidate the Garner Class Adversary and the Arnold
Class Adversary, which the bankruptcy court granted ("Consolidated
Class Adversary"). The district court then withdrew the automatic
reference to the bankruptcy court, and the Consolidated Class
Adversary was filed in district court.

The Trustee, the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, and
the Named Plaintiffs announced the general terms of a settlement
to resolve the Consolidated Class Adversary.  After the parties
announced the settlement, Pillar Life Settlement Fund I, L.P.,
Pillar II Life Settlement Fund, L.P., Pillar 3 Life Settlement
Fund, L.P., Pillar 4 Life Settlement Fund, L.P., Pillar 5 Life
Settlement Fund, L.P., Evergreen Lifeplan Fund L.P., Evergreen II
Lifeplan Fund L.P., Evergreen III Fund LLC, and Black Diamond
Lifeplan Fund L.P. ("Pillar Funds") filed their own adversary
proceeding in the Bankruptcy Cases, seeking to settle the
Ownership Issue ("Pillar Adversary").  The bankruptcy court abated
the Pillar Adversary.

The Trustee, the Committee, and the Named Plaintiffs then
finalized and filed the Settlement Agreement to resolve the
Consolidated Class Adversary.  The Settlement Agreement sought
certification for two settlement classes: (i) the ownership
settlement subclass; and (ii) the rescission settlement subclass.
Both settlement classes were defined as all persons or entities
who purchased and hold, as of the Plan Effective Date, securities
issued or sold by LPI related to viatical settlements or life
settlements, regardless of how the investments were denominated
and who are Current Position Holders under the Plan, regardless of
whether or not a claim was filed by a class member.

The parties sought and received preliminary approval of the
Settlement Agreement from both the bankruptcy court and the
district court. The parties served class notice on all settlement
class members.  The parties then jointly moved for class
certification, for final approval of the Settlement Agreement, and
to appoint class counsel and representatives.  The Pillar Funds
objected to class certification and to the Settlement Agreement.
The district court referred the matter to the bankruptcy court to
conduct a hearing.  The bankruptcy court held a hearing, reviewed
the Pillar Funds's objections, and issued a report recommending
that the district court certify the settlement classes and grant
final approval of the Settlement Agreement.

The district court certified the settlement classes and adopted
the bankruptcy court's findings of fact and conclusions of law,
granted the parties' joint motion for final approval of the
Settlement Agreement, and entered judgment approving the
Settlement Agreement.

The Pillar Funds appeal the district court's order certifying the
classes approving the Settlement Agreement.  The Pillar Funds
argue that the district court erred by certifying the class
actions pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) and approving the Settlement
Agreement.  Reorganized Life Partners Inc., Eduardo S. Espinosa,
and Alan M. Jacobs ("New LPI"), as well as the Named Plaintiffs,
oppose the Pillar Funds's appeal.  Importantly, they did not seek
a stay of the reorganization plan, and the bankruptcy court
entered a chapter 11 confirmation order while this appeal was
pending.  The Pillar Funds did not appeal the bankruptcy court's
confirmation order.  As conceded by the Pillar Funds, the plan has
been substantially consummated.

The Fifth Circuit holds that even if the rescission provision
allowed the Pillar Funds to rescind the Settlement Agreement if it
is modified or set aside on appeal, it does not- and cannot-
authorize an appeal if the Court does not have jurisdiction to
hear the appeal. Because the confirmation order incorporated and
implemented the Settlement Agreement, the Pillar Funds's claims
were nullified when the bankruptcy court entered the confirmation
order.  The Pillar Funds concededly failed to appeal the
bankruptcy court's confirmation order.  A timely notice of appeal
is necessary to the exercise of appellate jurisdiction.  As such,
the Court cannot grant any effectual relief to the Pillar Funds's
appeal of only the Settlement Agreement.

Because the Pillar Funds's appeal is moot, the Court needs not
reach the other issues raised on appeal.  Accordingly, the appeal
is dismissed as moot.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 29, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/1lNGIv from Leagle.com.

David Mark Bennett -- david.bennett@tklaw.com -- for Appellee.

Jeffrey David Sternklar, for Appellee.

Brent Clark Perry -- bperry@burfordperry.com -- for Appellant.

Dennis L. Roossien, Jr. -- droossien@munsch.com -- for Appellant.

Henry Jefferson LeForce, for Appellant.

Christopher D. Kratovil -- ckratovil@dykema.com -- for Appellee.

Richard Barrett Phillips, Jr. -- Rich.Phillips@tklaw.com -- for
Appellee.

Nicole Williams -- Nicole.Williams@tklaw.com -- for Appellee.

Keith Lamar Langston -- klangston@langston-lawfirm.com -- for
Appellee.

Melanie Lynn Fry, for Appellee.

John C. Leininger -- jcl@sbbolaw.com -- for Appellee.

Stephen Krosschell, for Appellant.

Michael Silverman, for Appellee.

Klint Bruno, for Appellee.


LOCK HAVEN: Older Employees File Age Discrimination Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Beauge, writing for PennLive, reports that class-action
status is sought for a federal lawsuit that accuses Lock Haven
University of forcing out older employees to avoid paying them
retirement benefits they would receive at age 60.

Pattiann Merrifield who in August filed suit in U.S. Middle
District Court, asked Judge Matthew W. Brann to certify the case
as a class action.

She wants the class to be comprised of those over the age of 40
who allegedly were forced out by Deana Hill, associate vice
president of human resources, to avoid paying retirement benefits.

Merrifield does not say how many might be in the class but said
she has requested from Lock Haven the names of those older than 40
who in the past 10 years have resigned or been terminated by Hill.

Affidavits from former public relations director Scott Eldredge
and Carol A. Latronica, former dean of student development,
claiming they were treated similarly to Merrifield are attached to
her court complaint.

The class-action motion identifies a fourth individual who
Merrifield says will be filing an affidavit soon.

Mr. Eldredge in his affidavit claims he was denied severance
because he refused to sign an agreement not to sue under the Age
Discrimination Employment Act.

He says he was terminated after 14 years at age 51 and replaced by
a 24-year-old.  Ms. Latronica contends she was "forced out" the
day after her 57th birthday after 26 years of employment.

Ms. Merrifield, of Mill Hall, claims she was given the option of
early retirement and when she refused, was fired on Jan. 20, 2016,
and replaced by a 34-year-old. She had been a clerk since October
2006.

She contends the university fired her at age 58 to avoid paying
the retirement benefits she would have received at 60.

Her suit also accuses Lock Haven of failing to adequately adopt,
post and implement procedures to respond to allegations of age
discrimination.

Ms. Merrifield notes the U.S. Department of Education in November
2015 told the university it did not have age discrimination
grievance procedures that incorporated due process standards and
provided for the prompt equitable resolution of complaints

Lock Haven has declined to comment on the suit in which the
university and Hill are the defendants. [GN]


MASTERCARD: Faces Collective Action Over Interchange Fees
---------------------------------------------------------
William Allison, Esq. -- wallison@dacbeachcroft.com -- of DAC
Beachcroft, in an article for Lexology, wrote that following the
European Commission decision in December 2007, which decided that
interchange fees charged by MasterCard were anti-competitive, an
individual, Walter Merricks, sought approval from The Competition
Appeal Tribunal ("CAT") to act as the class representative to
bring a GBP14 billion collective action against MasterCard on
behalf of 45 million customers who purchased goods or services
from businesses which accepted payment by MasterCard between May
1992 and June 2008.  The action was brought pursuant to the "opt-
out" collective class action regime introduced by the Consumer
Rights Act 2015.

The CAT decided in July 2017 not to approve the action.  The CAT's
decision was primarily based on its finding that the damages model
proposed was theoretical and not compensatory in nature.  Mr
Merricks has filed an appeal against the Tribunal's decision,
arguing that any deficiency in the compensation model can be
overcome and that the case is suitable for the collective action
regime.  The date for the appeal has not published so far, but its
outcome will be eagerly awaited. [GN]


MAXX POWERSPORT: May Amend Counterclaims in Usury Suit
------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned FORWARD FINANCING LLC, Plaintiff and
Counterclaim-Defendant, v. MAXX POWERSPORT LLC, and ROBERT LANDIS,
Defendants and Counterclaim-Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. 17-10764-
FDS (D. Mass.), Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts granted the Defendants'
Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Counterclaims.

Forward Financing filed a complaint on May 2, 2017, against Maxx
Powersport and Landis alleging breach of contract.  It alleges
that the Maxx Powersport and Landis, the sole member of Maxx
Powersport, breached a "Future Receipt Sales Agreement" executed
by the parties on Oct. 5, 2016.

On Aug. 9, 2017 Maxx Powersport filed an answer and two class-
action counterclaims: one for violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch.
93A, Sections 2 and 11 ("unfair trade practices"), and one for
violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 271, Section 49 ("criminal
usury").  On Aug. 28, 2017, before Forward Financing answered the
counterclaims, Maxx Powersport filed amended counterclaims.  The
amended counterclaims asserted the same two causes of action but
specified the alleged classes and their commonality more
precisely.

On Sept. 18, 2017, Forward Financing filed a motion to dismiss the
counterclaims.  Maxx Powersport filed an opposition on Oct. 10,
and Forward Financing filed a reply on Oct. 17, 2017 . The Court
held a hearing on Oct. 19, 2017 and took the matter under
advisement.

On Nov. 3, 2017, Maxx Powersport filed the present motion for
leave to file second amended counterclaims.  The proposed
amendment does not add any new counts, but rather alleges a
substantial number of new facts, alleged to have been recently
discovered by counsel and related to the arguments advanced by the
parties in the motion-to-dismiss papers.

Judge Saylor finds that at this stage of the proceedings, it is by
no means clear that the proposed amendment would be futile.  The
principal question before the Court in the pending motion to
dismiss is whether the transaction at issue is a bona fide sale or
in fact a disguised loan.  The Plaintiff insists that the
character of the transaction can be completely determined from the
plain language of the Agreement itself, and so there is no need to
allow additional facts of the kind proposed to be alleged by the
Defendants.  But, the Judge says the Agreement is convoluted and
difficult to understand, and seems to contain internal
contradictions.  He is not prepared to find that there is no
plausible basis to look to extrinsic evidence.  To the extent
there is ambiguity, of course, allegations about how the parties
understood or interpreted the Agreement would likely be relevant.

Furthermore, although Defendants are not seeking to add any
additional counts, they do seek to include another theory under
which they might recover under Mass. Gen. Laws Chapter 93A --
namely, that Forward Financing violated Chapter 93A by
unconscionably making, servicing, or collecting, or attempting
to collect, on loans issued to Massachusetts small businesses and
individual owners without appropriate evaluation of their ability
to repay the loans.  The Plaintiff does not address this
additional allegation in its opposition, or explain why such a
theory would be futile.

In summary, because there is no apparent reason why leave to amend
should not be given in the case, Judge Saylor granted the
Defendants to amend their counterclaims.  They are directed to
promptly file their second amended counterclaims.  The Plaintiff's
Motion to Dismiss the Counterclaims is denied as moot without
prejudice to its renewal in whole or in part as to the amended
counterclaims.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 29, 2017 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/GKMWSW from Leagle.com.

Forward Financing LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Alaina Fotiu-
Wojtowicz -- alaina@bfwlegal.com -- Brodsky Fotiu-Wojtowicz, PLLC,
pro hac vice.

Forward Financing LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin H.
Brodsky -- bbrodsky@bfwlegal.com -- Brodsky Fotiu-Wojtowicz, PLLC,
pro hac vice & Kimberly C. Emerling .

Maxx Powersport LLC, Defendant, represented by Courtney C. Booth -
- cbooth@beneschlaw.com -- Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff
LLP, pro hac vice, David S. Almeida -- dalmeida@beneschlaw.com --
Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP, pro hac vice, J.
Dominick Larry, Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP, pro
hac vice, Rachel J. Eisenhaure -- eisenhaurer@whiteandwilliams.com
-- White and Williams LLP & Shane R. Heskin, White and Williams
LLP.

Robert Landis, Defendant, represented by Courtney C. Booth,
Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP, pro hac vice, David S.
Almeida, Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP, pro hac vice,
J. Dominick Larry, Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP, pro
hac vice, Rachel J. Eisenhaure, White and Williams LLP & Shane R.
Heskin, White and Williams LLP.

Maxx Powersport LLC, Counter Claimant, represented by Courtney C.
Booth, Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP, pro hac vice,
David S. Almeida, Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP, pro
hac vice, J. Dominick Larry, Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan &
Aronoff LLP, pro hac vice, Rachel J. Eisenhaure, White and
Williams LLP & Shane R. Heskin, White and Williams LLP.

Robert Landis, Counter Claimant, represented by Courtney C. Booth,
Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP, pro hac vice, David S.
Almeida, Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP, pro hac vice,
J. Dominick Larry, Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP, pro
hac vice, Rachel J. Eisenhaure, White and Williams LLP & Shane R.
Heskin, White and Williams LLP.

Forward Financing LLC, Counter Defendant, represented by Alaina
Fotiu-Wojtowicz, Brodsky Fotiu-Wojtowicz, PLLC, pro hac vice,
Benjamin H. Brodsky, Brodsky Fotiu-Wojtowicz, PLLC, pro hac vice &
Kimberly C. Emerling .

Maxx Powersport LLC, Counter Claimant, represented by Courtney C.
Booth, Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP, pro hac vice,
David S. Almeida, Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP, pro
hac vice, J. Dominick Larry, Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan &
Aronoff LLP, pro hac vice, Rachel J. Eisenhaure, White and
Williams LLP & Shane R. Heskin, White and Williams LLP.

Robert Landis, Counter Claimant, represented by Courtney C. Booth,
Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP, pro hac vice, David S.
Almeida, Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP, pro hac vice,
J. Dominick Larry, Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP, pro
hac vice, Rachel J. Eisenhaure, White and Williams LLP & Shane R.
Heskin, White and Williams LLP.

Forward Financing LLC, Counter Defendant, represented by Alaina
Fotiu-Wojtowicz, Brodsky Fotiu-Wojtowicz, PLLC, pro hac vice,
Benjamin H. Brodsky, Brodsky Fotiu-Wojtowicz, PLLC, pro hac vice &
Kimberly C. Emerling.


MDL 2382: Court Certifies Class in Vacuum Marketing & Sales Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE: EMERSON ELECTRIC CO. WET/DRY VAC
MARKETING AND SALES LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO: ALL
ACTIONS, MDL No. 2382, Case No. 4:12MD2382 HEA (E.D. Mo.), Judge
Henry Edward Autrey of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, Eastern Division, granted the Plaintiffs'
motion to certify a class.

Pending before the Court is the Named Plaintiffs' motion to
certify a class.  This is an action for violations of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act, breach of express warranty, breach of
implied warranty, unjust enrichment, violations of consumer
protection laws in various states for subclasses and breach of
implied warranty redhibition on behalf of the Louisiana subclass.

Relevant to the class certification issue are the Plaintiffs'
allegations that the Defendant misled the public, including them,
into purchasing or paying more for the Defendant's product, the
RIGID wet/dry vacuum, that it did not perform as expressly and
impliedly marketed through a national and uniform advertising
campaign.  The marketing was based on the stated wet/dry vacuum's
"Peak HP."  The Plaintiffs allege the vacuum cannot attain the
advertised horsepower in a standard, household electrical wall
outlet.

The Plaintiffs now seek certification under Missouri law, or
alternatively with subclasses for the different home states of the
various Plaintiffs.  The case presents the classic case for
treatment as a class action: that is, the commonality linking the
class members is the dispositive question in the lawsuit.  The
issue of liability predominates over whatever individual inquiries
will have to be performed to determine damages.

Judge Autrey has conducted a rigorous and painstaking analysis to
ensure that the Plaintiffs satisfied all Rule 23 requirements for
certifying a class.  He has reviewed the materials submitted in
favor of and against class-action certification, with an eye
focused upon satisfying the concerns expressed by the Eighth
Circuit.  He finds that they've shown that class action
certification is undoubtedly appropriate.  Based therefore on the
foregoing, the Motion for Class Certification is granted.

Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a)
and (b)(3), Judge Autrey certified the matter as a class action.
The class is defined as all the Purchasers of the RIGID wet/dry
vacuum.  He certified a Louisiana sub-class under the theory of
redhibition.

The Judge ordered that the parties meet and confer within 21
calendar days of the filing of the Order to agree on the proposed
notice to potential class members pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(c)(2)(B).  The notice will be submitted to the
Court within 28 calendar days of the filing of the Order.

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

Jeff Hale, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by David W. Bauman -- dave@padberglaw.com -
- PADBERG AND CORRIGAN.

Jeff Hale, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Eric D. Holland -- eholland@allfela.com
-- HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC, Matthew J. Padberg -- mjp@padberglaw.com
-- PADBERG, CORRIGAN & APPELBAUM, Michael P. Corrigan --
michael@padberglaw.com -- PADBERG AND CORRIGAN, Robert I. Lax,
LAX, LLP, Ryan A. Keane -- rkeane@simonlawpc.com -- KEANE LAW LLC
& Sanford P. Dumain -- sdumain@milberg.com -- MILBERG LLP.

Raymond Gray, on Behalf of himself and all others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Adam R. Gonnelli --
gonnellia@thesultzerlawgroup.com -- THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, PC,
Bonner C. Walsh -- bonner@walshpllc.com -- WEINSTEIN LAW, Eric D.
Holland, HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC, Jeffrey L. Weinstein, WEINSTOCK AND
SCAVO, Ryan A. Keane, KEANE LAW LLC & Thomas P. Germeroth, THE
GERMEROTH LAW FIRM.

Andrew Bowers, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Bauman, PADBERG
AND CORRIGAN, Eric D. Holland, HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC & Ryan A.
Keane, KEANE LAW LLC.

Emilio Gonzales, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Bauman,
PADBERG AND CORRIGAN, Eric D. Holland, HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC & Ryan
A. Keane, KEANE LAW LLC.

Kenneth Thompson, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Bauman, PADBERG AND
CORRIGAN, Eric D. Holland, HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC & Ryan A. Keane,
KEANE LAW LLC.

Eric Shults, Plaintiff, represented by Adam R. Gonnelli, THE
SULTZER LAW GROUP, PC, Bonner C. Walsh, WEINSTEIN LAW, Eric D.
Holland, HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC, Jeffrey L. Weinstein, WEINSTOCK AND
SCAVO & Ryan A. Keane, KEANE LAW LLC.

Justin Swires, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Eric D. Holland, HOLLAND LAW
FIRM LLC, John G. Simon, THE SIMON LAW FIRM, P.C., Randall S.
Crompton, HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC, Ryan A. Keane, KEANE LAW LLC &
Anthony G. Simon, THE SIMON LAW FIRM, P.C..

Estaban Maravilla, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Eric D. Holland,
HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC, John G. Simon, THE SIMON LAW FIRM, P.C.,
Randall S. Crompton, HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC, Reginald Von Terrell,
THE TERRELL LAW GROUP, Ryan A. Keane, KEANE LAW LLC & Anthony G.
Simon, THE SIMON LAW FIRM, P.C..

Lauren Checki, Plaintiff, represented by Charles E. Schaffer --
cschaffer@lfsblaw.com -- LEVIN AND FISHBEIN, pro hac vice, Douglas
E. Rushton, NEBLETT AND BEARD, Eric D. Holland, HOLLAND LAW FIRM
LLC, Jay Patrick Dinan, PARKER WAICHMAN, John R. Climaco --
jrclim@climacolaw.com -- CLIMACO AND WILCOX, John A. Peca --
japeca@climacolaw.com -- CLIMACO AND WILCOX, John G. Simon, THE
SIMON LAW FIRM, P.C., Jordan L. Chaikin, CHACKES AND CARLSON,
Randall S. Crompton, HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC, Richard J. Arsenault,
NEBLETT AND BEARD, Ryan A. Keane, KEANE LAW LLC & Anthony G.
Simon, THE SIMON LAW FIRM, P.C..

Emerson Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Joseph C.
Orlet -- joseph.orlet@huschblackwell.com -- HUSCH BLACKWELL, LLP,
Mark G. Arnold -- mark.arnold@huschblackwell.com -- HUSCH
BLACKWELL, LLP & Matthew R. Grant -- matt.grant@huschblackwell.com
-- HUSCH BLACKWELL, LLP.

Sears Holdings Corporation, Defendant, represented by Matthew R.
Grant, HUSCH BLACKWELL, LLP.

Sears, Roebuck & Co., Defendant, represented by Matthew R. Grant,
HUSCH BLACKWELL, LLP.


MDL 2740: Pinedas Sue over Docetaxel Injection Concentrate
----------------------------------------------------------
IN RE: TAXOTERE (DOCETAXEL) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL
2740), MICHELLE MARIE PINEDA and ESTABIN PINEDA, the Plaintiff, v.
SANOFI US SERVICES INC. f/k/a SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. INC.; SANOFI-
AVENTIS U.S. LLC; SANDOZ, INC., ACCORD HEALTHCARE, INC.; MCKESSON
CORPORATION d/b/a MCKESSON PACKAGING; HOSPIRA WORLDWIDE, LLC f/k/a
HOSPIRA WORLDWIDE, INC.; HOSPIRA INC.; PFIZER INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-17135 (E.D. La., Dec. 12, 2017),
seeks to recover damages caused by Defendant's breach of warranty.

Defendants expressly warranted to Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs'
healthcare providers that Taxotere, Docefrez, Docetaxel Injection,
and Docetaxel Injection Concentrate were safe and fit for use for
the purposes intended, that they did not produce any dangerous
side effects in excess of those risks associated with other forms
of treatment for cancer, that the side effects they did produce
were accurately reflected in the warnings, and that they were
adequately tested.

Taxotere, Docefrez, Docetaxel Injection, and Docetaxel Injection
Concentrate do not conform to Defendants' express warranties,
because is the drugs are not safe, were not adequately tested,
and have numerous serious side effects, which are in excess of
those risks associated with other forms of treatment and which
were not accurately warned about by Defendants. Defendants' sales
representatives met with Plaintiffs' healthcare provider(s),
including but not limited to in-person meetings, "window calls,"
phone calls, office meetings, lunches, dinners, conferences, and
presentations to discuss Taxotere prior to Plaintiffs' first
Taxotere treatment.

During Defendants' sales representatives and marketing agents
communications with healthcare providers, they made statements,
comments, and express suggestions that the risk of permanent hair
loss associated with Taxotere use was no higher than its
competitor's alternatives. Defendants' sales representatives
expressly warranted to Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' healthcare
providers that once patients who are administered Taxotere
complete treatment, their hair would grow back.

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

Members of the medical community, including physicians and other
healthcare providers, relied upon the representations and
warranties of Defendants for use of Taxotere, Docefrez, Docetaxel
Injection, and Docetaxel Injection Concentrate in recommending,
prescribing, and/or dispensing the drugs at issue.

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


MDL 2800: "Bitton" Suit vs. Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Avi Joshua Bitton, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Equifax Information Services LLC and Does 1 through 10, inclusive,
the Defendant, Case No. 7:17-cv-06946, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta)
MDL 2800, on Dec. 13, 2017. The Northern District of Georgia Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05126-TWT to the proceeding. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. The lead
case is Case No. 1:17-cv-05004-TWT.

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


MDL 2800: "Caplan" Suit vs. Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled DAVID CAPLAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. Equifax
Information Services, LLC, the Defendant, v. Equifax, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-04055, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
(Atlanta), on Dec. 13, 2017. The Northern District of Georgia
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05130-TWT to the proceeding.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. The
lead case is Case No. 1:17-cv-05004-TWT.

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


MDL 2800: "Tirelli" Suit vs. Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Linda Tirelli and Brooke Merino,
individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. Equifax Information Services LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 7:17-cv-06868, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) MDL 2800, on
Dec. 13, 2017. The Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05124-TWT to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. The lead case is
Case No. 1:17-cv-05004-TWT.

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


MDL 2800: "Austin" Suit vs Equifax Seeks Moved to N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled MICHELLE E. AUSTIN, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v.
Equifax, Inc. and Equifax Credit Information Services, Inc., the
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-04045, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta)
MDL 2800, on Dec. 13, 2017. The Northern District of Georgia Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05129-TWT to the proceeding. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. The lead
case is Case No. 1:17-cv-05004-TWT.

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


MDL 2800: Equifax Faces "Kishel" Suit over Consumer Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY S. KISHEL, and ALEXANDER S. HEPBURN, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
EQUIFAX INC., and EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-05139-TWT (N.D. Ga., Dec. 13, 2017),
seeks declaratory relief and redress for affected Equifax
consumers alleging violations of the federal Fair Credit Reporting
Act, the Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act, negligence,
negligence per se, and unjust enrichment.

According to the complaint, because Plaintiffs and the Class
entrusted Defendants with their sensitive personal information,
Equifax owed them a duty of care to take adequate measures to
protect the information entrusted to it, to detect and stop data
breaches, and to inform Plaintiffs and the Class of data breaches
that could expose Plaintiffs and the Class to harm. Equifax failed
to do so. Equifax acknowledges that, between May 2017 and July
2017, it was the subject of a data breach in which unauthorized
individuals accessed Equifax's database and the names, Social
Security Numbers, addresses, and other Personal Identifying
Information ("PII") ("Data Breach").

According to Equifax, the Data Breach affected as many as 145
million people. Equifax admits that it discovered the unauthorized
access on July 29, 2017, but failed to alert Plaintiffs and the
Class to the fact of the breach until September 7, 2017. The Data
Breach was the inevitable result of Equifax's inadequate approach
to data security and the protection of the PII that it collected
during the course of its business. Defendants knew and should have
known of the inadequacy of their own data security. Equifax has
experienced similar such breaches of PII on smaller scales in the
past, including in 2013, 2016, and even as recently as January
2017. Over the years, Equifax has jeopardized the PII and, as a
result, financial information of hundreds of thousands of
Americans.

Despite this long history of breaches, Defendants have failed to
prevent the Data Breach that has exposed the personal information
of over 100 million Americans. The damage done to these
individuals may follow them for the rest of their lives, as they
will have to monitor closely their financial accounts to detect
any fraudulent activity and incur out-of-pocket expenses for years
to protect themselves from, and to combat, identity theft now and
in the future. Equifax knew and should have known the risks
associated with inadequate security, and with delayed reporting of
the breach. The potential for harm caused by insufficient
safeguarding of PII is profound. With data such as that leaked in
the Data Breach, identity thieves can cause irreparable and long-
lasting damage to individuals, from filing for loans and opening
fraudulent bank accounts to selling valuable PII to the highest
bidder.

In the case of Defendants' Data Breach, the potential
repercussions for consumers are particularly egregious. Privacy
researchers and fraud analysts have called this attack "as bad as
it gets." The Defendants failed to inform millions of consumers of
the Data Breach until September 7, 2017, over a month after
Defendants first discovered it on July 29. While Defendants took
no steps at that time to inform the public in the interim,
Defendants did not hesitate to protect themselves; at least three
Equifax senior executives, including CFO John Gamble, upon
information and belief, sold shares worth $1.8 million in the days
following the Data Breach.

To provide relief to the millions of people whose PII has been
compromised by the Data Breach, Plaintiffs Timothy S. Kishel and
Alexander S. Hepburn bring this action on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated. They seek to recover actual and
statutory damages, equitable relief, restitution, reimbursement of
out-of-pocket losses, other compensatory damages, credit
monitoring services with accompanying identity theft insurance,
and injunctive relief including an order requiring Equifax to
improve its data security and bring an end to its long history of
breaches at the cost of consumers.

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

Attorney for Plaintiffs and the Class:

          Kevin Sharp, Esq.
          SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
          611 Commerce St., Suite 3100
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 434 7001
          Facsimile: (615) 434 7020
          E-mail: ksharp@sanfordheisler.com


MDL 2800: "Davis" Suit vs Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jeremy Davis, Amanda Gurtis and
John Hughes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Equifax, Inc., the Defendant, Case No.
7:17-cv-06883, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) MDL 2800, on Dec. 13,
2017. The Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:17-cv-05125-TWT to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. The lead case is Case No.
1:17-cv-05004-TWT.

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


MDL 2800: "Hensley" Suit v. Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Barbara Hensley, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Equifax, Inc. and Equifax Information Services LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-04105, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
(Atlanta), on Dec. 13, 2017. The Northern District of Georgia
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05131-TWT to the proceeding.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. The
lead case is Case No. 1:17-cv-05004-TWT.

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


MDL 2800: Pino Sues Equifax over Consumer Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------
KRISTA PINO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. EQUIFAX INC., and EQUIFAX INFORMATION
SERVICES, INC, Defendants, the Plaintiff, Case No. 1:17-cv-05140-
TWT (N.D. Ga., Dec. 13, 2017), seeks to recover actual and
statutory damages, equitable relief, restitution, reimbursement of
out-of-pocket losses, other compensatory damages, credit
monitoring services with accompanying identity theft insurance,
and injunctive relief including an order requiring Equifax to
improve its data security and bring to an end its long history of
breaches at the expense of consumers.

The Defendants Equifax Inc. and Equifax Information Services, LLC
operate one of the three largest consumer credit reporting
agencies in the United States. Plaintiff Krista Pino has been a
consumer of Defendants' services and entrusted Defendants with her
personal information. Plaintiff brings this action on a class
basis alleging violations of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act
(FCRA), New Mexico's Unfair Practices Act (UPA), negligence,
negligence per se, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief and redress for affected Equifax
consumers.

Because Plaintiff and the Class entrusted Defendants with their
sensitive personal information, Defendants owed them a duty of
care to take adequate measures to protect the information
entrusted to them, to detect and stop data breaches, and to inform
Plaintiff and the Class of data breaches that could expose
Plaintiff and the Class to harm. Equifax failed to do so. The
Defendants acknowledge that, between May 2017 and July 2017, they
were the subject of a data breach in which unauthorized
individuals accessed Equifax's database and the names, Social
Security numbers, addresses, and other Personal Identifying
Information ("PII") stored therein. According to Equifax, the Data
Breach affected as many as 145 million people. Defendants admit
that they discovered the unauthorized access on July 29, 2017, but
failed to alert Plaintiff and the Class to the fact of the breach
until September 7, 2017.

The Data Breach was the inevitable result of Defendants'
inadequate approach to data security and the protection of the PII
that they collected during the course of their business.
Defendants knew and should have known of the inadequacy of their
own data security. They have experienced similar such breaches of
PII on smaller scales in the past, including in 2013, 2016, and
even as recently as January 2017. Over the years, Defendants have
jeopardized the PII and, as a result, financial information of
hundreds of thousands of Americans.

Despite this long history of breaches, Defendants have failed to
prevent the Data Breach that has exposed the personal information
of over 100 million Americans. The damage done to these
individuals may follow them for the rest of their lives, as they
will have to monitor closely their financial accounts to detect
any fraudulent activity and incur out-of-pocket expenses for years
to protect themselves from, and to combat, identity theft now and
in the future.

Equifax knew and should have known the risks associated with
inadequate security, and with delayed reporting of the breach. The
potential for harm caused by insufficient safeguarding of PII is
profound. With data such as that leaked in the Data Breach,
identity thieves can cause irreparable and long-lasting damage to
individuals, from filing for loans and opening fraudulent bank
accounts to selling valuable PII to the highest bidder.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Sharp, Esq.
          SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
          611 Commerce St., Suite 3100
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 434 7001
          Facsimile: (615) 434 7020
          E-mail: ksharp@sanfordheisler.com


MDL 2800: Sprecher Sues Equifax over Consumer Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
TAYLOR SPRECHER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. EQUIFAX INC., and EQUIFAX INFORMATION
SERVICES, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-05141-TWT (N.D.
Ga., Dec. 13, 2017), seeks to recover actual and statutory
damages, equitable relief, restitution, reimbursement of out-of-
pocket losses, other compensatory damages, credit monitoring
services with accompanying identity theft insurance, and
injunctive relief including an order requiring Equifax to improve
its data security and bring to an end its long history of breaches
at the expense of consumers.

The Defendants operate one of the three largest consumer credit
reporting agencies in the United States. The Plaintiff has been a
consumer of Defendants' services and entrusted Defendants with his
personal information. Plaintiff brings this action on a class
basis alleging violations of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act
(FCRA), Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act, negligence,
negligence per se, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief and redress for affected Equifax
consumers. The Because Plaintiff and the Class entrusted
Defendants with their sensitive personal information, Defendants
owed them a duty of care to take adequate measures to protect the
information entrusted to them, to detect and stop data breaches,
and to inform Plaintiff and the Class of data breaches that could
expose Plaintiff and the Class to harm. Equifax failed to do so.

Defendants acknowledge that, between May 2017 and July 2017, they
were the subject of a data breach in which unauthorized
individuals accessed Equifax's database and the names, Social
Security numbers, addresses, and other Personally Identifiable
Information ("PII") stored. According to Equifax, the Data Breach
affected as many as 145 million people. Defendants admit that they
discovered the unauthorized access on July 29, 2017, but failed to
alert Plaintiff and the Class to the fact of the breach until
September 7, 2017. The Data Breach was the inevitable result of
Defendants' inadequate approach to data security and the
protection of the PII that they collected during the course of
their business. Defendants knew and should have known of the
inadequacy of their own data security. They have experienced
similar such breaches of PII on smaller scales in the past,
including in 2013, 2016, and even as recently as January 2017.
Over the years, Defendants have jeopardized the PII and, as a
result, financial information of hundreds of thousands of
Americans.

Despite this long history of breaches, Defendants have failed to
prevent the Data Breach that has exposed the personal information
of over 100 million Americans. The damage done to these
individuals may follow them for the rest of their lives, as they
will have to monitor closely their financial accounts to detect
any fraudulent activity and incur out-of-pocket expenses for years
to protect themselves from, and to combat, identity theft now and
in the future.

Equifax knew and should have known the risks associated with
inadequate security, and with delayed reporting of the breach. The
potential for harm caused by insufficient safeguarding of PII is
profound. With data such as that leaked in the Data Breach,
identity thieves can cause irreparable and long-lasting damage to
individuals, from filing for loans and opening fraudulent bank
accounts to selling valuable PII to the highest bidder.

In the case of Defendants' Data Breach, the potential
repercussions for consumers are particularly egregious. Privacy
researchers and fraud analysts have called this attack "as bad as
it gets." The Defendants failed to inform millions of consumers of
the Data Breach until September 7, 2017, over a month after
Defendants first discovered it on July 29. While Defendants took
no steps at that time to inform the public in the interim,
Defendants did not hesitate to protect themselves; at least three
Equifax senior executives, including CFO John Gamble.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Sharp, Esq.
          SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
          611 Commerce St., Suite 3100
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 434 7001
          Facsimile: (615) 434 7020
          E-mail: ksharp@sanfordheisler.com


MDL 2800: "Amadick" Suit v. Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Margaret Amadick, Jeannie Ball
Jennifer Ball, Thomas Greenwood, Robert Roehl, Constance Zasada,
and Theodore Zasada, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Equifax Information Services
LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 0:17-cv-04196, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta), on
Dec. 10, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-
05027-TWT to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr.  The Lead case is Case No. 1:17-md-
02800-TWT.

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


MDL 2800: "Anderson" Suit v. Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Christine Anderson, Individually
and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Director Kim Wolfe,
and Frances Jones, the Plaintiffs, v. Equifax, Inc., Case No.
2:17-cv-00156, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Kentucky, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) MDL 2800, on Dec. 8,
2017. The Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:17-cv-05008-TWT to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr.  The Lead case is Case No.
1:17-md-02800-TWT.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jasper D. Ward, IV, Esq.
          JONES WARD, PLC
          312 South Fourth Street, Sixth Floor
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 882 6000
          Facsimile: (502) 587 2007
          E-mail: jasper@jonesward.com

               - and -

          Steven W. Teppler, Esq.
          ABBOTT LAW GROUP, P.A.
          2929 Plummer Cove Road
          Jacksonville, FL 32223
          Telephone: (904) 292 1111
          E-mail: steppler@abbottlawpa.com


MDL 2800: "Byas" Suit v. Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Deidra Byas and K'acia Drummer,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Equifax, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00130, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Mississippi, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia (Atlanta), on Dec. 10, 2017. The Northern
District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05027-
TWT to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., the Lead case is Case No. 1:17-cv-05025-
TWT.

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


MDL 2800: "Tada" Suit v. Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Caralyn Tada, Craig Nowinsky, and
Lori Pobiner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Equifax, Inc., the Defendant, Case
No. 2:17-cv-06666, was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) MDL 2800, on Dec.
10, 2017. The Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:17-cv-05027-TWT to the proceeding. The case is assigned
to the Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr.  The Lead case is Case No.
1:17-cv-05004-TWT.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph Gentile, Esq.
          Ronen Sarraf, Esq.
          SARRAF GENTILE LLP
          11 Hanover Square, 2nd Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 433 1312
          Facsimile: (212) 406 3677
          E-mail: ronen@sarrafgentile.com

               - and -

          Mark A Ozzello, Esq.
          OZZELLO PRACTICE PC
          17383 West Sunset Boulevard Suite A-380
          Pacific Palisades, CA 90272
          Telephone: (844) 774 2020
          Facsimile: (310) 454 5970


MDL 2800: "Cole" Suit v. Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Philip Cole, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Equifax, Inc. and Equifax Information Services LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-11712, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) MDL
2800, on Dec. 8, 2017. The Northern District of Georgia Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05015-TWT to the proceeding. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr.  The Lead
case is Case No. 1:17-md-02800-TWT.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John J. Roddy, Esq.
          RODDY, KLEIN AND RYAN
          727 Atlantic Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: (617) 357 5500 ext. 16
          Facsimile: (617) 357 5030


MDL 2800: "Gallant" Suit vs. Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Joseph Gallant, Jr., individually
and on behalf of those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Equifax Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-02712, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia (Atlanta), on Dec. 10, 2017. The Northern District of
Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05024-TWT to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas W.
Thrash, Jr.  The Lead case is Case No. 1:17-md-02800-TWT.

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


MDL 2800: "Avise" Suit vs. Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Grant Avise, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Equifax
Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-01563, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
(Atlanta) MDL 2800, on Dec. 10, 2017. The Northern District of
Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05022-TWT to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas W.
Thrash, Jr.  The Lead case is Case No. 1:17-md-02800-TWT.

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

The Defendant is represented by:

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


MDL 2800: "Joof" Suit vs. Equifax Transferred to N.D Georgia
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Henan Louis Joof and Akop
Sogomonyan, an individual, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated California consumers, the Plaintiffs, v. Equifax Inc., a
Georgia corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-06659, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia (Atlanta) MDL 2800, on Dec. 10, 2017. The
Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-
cv-05003-TWT to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr.  The Lead case is Case No. 1:17-md-
02800-TWT.

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


MDL 2800: "Neilan" Suit v. Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Sean Neilan, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Equifax
Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-06508, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
(Atlanta) MDL 2800, on Dec. 8, 2017. The Northern District of
Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-06010-TWT to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas W.
Thrash, Jr.  The Lead case is Case No. 1:17-md-02800-TWT.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ben Barnow, Esq.
          BARNOW & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          One North LaSalle
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone (312) 621 2000
          E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com


MDL 2800: "Faillace" Suit vs. Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Ondrea Faillace, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Equifax Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-06721, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia (Atlanta) MDL 2800, on Dec. 8, 2017. The
Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-
cv-05006-TWT to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr.  The Lead case is Case No. 1:17-md-
02800-TWT.

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


MDL 2800: "Barker" Suit vs Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Patrick Barker, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Equifax Inc. and Does 1 to 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
8:17-cv-01560, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) MDL 2800, on Dec. 8,
2017. The Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:17-cv-05007-TWT to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr.  The Lead case is Case No.
1:17-md-02800-TWT.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MDL 2800: "Collins" Suit vs. Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Randall Collins, on Behalf of
Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Equifax, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-01561, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for Central District of
California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia (Atlanta) MDL 2800, on Dec. 10, 2017. The Northern
District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05021-
TWT to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Thomas W. Thrash, Jr.  The Lead case is Case No. 1:17-md-02800-
TWT.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
          BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
          701 B Street, Suite 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 338 1100
          Facsimile: (619) 338 1101
          E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com


MDL 2800: "Bandoh-Aidoo" Suit v. Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Samuel Bandoh-Aidoo, on behalf of
himself individually, and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Equifax Inc. and Does 1 through 10,
the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-06658, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta)
MDL 2800, on Dec. 8, 2017. The Northern District of Georgia Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05002-TWT to the proceeding. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr.  The Lead
case is Case No. 1:17-md-02800-TWT.

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


MDL 2800: "Santomauro" Suit v. Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Rodd Santomauro, Brenda Birkett,
and Debra Lee, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Equifax, Inc., the Defendant, Case
No. 1:17-cv-01852, was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) MDL 2800, on Dec. 10, 2017.
The Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:17-cv-05028-TWT to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr.  The Lead case is Case No. 1:17-
md-02800-TWT.

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


MDL 2800: "Raffin" Suit v. Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Sheena Raffin, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Equifax, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-06620, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia (Atlanta) MDL 2800, on Dec. 8, 2017. The
Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-
cv-05001-TWT to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr.  The Lead case is Case No. 1:17-md-
02800-TWT.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS-NY
          153 East 53rd Street
          Citicorp Center
          New York, NY 10022-4675
          Telephone: (212) 446 4786
          E-mail: tfriedman@kirkland.com


MDL 2800: "Skye" Suit vs. Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled KAETHE SKYE, individually on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Equifax, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-11742, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia (Atlanta) MDL 2800, on Dec. 8, 2017. The
Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-
cv-05016-TWT to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr.  The Lead case is Case No. 1:17-md-
02800-TWT.

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


MDL 2800: "Duran" Suit vs. Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Wendy Duran and Roy Duran, on
behalf of themselves, and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Equifax, Inc. and Does 1 to 10, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-01571, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) MDL
2800, on Dec. 10, 2017. The Northern District of Georgia Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05023-TWT to the proceeding. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr.  The Lead
case is Case No. 1:17-md-02800-TWT.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Natalie S Pang, Esq.
          KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP
          644 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 217 5000
          Facsimile: (213) 217 5010


MDL 2800: "Gerstein" Suit v. Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Joshua Gerstein and Charles
Stimac, Jr., individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Equifax Information Services LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00593, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for Southern District of Ohio, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) MDL 2800, on
Dec. 11, 2017. The Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05048-TWT to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. The lead case is
Case No. 1:17-cv-05004-TWT.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc Edward Dann, Esq.
          THE DANN LAW FIRM CO. LPA
          P.O. Box 6031040
          2728 Euclid Avenue, Suite 300
          Cleveland, OH 44103
          Telephone: (216) 373 0539
          E-mail: notices@dannlaw.com


MDL 2800: "Kendall" Suit vs. Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled CHRISTOPHER JOHN KENDALL, MICHAEL
FRANKLIN, and KAREN FRANKLIN, individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Equifax Information
Services LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-06922, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia (Atlanta), on Dec. 11, 2017. The Northern District of
Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05049-TWT to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas W.
Thrash, Jr. The lead case is Case No. 1:17-cv-05004-TWT.

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Scott B. Galla, Esq.
          CLARK HILL PLC
          One Commerce Square
          2005 Market Street, Suite 1000
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 640 8500
          Facsimile: (215) 640 8501


MDL 2800: "Kilgore" Suit v. Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Shelbi Kilgore, Michael Schaber,
and "John" Howard, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Equifax Information
Services LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00942, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Mexico, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia (Atlanta) MDL 2800, on Dec. 11, 2017. The Northern
District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05070-
TWT to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. The lead case is Case No. 1:17-cv-05004-TWT.

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


MDL 2800: "Levy" Suit vs. Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Daniel Levy, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Equifax
Information Services LLC and Does 1 through 10, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-05354, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) MDL 2800, on
Dec. 11, 2017. The Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05063-TWT to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. The lead case is
Case No. 1:17-cv-05004-TWT.

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


MDL 2800: "Belden" Suit vs. Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Mr. Matthew Belden, individually
and on behalf of all other similarly situated California citizens,
the Plaintiff, v. Equifax, Inc., a Georgia corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-05260, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
(Atlanta), on Dec. 11, 2017. The Northern District of Georgia
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05039-TWT to the proceeding.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. The
lead case is Case No. 1:17-cv-05004-TWT.

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


MDL 2800: "Christen" Suit vs. Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled PEGGY CHRISTEN and JOSEPH T.
COUGHLIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Equifax, Inc., the Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-06951, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta), on Dec. 11, 2017.
The Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:17-cv-05059-TWT to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. The lead case is Case No. 1:17-
cv-05004-TWT.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip A. Tortoreti, Esq.
          WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER
          90 Woodbridge Center Drive
          Woodbridge, NJ 07095
          Telephone: (732) 855 6221
          E-mail: ptortoreti@wilentz.com


MDL 2800: "Derby" Suit vs. Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled MELISSA DERBY, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Equifax, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01186, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia (Atlanta), on Dec. 11, 2017. The Northern
District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05068-
TWT to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. The lead case is Case No. 1:17-cv-05004-TWT.

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Vincent M. Roskovensky, Esq.
          CLARK HILL PLC
          One Oxford Centre, 14th Floor
          301 Grant Street
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 394 7716


MDL 2800: "Gibson" Suit v. Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Robin Gibson, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Equifax,
Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-00973, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for Western District of Oklahoma, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
(Atlanta), on Dec. 11, 2017. The Northern District of Georgia
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05072-TWT to the proceeding.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. The
lead case is Case No. 1:17-cv-05004-TWT.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          Joshua D. Wells, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235 1560
          Facsimile: (405) 239 2112
          E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com


MDL 2800: "Grossberg" Suit v. Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Josh Grossberg, Lisa Olivo, Justin
Rothman, Michael Rothman, and Margret Linich, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Equifax, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05280, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia (Atlanta) MDL 2800, on Dec. 11, 2017. The Northern
District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05061-
TWT to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. The lead case is Case No. 1:17-cv-05004-TWT.

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


MDL 2800: "Jorge" Suit vs. Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Christine Jorge and Joanne
Durrangm, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Equifax, Inc., the Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-05404, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) MDL 2800, on Dec. 11,
2017. The Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:17-cv-05071-TWT to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. The lead case is Case No.
1:17-cv-05004-TWT.

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Peter Isajiw, Esq.
          CADWALADER WICKERSHAM & TAFT
          One World Financial Center
          New York, NY 10281
          Telephone: (212) 504 6579
          Facsimile: (212) 504 6666
          E-mail: peter.isajiw@cwt.com


MDL 2800: "Salinas" Suit vs. Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Alejandro Salinas and Michael
Ribons, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Equifax, Inc., the Defendant,
Case No. 5:17-cv-05284, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta), on
Dec. 11, 2017. The Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05042-TWT to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. The lead case is
Case No. 1:17-cv-05004-TWT.

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


MDL 2800: "Zamora" Suit vs. Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Victor Zamora, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Equifax Inc. and Equifax Information Services, LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-07085, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta), on
Dec. 11, 2017. The Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05062-TWT to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. The lead case is
Case No. 1:17-cv-05004-TWT.

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


MDL 2800: "Mann" Suit vs. Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled DANIEL J. MANN, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. Equifax
Information Services LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-04100,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta), on Dec. 12, 2017. The
Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-
cv-05103-TWT to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. The lead case is Case No. 1:17-cv-
05004-TWT.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Soumilas, Esq.
          FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.
          19th Floor, Land Title Building
          100 South Broad Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19110
          Telephone: (215) 735 8600
          E-mail: jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Vincent M. Roskovensky, Esq.
          CLARK HILL PLC
          One Oxford Center, 14th Floor
          301 Grant Street
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 394 7716


MDL 2800: "Pavitt" Suit vs. Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jodie Pavitt, Jennifer Mertlich,
and Simon Kaufman, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated persons, the Plaintiffs, v. Equifax, Inc., the Defendant,
Case No. 2:17-cv-01363, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) MDL 2800, on
Dec. 12, 2017. The Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05101-TWT to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. The lead case is
Case No. 1:17-cv-05004-TWT.

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


MDL 2800: "House" Suit vs. Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Aaron House, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Equifax, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02523, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas, , to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia (Atlanta), on Dec. 12, 2017. The Northern District of
Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05102-TWT to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas W.
Thrash, Jr. The lead case is Case No. 1:17-cv-05004-TWT.

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


MDL 2800: "Bahnmaier" Suit vs. Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Mikayla Dawn Bahnmaier,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Equifax, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-
00512, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Oklahoma, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta), on Dec. 12, 2017. The
Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-
cv-05087-TWT to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. The lead case is Case No. 1:17-cv-
05004-TWT.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua D. Wells, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235 1560


MDL 2800: "Collins" Suit v. Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Robert L. Collins, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Equifax, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00187, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia (Atlanta) MDL 2800, on Dec. 12, 2017. The Northern
District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05088-
TWT to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. The lead case is Case No. 1:17-cv-05004-TWT.

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


MDL 2800: "Lynch" Suit vs. Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Reagan Lynch, Alicia Lynch, and
Amber Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Equifax, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00640, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta), on
Dec. 12, 2017. The Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05090-TWT to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. The lead case is
Case No. 1:17-cv-05004-TWT.

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


MDL 2800: "Martin" Suit vs. Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Sean J. Martin, Richard Shanken
Tonya Shanken, and Nancy Stabell on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Equifax, Inc. and
Equifax Information Services LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-
cv-01246, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) MDL 2800, on Dec. 12, 2017.
The Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:17-cv-05116-TWT to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. The lead case is Case No. 1:17-
cv-05004-TWT.

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


MDL 2807: "Huffer" Suit v. Sonic Consolidated in N.D. Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Brian Huffer and Caitlin Gilmore,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. Sonic Corp., the Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-01032,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio, on Dec. 12, 2017. The Ohio Northern District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-sb-55001-JSG to the proceeding.

The Gilmore case is being consolidated with MDL 2807 in Re: Sonic
Corp. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. The MDL was
created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on December 6, 2017. Before the Panel,
Plaintiffs in two Western District of Oklahoma actions, move under
28 U.S.C. section 1407 to centralize this litigation in the
Western District of Oklahoma. This litigation consists of five
actions pending in three districts. The Plaintiffs in the
remaining Western District of Oklahoma action and the District of
Oregon action support the motion or, alternatively, support
centralization in the Northern District of Ohio. Plaintiffs in the
District of Nevada action and the Northern District of Ohio
potential tag-along action support centralization in the Northern
District of Ohio. Defendant Sonic Corp. opposes centralization or,
alternatively, supports centralization in the Western District of
Oklahoma.

In its December 6, 2017 Order, the MDL Panel found that the
centralization under Section 1407 in the Northern District of Ohio
will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and
promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These
actions -- all of which are putative nationwide class actions --
share factual issues concerning an incident in which Sonic's
point-of-sale system was breached, allowing computer hackers to
gain access to up to 5 million individuals' personally
identifiable information. Centralization will eliminate
duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings on
class certification and other issues; and conserve the resources
of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge
in the MDL is Hon. Judge James S. Gwin, United States District
Judge. The lead case is 1:17-md-02807-JSG.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Carin L. Marcussen, Esq.
          Joshua D. Wells, Esq.
          William B. Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235 4560
          Facsimile: (405) 239 2112
          E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Amy J. Pierce, Esq.
          Joe M. Hampton, Esq.
          CORBYN HAMPTON BARGHOLS PIERCE
          211 North Robinson Avenue, Ste. 1910
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 239 7055
          Facsimile: (405) 702 4348


MDL 2807: "Lewin" Suit vs. Sonic Consolidated in N.D. Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jeffrey Lewin and Audrey
Bernstein, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Sonic Corp., the Defendant, Case No.
5:17-cv-01047, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Oklahoma, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio, on Dec. 12, 2017. The Ohio Northern
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-sb-55003-JSG to the
proceeding.

The Lewin case is being consolidated with MDL 2807 in Re: Sonic
Corp. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. The MDL was
created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on December 6, 2017. Before the Panel,
Plaintiffs in two Western District of Oklahoma actions, move under
28 U.S.C. section 1407 to centralize this litigation in the
Western District of Oklahoma. This litigation consists of five
actions pending in three districts. The Plaintiffs in the
remaining Western District of Oklahoma action and the District of
Oregon action support the motion or, alternatively, support
centralization in the Northern District of Ohio. Plaintiffs in the
District of Nevada action and the Northern District of Ohio
potential tag-along action support centralization in the Northern
District of Ohio. Defendant Sonic Corp. opposes centralization or,
alternatively, supports centralization in the Western District of
Oklahoma.

In its December 6, 2017 Order, the MDL Panel found that the
centralization under Section 1407 in the Northern District of Ohio
will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and
promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These
actions -- all of which are putative nationwide class actions --
share factual issues concerning an incident in which Sonic's
point-of-sale system was breached, allowing computer hackers to
gain access to up to 5 million individuals' personally
identifiable information. Centralization will eliminate
duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings on
class certification and other issues; and conserve the resources
of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge
in the MDL is Hon. Judge James S. Gwin, United States District
Judge. The lead case is 1:17-md-02807-JSG.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          Carin L. Marcussen, Esq.
          Joshua D. Wells, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235 1560
          Facsimile: (405) 239 2112
          E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Amy J. Pierce, Esq.
          Joe M. Hampton, Esq.
          CORBYN HAMPTON BARGHOLS PIERCE
          211 North Robinson Avenue, Ste. 1910
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 239 7055
          Facsimile: (405) 702 4348


MDL 2807: "Ramirez" Suit vs. Sonic Moved to N.D. Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Denise Ramirez, Individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Sonic Corp., the Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-01044, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Oklahoma, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Ohio, on Dec. 12, 2017. The Ohio Northern District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:17-sb-55002-JSG to the proceeding.

The Ramirez case is being consolidated with MDL 2807 in Re: Sonic
Corp. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. The MDL was
created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on December 6, 2017. Before the Panel,
Plaintiffs in two Western District of Oklahoma actions, move under
28 U.S.C. section 1407 to centralize this litigation in the
Western District of Oklahoma. This litigation consists of five
actions pending in three districts. The Plaintiffs in the
remaining Western District of Oklahoma action and the District of
Oregon action support the motion or, alternatively, support
centralization in the Northern District of Ohio. Plaintiffs in the
District of Nevada action and the Northern District of Ohio
potential tag-along action support centralization in the Northern
District of Ohio. Defendant Sonic Corp. opposes centralization or,
alternatively, supports centralization in the Western District of
Oklahoma.

In its December 6, 2017 Order, the MDL Panel found that the
centralization under Section 1407 in the Northern District of Ohio
will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and
promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These
actions -- all of which are putative nationwide class actions --
share factual issues concerning an incident in which Sonic's
point-of-sale system was breached, allowing computer hackers to
gain access to up to 5 million individuals' personally
identifiable information. Centralization will eliminate
duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings on
class certification and other issues; and conserve the resources
of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge
in the MDL is Hon. Judge James S. Gwin, United States District
Judge. The lead case is 1:17-md-02807-JSG.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          Carin L. Marcussen, Esq.
          Joshua D. Wells, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235 1560
          Facsimile: (405) 239 2112
          E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Amy J. Pierce, Esq.
          Joe M. Hampton, Esq.
          CORBYN HAMPTON BARGHOLS PIERCE
          211 North Robinson Avenue, Ste. 1910
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 239 7055
          Facsimile: (405) 702 4348


MENORAH PARK: "Thompson" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
KEISHA THOMPSON, 12806 North Road, Cleveland, OH 44111 on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
MENORAH PARK CENTER FOR SENIOR LIVING BET MOSHAV ZEKENIM HADATI
c/o Statutory Agent Taft Service Solutions Corp. 200 Public Sq.
Ste 3500 Cleveland, OH 44114, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02580
(N.D. Ohio, Dec. 12, 2017), seeks to recover overtime compensation
for all of the hours worked over 40 each workweek, pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant is a long-term care facility for elderly individuals
and located in Beachwood, Ohio. The Plaintiff was employed by
Defendant as a Registered Nurse between April 2017 and December
2017. Other similarly-situated employees were employed by
Defendant as RNs, LPNs, and nursing assistants. The Plaintiff and
other similarly-situated employees were classified by Defendant as
non-exempt employees. The Plaintiff and other similarly-situated
employees were paid by Defendant on an hourly basis. The Defendant
has a policy that required Plaintiff and other similarly-situated
employees to clock out after working heir 8-hour shift. However,
Defendant required Plaintiff and other similarly-situated
employees to keep working and finish their job duties after
clocking out. The Defendant required Plaintiff and other
similarly-situated employees to perform unpaid work off-the-clock
at the end of their shifts.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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


MST GENERAL: "Guaman" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
MANUEL GUAMAN, JOHNNY PEREZ, GEOVANNI CALLE, FLA VIO CALLE, MARIO
LOJANO, JULIO LOJANO, VICTOR LOZADO, FREDDY CALLE, JUAN MAURIZACA,
GALO PACHECO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated who were employed by M.S.T. General Contracting
Restoration Corp. with respect to certain Public Works Projects,
the Plaintiffs, v. M.S.T. GENERAL CONTRACTING RESTORATION INC.,
MANI SINGH TIDND, GURINDA SINGH, KLEBER CIDCAIZA, and JOHN DOE
BONDING COMPANIES 1-5, the Defendants, Case No. 655469/2016 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., Dec. 14, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid prevailing
wages, overtime premiums, shift-differentials, holiday premiums,
and supplemental benefits and supplemental benefits which
Plaintiffs were entitled to receive for work performed on public
works projects in a number of locations, including but not limited
to the following locations in the state or city of New York,
pursuant to the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants paid Plaintiff Guaman
$255 per day for the 12-hour shifts that he worked on Saturdays
and Sundays. The Plaintiff was never paid prevailing wages,
overtime premiums, shift-differential, holiday premiums and
supplemental benefits for his work on these Public Works Projects.
The Defendants allegedly instructed Guaman to lie and say that he
was being paid $71 per hour when questioned by NYCHA inspectors.
In fact, Defendants paid Plaintiff Guaman approximately $20 per
hour for his work on Public Works Projects.

MST General has over two decades of experience working in New York
City specializing in exterior restoration, brick pointing,
waterproofing, building exterior maintenance, expansion joints,
flashing, water barriers, and lintel replacement.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Steven Arenson, Esq.
          ARENSON, DITTMAR AND KARBAN
          200 Park A venue, Suite 1700
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 490 3600
          E-mail: steve@adklawfirm.com


NEW TELECOM: Lin Seeks Unpaid minimum Wages, OT under Labor Law
---------------------------------------------------------------
HONG LIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. NEW TELECOM, INC. d/b/a FLUSHING INN,
ABC CORP. d/b/a FLUHING INN, ZEMING CHENG a.k.a "DA VlD" CHENG,
and YU ZHANG, Defendants, Case No. 711709/2017 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Dec. 12, 2017), seeks to recover overtime wages, unlawful
deductions, spread of hours compensation, damages for failure to
provide wage statements, damages for failure to provide wage
notice at the time of hiring liquidated damages, interest, costs,
and attorneys' fees for violations of the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendants in
excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate compensation for
the hours over 40 per week that he worked. The Defendants failed
to maintain accurate records of the hours Plaintiff worked, failed
to pay Plaintiff minimum wages, and failed to pay Plaintiff
appropriately for any hours worked over 40, whether at the
straight rate of pay, or for any additional overtime premium.

The Defendants allegedly failed to pay Plaintiff the required
"spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10
hours per day. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of
requiring Plaintiff and other employees to work in excess of 40
hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime
compensation required by New York State Law and regulations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip H. Kim, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          136-18 391h Avenue, Suite 1003
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353 8522

The Defendants are represented by:

          KAUFMAN DOLOWICH & VOLUCK, LLP
          135 Crossways Park Dr. Ste 201
          Woodbury, NY 11797
          Telephone: (516) 681-1100


NEWFIT DALLAS: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Avila" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Roberto Avila, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Newfit Dallas, Ltd d/b/a Fitness Connection, Case No.
3:17-cv-03233-D (N.D. Tex., November 28, 2017), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked
in excess of 40 hours per week.

Newfit Dallas, Ltd. owns and operates health and fitness clubs in
Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard C. Dalton, Esq.
      RICHARD C. DALTON, LLC
      1343 West Causeway Approach
      Mandeville, LA 70471
      Telephone: (985) 778-2215
      Facsimile: (985) 778-2233
      E-mail: rick@rickdaltonlaw.com


NPAS INC: Pickles Violates Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
HELEN PICKLES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. NPAS, INC., a Tennessee Corporation,
the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-14432-JEM (S.D. Fla., Dec. 12,
2017), seeks to recover monetary damages as a results of
Defendant's violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Defendant sought to collect a consumer debt from Plaintiff,
more specifically, a medical debt. The debt was incurred primarily
for personal, household or family use. The debt was not incurred
for any commercial purpose. On or about October 14, 2017,
Defendant mailed or caused to be mailed to Plaintiff a letter
seeking payment of an alleged debt.

The Defendant is licensed in Florida as a consumer collection
agency, license number CCA9902869. Defendant is not licensed in
Florida as a commercial collection agency. The Defendant regularly
collects or attempts to collect consumer debts for other parties.
Defendant is a "debt collector" as defined by the FDCPA.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff:

          Leo W. Desmond, Esq.
          DESMOND LAW FIRM, P.C.
          5070 Highway A1A, Suite D
          Vero Beach, FL 32963
          Telephone: 772.231.9600
          Facsimile: 772.231.0300
          E-mail: lwd@desmondlawfirm.com


NURSE FORCE: "Pinard" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------
SAMANTHA PINARD individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NURSE FORCE, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00434-JAJ-RAW (S.D. Iowa., Dec. 12,
2017), seeks to recover overtime pay and all available relief
under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

According to the complaint, NFI failed to accurately calculate the
amount of overtime owed to the FLSA Class members, failed to
accurately pay Plaintiff and the FLSA Class the correct amount of
overtime wages. The similarly situated employees are known to the
Defendant, are readily identifiable, and can be easily located
through Defendant's business and human resources records.

Nurse Force provides a wide variety of hourly in-home care
services in the Des Moines area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael D. Currie, Esq.
          Mark W. Thomas, Esq.
          GREFE & SIDNEY, P.L.C.
          500 E. Court Avenue, Suite 200
          Des Moines, IA 50309
          Telephone: (515) 245 4300
          Facsimile: (515) 245 4452
          E-mail: mcurrie@grefesidney.com
                  mthomas@grefesidney.com


OHIO STATE: Ex-Player Seeks to Expand Commercial Image Use Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Welsh-Huggins, writing for The Associated Press, reports
that a former Ohio State and NFL star is asking a judge to let him
expand a class-action lawsuit over allegations that marketing
campaigns for dozens of big-time colleges and universities
improperly used the images of thousands of current and former
football players.

Those athletes should be compensated, according to the proposed
update of a lawsuit by ex-linebacker turned broadcaster
Chris Spielman.

Attorneys for Mr. Spielman asked a federal judge on Nov. 28 to
allow the broad expansion of Mr. Spielman's claims, which accuse
talent management giant IMG and apparel-maker Nike of wrongly
using the likenesses of current and former players at 89 colleges
and universities.

Mr. Spielman attorney Brian Duncan said he's confident the
expanded lawsuit will go forward soon.

Originally filed just on behalf of Ohio State athletes, the
proposed antitrust complaint names schools including Alabama,
Clemson, Florida, Ole Miss, Notre Dame, Virginia Tech and Texas,
among many others.

IMG and Nike have restricted players' ability to "capitalize on
the proverbial blood, sweat, and tears" shed by Mr. Spielman and
the other athletes during their playing days, said the proposed
lawsuit, also filed on Nov. 28.

The updated complaint calls IMG and Nike's actions "patently anti-
competitive and illegal," and said actions by the companies and
the universities led to the players "losing their freedom to
compete in the open market."

One contested marketing campaign is a Honda-sponsored program of
64 banners hung around Ohio Stadium featuring photos of former
players with a Honda logo. Honda executed the program under
contract with IMG, not Ohio State.

IMG, Nike and their business partners earned millions from TV
contracts, rebroadcasts, film sales and rentals, jersey sales and
other sources while athletes received nothing, according to the
updated lawsuit.

The new complaint names IMG and Nike as defendants and Honda, Ohio
State, and the other universities as co-conspirators. Nike is
targeted for its "Legends of the Scarlet and Gray" vintage jersey
licensing program and for other apparel contracts at the various
other schools.

Ohio State alone will receive $2.5 billion in revenue through its
IMG contract and the company has similar contracts at other
universities, Mr. Spielman told The Associated Press in a
statement on Nov. 28.

Mr. Spielman said he remains hopeful Ohio State "will step up and
lead the change in this area on behalf of its former players. "

Both IMG and Ohio State have previously urged a judge to dismiss
the lawsuit.  In October, IMG Worldwide, Inc. and related entities
said the lawsuit should be tossed out because there's no evidence
the company did anything wrong.  In September, the university said
federal courts don't have jurisdiction over the complaint and Mr.
Spielman hasn't met a legal burden required in such antitrust
lawsuits.  Judge Michael Watson has yet to rule on the motions to
throw out the case.

Messages were left for Honda's Ohio-based spokesman, Ohio State,
and Beaverton, Oregon-based Nike Inc. An attorney for New York-
based IMG said he hadn't had a chance to review the new lawsuit.

Mr. Spielman is an NFL and college football analyst for Fox.  He
was an All-American linebacker at Ohio State, where he played from
1984 to 1987, and an All-Pro linebacker in the NFL who spent most
of his career with the Detroit Lions.

A breast cancer research center at Ohio State carries the name of
his late wife, Stefanie Spielman, who died of cancer in 2009. [GN]


PHARM-SAVE INC: Court Narrows Claims in "Savidge" PII Theft Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ANDREA K. SAVIDGE, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
PHARM-SAVE, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:17-CV-
00186-TBR (W.D. Ky.), Judge Thomas B. Russell of the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Louisville Division,
(i) granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss, (ii) granted the Plaintiffs' Joint Motion for Extension
of Time to File Response as to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss,
(iii) denied as moot the Plaintiffs' Joint Motion to Remand, (iv)
granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File First Amended
Class Action Complaint, (v) denied the Plaintiffs' Joint Motion to
Stay, and (vi) granted the Defendants' Motion for Leave to File
Sur-Reply.

Plaintiffs Savidge and Lynch were employees of Pharm-Save from
2013 to 2015 and 2013 to 2014, respectively.  On March 3, 2016,
after the each of the Plaintiffs' employment with Pharm-Save had
ended, a data breach occurred through which an outside individual
or group obtained copies of the W-2 forms which Pharm-Save sent to
its employees and the IRS which would have included employees'
social security numbers, addresses and their 2015 salary
information.

In letters dated March 26, 2016, Pharm-Save notified all affected
employees, including Savidge and Lynch, of the incident.  Therein,
it explained the security breach and told employees that it is
possible that the criminal(s) may have filed or may try to file
fraudulent tax refunds in the names of our employees.  Also in the
letters, it offered employees a complimentary two-year membership
of Experian's ProtectMyID Alert.

In a letter dated March 29, 2016, the IRS notified Savidge that it
had received a federal income tax return for the 2015 tax year
with her name and social security number.  However, the IRS stated
that, to protect her from identity theft, the IRS needs to verify
her identity before it processes her return.  Additionally, the
IRS wrote it won't process this tax return until it hears from
her.  Indeed, that tax return was fraudulent.

On March 2, 2017, the Plaintiffs brought suit against Pharm-Save
and Neil Medical Group, Inc. in Kentucky state court, alleging
several causes of action related to the theft of their personally
identifiable information ("PII").  The Defendants removed the
action to the Court on March 27, 2017, and simultaneously filed
the instant motion to dismiss.

The Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the action back to
Kentucky state court.  They also filed a motion for leave to file
a first amended class action complaint.  Finally, the Plaintiffs
filed a motion to stay the ruling on the Defendants' motion to
dismiss until after they've had an opportunity to conduct limited
discovery.  The Defendants then moved to file a sur-reply.

The Defendants seek dismissal of the Plaintiffs' claims of
negligence, negligence per se, invasion of privacy, breach of
implied contract, and intentional and negligent infliction of
emotional distress.  First, they argue that Neil Medical Group is
not an appropriately named Defendant because it was not in
operation at the time of the alleged conduct.  Second, they argue
that the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Because the parties no longer dispute that the Court has
jurisdiction to hear the case, Judge Russell denied as moot the
Plaintiffs' Joint Motion to Remand.

Judge Russell granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss.  The Plaintiffs' claims of negligence per se,
invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress,
and negligent infliction of emotional distress are dismissed for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.  The
portion of the Defendants' motion to dismiss Neil Medical Group on
grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2) is
denied without prejudice.

The parties have until Jan. 31, 2018 to conduct limited discovery
on the issue of personal jurisdiction.  Thereafter, the Defendants
have leave to refile their motion to dismiss Neil Medical Group
under Rule 12(b)(2).  Accordingly, the Judge granted the
Plaintiffs' Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File Response as
to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, is granted.

The Judge granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File First
Amended Class Action Complaint due to the lack of opposition from
the Defendants, and Rule 15(a)(2)'s direction that courts should
allow parties to amend pleadings freely as justice requires.  The
Plaintiffs will add four new causes of action: violations of the
Kentucky Uniform Trade Secrets Act, conversion, trespass to
chattels, and bailment.  Due to the filing of this amended
complaint, the Defendants will hereafter be permitted to file
another motion to dismiss addressing the Plaintiffs' new claims.

The Judge also granted the Defendants' Motion for Leave to File
Sur-Reply and, though he agreed with that Plaintiffs that limited
discovery is warranted, he denied Plaintiffs' Joint Motion to
Stay.  Rather, he denied without prejudice the Defendants'
12(b)(2) motion at this time pending further limited discovery.

Finally, Judge Russell concludes that he will address class
certification issue at a later time after the Plaintiffs have
properly raised it in a motion to certify.  The Plaintiffs state
in their complaint that they seek to bring the suit as a class
action on behalf of all individuals whose PII was compromised as a
result of the March 3, 2016 breach.  In their motion to dismiss,
the Defendants oppose class certification, making several
arguments related to broadness, arbitrariness, ascertainability,
numerosity, adequate representation, typicality, and predominance.
The Judge says at this early stage, it is premature to decide the
class certification issue.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 1, 2017 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/Law1uu from Leagle.com.

Andrea K. Savidge, Plaintiff, represented by Peter J. Jannace --
peter.jannace@gmail.com.

Andrea K. Savidge, Plaintiff, represented by Teddy B. Gordon --
tbearaty@aol.com.

Beth A. Lynch, Plaintiff, represented by Peter J. Jannace & Teddy
B. Gordon.

Pharm-Save, Inc., Defendant, represented by Byron N. Miller --
bmiller@tmslawplc.com -- Thompson Miller & Simpson PLC, Joseph A.
Wright -- jwright@tmslawplc.com -- Thompson Miller & Simpson PLC,
Michael J. Bender -- mbender@tmslawplc.com -- Thompson Miller &
Simpson PLC & Mitchel Terence Denham -- mitchel.denham@ag.ky.gov -
- Kentucky Attorney General.

Neil Medical Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Byron N.
Miller, Thompson Miller & Simpson PLC, Joseph A. Wright, Thompson
Miller & Simpson PLC, Michael J. Bender, Thompson Miller & Simpson
PLC & Mitchel Terence Denham, Kentucky Attorney General.


PRINCE GEORGE'S HOSPITAL: Faces Class Action Over Fake Doctor
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marina Marraco, writing for FOX5, reports that at least ten women
say their patient rights were violated by a man who purported to
be a gynecologist at Prince George's Hospital Center.

Prince George's Hospital Center has acknowledged that they
employed a man who is said to be Dr. Charles J. Akoda.  The
hospital also acknowledged that he used a complex and
sophisticated identity theft scheme.

However, the hospital maintains they completed a diligent and
thorough background check of this man who practiced at their
facility.

A class action complaint was filed in federal court by ten
anonymous women coming forward claiming Akoda allegedly falsified
the majority, if not all of his medical degrees, documentations
and identity, as he practiced medicine as a gynecologist at
hospital for a total of eight years from 2008 to 2016 -- as both a
resident and then as a doctor.

Now, one woman whose baby was delivered by this man has come
forward.

"He has messed up my health afterwards," said Jazmine Tinsley, one
of the alleged victims.  "But throughout the entire time, I put my
trust in him, and now to find out that he is actually a fake, I am
very appalled and in disbelief because I wouldn't expect a
hospital to not do a thorough background check on people that is
willing to work for them.  I would expect them to really do
diligent background checks on people and expect those people to be
who they say they are because the name that he introduced me as
isn't the name that he originally is."

"He was indicted by the federal government, the U.S. attorney in
June of 2016 for a fraudulent social security number," said
attorney Jonathan Schochor.  "They then executed warrants at his
home and found a false passport, a false social security number,
altered immigration documents, altered diploma, altered medical
transcripts, altered letters of recommendation."

Through a spokesperson, Prince George's Hospital Center said in a
statement:

We are aware of a lawsuit filed on behalf of patients who may have
received care from "Dr. Charles J. Akoda."  We intend to
vigorously defend the lawsuit which is based on assumptions and
accusations that he was not a trained, licensed medical
professional.

Dr. "Akoda" is the identity used by a trained and licensed
physician in the practice of Obstetrics and Gynecology when he
delivered his private patients at our facility.  Dr. "Akoda"
completed his residency in Obstetrics and Gynecology at Howard
University in Washington, DC.  He demonstrated the breadth and
depth of clinical competence expected of a resident in Obstetrics
and Gynecology.  He underwent biannual evaluations of his clinical
knowledge and surgical skills based on the fulfilling the Core
Competencies of residency training.  Subsequent to completion of
his residency program in Obstetrics and Gynecology, Dr. "Akoda"
was Board Certified by the American Board of Obstetrics and
Gynecology in 2014.

Upon successful completion of his residency program, he applied
for and was granted medical staff privileges at Prince George's
Hospital Center.  A background check performed by an outside
source validated the social security number he provided.
Throughout the course of his clinical activity at PGHC, he
underwent scheduled Focused Practice and Ongoing Professional
Practice Evaluations which he completed successfully.

Dr. "Akoda" held physician's licenses in good standing in the
State of Maryland and the Commonwealth of Virginia.  We are deeply
committed to high quality patient care, delivered with compassion
and an expectation of integrity from every member of our team. We
are disappointed that our expectation of integrity was not met in
the case of Dr. "Akoda" given his complex, sophisticated identity
theft scheme.

Back in 2014, Prince George's County said they looked into Akoda
for operating as a doctor without a license.  Eventually, the case
went federal and he was indicted on that charge last year.

Now, these ten women in the complaint and at least 100 other women
have told lawyers they were also patients of Akoda's at Prince
George's Hospital Center and are seeking damages as a result. [GN]


RECON INDUSTRIES: "Roberts" Suit Seeks Minimum Pay
--------------------------------------------------
KRISTOPHER ROBERTS on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. RECON INDUSTRIES INC. dba CALIFORNIA
SAFETY AGENCY, a California corporation; DARREL COWAN, an
individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive the Defendant, Case
No. BC686779 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 14, 2017), seeks to recover
minimum and overtime wages under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, for at least four years prior to the
filing of this action and continuing to the present, Defendants
have had a consistent policy of failing to pay wages, including
minimum and overtime wages, to Plaintiff and other similarly
situated current and former employees in the State of California
in violation of California state wage and hour laws as a result
of, including but not limited to, failing to pay wages for all
hours worked and failing to pay proper overtime wages for all
overtime hours worked.

Recon consists of project teams that have experience in refractory
design and installation, as well as piping and mechanical
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Malatesta, Esq.
          MALATESTA LAW
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (424) 284 1384
          Facsimile: (424) 284 8170

               - and -

          Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq.
          BOKHOUR LAW GROUP, P.C.
          287 S. Robertson Blvd., Suite 303
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 975 1493
          Facsimile: (310) 300 1705


REXALL SUNDOWN: Court Dismisses "Seegert" Suit Without Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SANDRA SEEGERT, individually and on behalf
of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. REXALL SUNDOWN,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 17cv1243-JAH (JLB) (S.D. Cal.), Judge
John A. Houston of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss,
motion to strike Seegert's class action complaint, and request for
judicial notice.

The Plaintiff filed her Complaint on June 19, 2017, on behalf of
herself and a putative class.  The Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendant engaged in false and misleading advertising of four
Osteo Bi-Flex dietary supplements. She posits that the Defendant
falsely claims the products promote joint health.  She contends
that on Feb. 20, 2017, she purchased one of the Defendant's
products, Osteo Bi-Flex Triple Strength, in reliance on the
product's advertising.  The Plaintiff alleges the product did not
provide "meaningful joint health benefits" and was falsely,
deceptively, and misleadingly advertised.

The Plaintiff argues that the Defendant violated three California
statutes: (i) California's Unfair Competition Law; (ii)
California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act; and California's False
Advertising Law.  She presents allegations on behalf of herself
and a putative class of similarly situated individuals.
Specifically, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant falsely
advertises four products: Osteo Bi-Flex One Per Day; Osteo Bi-Flex
Triple Strength; Osteo Bi-Flex Triple Strength MSM; and Osteo Bi-
Flex Triple Strength with Vitamin D.  She argues that none of the
four products achieve their intended purpose, to support or
benefit joint health.  The Plaintiff requests restitution,
disgorgement, injunctive relief, attorney's fees, and interest on
damage awards.

On Aug. 14, 2017, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's Complaint.  The same day, it filed a motion to strike.
The Defendant also filed a request for judicial notice.  On Oct.
9, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the
Defendant's motion to dismiss.  On the same day, she filed a
response in opposition to the Defendant's motion to strike.

Judge Houston finds that the Plaintiff lacks standing to assert a
claim in the instant matter.  She fails to demonstrate how the
Defendant's advertisement of its product, Osteo Bi-Flex Triple
Strength, is false or misleading.  She fails to specifically
mention any of the challenged labels in her Complaint.  The
Plaintiff also fails to show that her cited scientific studies are
relevant or that the active ingredients in the Defendant's
products do not deliver promised results.  As to the Defendant's
three other products, the Plaintiff fails to show how she was
injured by products she did not come across or purchase.  She also
fails to demonstrate that she faces "imminent harm" pursuant to
the requirements necessary for injunctive relief.

The Judge also finds that the Plaintiff's Complaint does not
demonstrate she has pleaded with particularity sufficient to meet
the 9(b) heightened standard.  He says the Plaintiff fails to
sufficiently allege the "who, what, where, how and why" of the
Defendant's misconduct.  The pleadings do not allege with
specificity how Defendant misrepresented its product.  The
Plaintiff also fails to show that the Defendant's products do not
achieve the intended purpose.

With respect to the Defendant's motion to strike, the Judge finds
that the Plaintiff fails to prove that all members of her class
definition have been injured and/or have standing pursuant to
Article III.  The members of the class must have the same interest
and suffer the same injury as other class members.  Thus, he will
grant the Defendant's motion to strike the class definition
pursuant to FRCP Rule 12(f).

Finally, because the request of judicial notice is capable of
accurate and ready determination from sources whose accuracy
cannot be reasonably questioned and the parties do not dispute the
authenticity of the document, the Judge will grant the Defendant's
request for judicial notice.

Based on the foregoing reasons, Judge Houston granted the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint, and
dismissed without prejudice the Plaintiff's claims.  Accordingly,
he granted Defendant's motion to strike as well.  To the extent
that the Plaintiff is able to cure the noted deficiencies, the
Plaintiff may file a second amended complaint within 30 days of
the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 1, 2017 Order is available at
https://is.gd/sdcViI from Leagle.com.

Sandra Seegert, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas Joseph O'Reardon, II --
toreardon@bholaw.com -- Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP.

Sandra Seegert, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy G. Blood --
tblood@bholaw.com -- Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP & Todd D.
Carpenter -- tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch Sweet
Kilpela & Carpenter, LLP.

Rexall Sundown, Inc., Defendant, represented by Adriane K. Peralta
-- ADRIANE.PERALTA@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP & Amy Pesapane
Lally -- ALALLY@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP.


RYB EDUCATION: Law Firms Recruit Plaintiffs in Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anna Zhang, writing for Law.com, reports that at least four U.S.
law firms are recruiting plaintiffs in a securities fraud class
action against New York Stock Exchange-listed Chinese early
education service provider RYB Education Inc. after allegations of
child abuse in several of its kindergartens prompted a public
uproar.

New York-based shareholder litigation firms, including Pomerantz,
The Rosen Law Firm, Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman and Bragar Eagel
& Squire, accuse RYB and chief executive Shi Yanlai of making
misleading statements to investors and of failing to implement
sufficient measures at its kindergartens to protect children from
harm and abuse.

The case is filed by Pomerantz co-managing partner Jeremy
Lieberman at U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York in Manhattan.

Beijing-based RYB went public in September in an initial public
offering that raised $133 million.  On the listing, RYB was
advised by Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom China practice
head Julie Gao, while underwriters Credit Suisse Securities and
Morgan Stanley were represented by Kirkland & Ellis Hong Kong
partner David Zhang and Beijing partner Steve Lin.  Commerce &
Finance Law Offices and Grandall Law Firm were Chinese counsel to
the issuer and the underwriters, respectively.

On Nov. 22, eight parents of one of RYB's kindergartens in Beijing
reported to local police that their children were found with
needle marks on their bodies and were given unidentified pills.
Parents also reported that children were "made to stand naked" in
class.

Local police soon arrested one 22-year-old female teacher who
allegedly disciplined children using sewing needles.  On Nov. 29,
Beijing police said in a statement that no molestation and
drugging were found after reviewing 113 hours of surveillance
footage.  The police also said footage was lost due to a damaged
hard drive.

The law firms are suing because RYB's share price dropped by 38
percent to $16.45 on Nov. 24 from the previous closing, as the
public outcry became widespread.  The company announced a $50
million share buyback immediately.  RYB closed on Nov. 28 at
$22.20.

RYB issued a statement on Nov. 28 apologizing to the public,
saying that it has a "zero-tolerance policy towards unethical or
illegal behavior."  The company, whose Beijing facility costs
between $540 and $750 per month, has been aware of the potential
danger of abuse.

In its prospectus for the IPO, the company included among risk
factors that despite training and supervision, it cannot assure
its teachers will completely follow its service manual and
standards all the time.

"For example, video footage that allegedly depicts improper
behavior of a teacher at one of our then-directly operated
kindergartens was released online in April 2017.  It soon led to
broad distribution and caused negative publicity on our operations
and harmed our brand," RYB wrote.

The company was referring to a video depicting a teacher from
another of RYB's Beijing kindergartens pushing and kicking
children and pulling children's hair.  RYB apologized and fired
the teacher. [GN]


SAINT CHARLES SCHOOL: Bid to Strike 3rd Amended "Stanek" OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled MATTHEW STANEK, SANDRA STANEK, and BOGDAN
STANEK, Plaintiffs, v. SAINT CHARLES COMMUNITY UNIT SCHOOL DIST
NO. 303, et al., Defendants, Case No. 13-CV-3106 (N.D. Ill.),
Judge Jorge L. Alonso of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted the (i)
Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint
and Class Allegations, and (ii) Defendants Julie Steston and Rory
Pine's Motion to Dismiss.

Plaintiff Mathew Stanek is autistic.  He attended St. Charles High
School from 2009-13, during which time he received special
education services.  According to the Plaintiffs, Matthew excelled
when he received adequate supportive services.  During his junior
year of high school however, the Defendants failed to provide
adequate services, discriminated against Matthew based on his
disability, and retaliated against the Plaintiffs for their
advocacy on his behalf.  They allege that Matthew and his parents
and co-Plaintiffs Sandra and Bogdon Stanek suffered as a result.

On April 1, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed a state court complaint
against the St. Charles Community Unit School District and 12
Individual Defendants which was thereafter removed to federal
court.  In August 2013, the Court found the Plaintiffs' complaint
"impossible to decipher," as it was written largely in narrative
form, referred to many federal and state laws, and did not make
clear which Plaintiffs were asserting which claims against which
Defendants.  The Plaintiffs were given leave to amend their
complaint.

The Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint in September
2013.  It was 20 single-spaced pages, and contained six counts.
After the Defendants' motion to dismiss was granted in its
entirety, the Plaintiffs successfully appealed to the Seventh
Circuit, who in 2015 affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Specifically, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's
dismissal of Matthew Stanek's retaliation claim under the
Rehabilitation Act and the ADA, all of the Plaintiffs' official
capacity claims against the Individual Defendants except for
Superintendent Donald Scholmann, the individual capacity claims
under the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA, and any further claims
not addressed specifically in the decision.  In all other
respects, the dismissal was vacated and the case was returned to
the district court.

The Defendants then answered the complaint, and Settlement
Assistance Counsel was appointed.  After an unsuccessful
settlement conference with the Magistrate Judge, the Plaintiffs
were directed to file an amended complaint consistent with the
Seventh Circuit's decision.  Their second amended complaint more
than quadrupled in size, to 88 pages, and contained five counts.
The Defendants moved to strike the complaint as inconsistent with
the Seventh Circuit's ruling, and violative of Rule 8's
requirement of a "short and plain" statement of the claims.  The
Court gave the Plaintiffs leave to file a third amended complaint
("TAC"), which they did in May 2016.  The TAC swelled to 203
pages, containing seven counts over 631 paragraphs.

The TAC alleges violations of the Individuals with Disabilities in
Education Act ("IDEA"), the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Civil
Rights Act of 1871, the First Amendment, the Americans with
Disabilities Act, and the Illinois School Student Records Act.  It
attempts to add four new Defendants, the Illinois State Board of
Education ("ISBE"), State Superintendent Tony Smith, Rory Pine,
who is alleged to have been Matthew's substitute teacher during
the 2011-12 school year, and Julie Stetson, who is alleged to have
been Matthew's special education case manager for a portion of
that same year.  It also attempts to add class claims on behalf of
all students with disabilities, present and future, in District #
303.  ISBE and Smith moved to dismiss the TAC against them, which
was granted in part and denied in part.  The Illinois Student
Records Act claim was dismissed with prejudice as to both
Defendants, and as to Smith, the IDEA claim was dismissed with
prejudice and the constitutional claims were dismissed without
prejudice.

Pending before the Court is Defendants Stetson and Pine's motion
to dismiss on personal jurisdiction and timeliness grounds.  Also
before the Court is the Defendants' motion to strike the class
allegations on the ground that the Plaintiffs cannot not satisfy
the threshold requirements of a class action, and to strike the
TAC in its entirety because it does not contain a short and plain
statement of the claims as required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.

Because the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Stetson and
Pine due to the failure to serve them, and because any amended
complaint would be beyond the statute of limitations and unsaved
by the principle of relation back, Judge Alonso granted Stetson
and Pine's motion to dismiss with prejudice.

The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs fill the TAC with allegations
about students other than Matthew.  They also include allegations
about clustering of students with disabilities, and allegations
that a former District #303 employee complained about improperly
obtained special education funds.  The TAC additionally includes
the recitation (sometimes repeatedly) of countless conversations
and exchanges of emails with Matthew's teachers and other school
employees.  Together, all of these allegations so weigh down the
complaint that it fails to provide the Defendants with the
requisite notice of the Plaintiffs' claims.  Further, its length,
needless complexity, and inclusion of irrelevant material and
repetitive material imposes an undue burden on the Court, to the
prejudice of other litigants who also seek its attention.  For
these reasons, the Plaintiffs' TAC is stricken.

The Plaintiffs have already filed four complaints in the action,
and are given one last chance to file one that comports with the
Federal Rules.  The Judge ordered that any amended complaint must
state in short and plain terms the claims the Plaintiffs make.
The Plaintiffs are warned that they may not attempt to resurrect
any claims that the Court or the Court of Appeals has
unequivocally stated fails to state a claim.  They're also warned
that although they are being given the opportunity to amend, it is
for the purpose of allowing them to attempt to state cognizable
claims against the proper Defendants.  They may not add any new
claims.  The Plaintiffs are reminded that they may obtain free
limited legal assistance by scheduling an appointment with the
William J. Hibbler Pro Se Assistance Program, located at 219 South
Dearborn, 20th floor, or by calling (312) 435-5691.

The Plaintiff is given leave until Jan. 5, 2018 to file an amended
complaint consistent with the Opinion.  The failure to do so will
result in summary dismissal of the case.  The status hearing
remains set on Dec. 7, 2017, at 9:30 a.m.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 1, 2017 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/lvPkz1 from Leagle.com.

Matthew Stanek, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Sandra Stanek, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Bogdan Stanek, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

St. Charles Community Unit School District #303, Defendant,
represented by Pamela E. Simaga -- psimaga@hlerk.com -- Hodges,
Loizzi, Eisenhammer, Rodick & Kohn Llp & Stanley Bert Eisenhammer
-- seisenhammer@hlerk.com -- Hodges, Loizzi, Eisenhammer, Rodick &
Kohn.

Donald Schlomann, Defendant, represented by Pamela E. Simaga,
Hodges, Loizzi, Eisenhammer, Rodick & Kohn Llp & Stanley Bert
Eisenhammer, Hodges, Loizzi, Eisenhammer, Rodick & Kohn.

John Knewitz, Defendant, represented by Pamela E. Simaga, Hodges,
Loizzi, Eisenhammer, Rodick & Kohn Llp & Stanley Bert Eisenhammer,
Hodges, Loizzi, Eisenhammer, Rodick & Kohn.

Beth Jones, Defendant, represented by Pamela E. Simaga, Hodges,
Loizzi, Eisenhammer, Rodick & Kohn Llp & Stanley Bert Eisenhammer,
Hodges, Loizzi, Eisenhammer, Rodick & Kohn.

Korie Bowers, Defendant, represented by Pamela E. Simaga, Hodges,
Loizzi, Eisenhammer, Rodick & Kohn LLP & Stanley Bert Eisenhammer,
Hodges, Loizzi, Eisenhammer, Rodick & Kohn.

Kimberly Zupec, Defendant, represented by Pamela E. Simaga,
Hodges, Loizzi, Eisenhammer, Rodick & Kohn LLP & Stanley Bert
Eisenhammer, Hodges, Loizzi, Eisenhammer, Rodick & Kohn.

Kathy Zimmer, Defendant, represented by Pamela E. Simaga, Hodges,
Loizzi, Eisenhammer, Rodick & Kohn Llp & Stanley Bert Eisenhammer,
Hodges, Loizzi, Eisenhammer, Rodick & Kohn.

Shanon Vonessen, Defendant, represented by Pamela E. Simaga,
Hodges, Loizzi, Eisenhammer, Rodick & Kohn LLP & Stanley Bert
Eisenhammer, Hodges, Loizzi, Eisenhammer, Rodick & Kohn.

Justin Dohm, Defendant, represented by Pamela E. Simaga, Hodges,
Loizzi, Eisenhammer, Rodick & Kohn LLP & Stanley Bert Eisenhammer,
Hodges, Loizzi, Eisenhammer, Rodick & Kohn.

Bethany Herrera, Defendant, represented by Pamela E. Simaga,
Hodges, Loizzi, Eisenhammer, Rodick & Kohn Llp & Stanley Bert
Eisenhammer, Hodges, Loizzi, Eisenhammer, Rodick & Kohn.


SCHARFMAN ORGANIZATION: Faces Class Action Over J-51 Tax Program
----------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Nonko, writing for Curbed, reports that four class action
lawsuits were filed on Nov. 29 against three New York landlords --
the Scharfman Organization, Chestnut Holdings, and KMR Amsterdam -
- believed to be among the biggest abusers of the J-51 tax program
in the city.  The suits were filed in New York County Supreme
Court by the law firm Newman Ferrara after an investigation by the
non-profit watchdog group, Housing Rights Initiative.

The J-51 tax program offers developers an as-of-right tax
exemption and abatement for rehabs or conversions of multi-family
dwellings.  Upon completion, the landlord has to rent stabilized
all of the units for at least the duration of the tax benefit, and
can only increase the rents in accordance with the rent guidelines
board.  Landlords get up to a 34-year exemption from increases in
real estate taxes resulting from the work.  In addition, existing
real estate taxes receive an abatement of up to 12.5 percent.

J-51 was in the spotlight back in 2009, when Tishman Speyer was
held responsible for not keeping all the apartments in Stuyvesant
Town rent regulated, despite utilizing the tax exemption. (Tishman
Speyer is no longer an owner of the massive east side complex.)
Despite the court ruling, according to Housing Rights Initiative,
"the Department of Homes and Community Renewal, the state's
housing enforcement agency, has effectively disregarded the ruling
through a failure to enforce it."

Tens of thousands of units illegally destabilized under J-51 were
never placed back on rent stabilization by landlords -- which is
bad news for a city struggling with an affordable housing crisis.
In response, Governor Cuomo launched an initiative at the
start of 2016 that sought to re-stabilize 50,000 illegally
deregulated units by sending landlords voluntary compliance
letters.

For its part, HRI says Cuomo's J-51 initiative is "the same kind
of hands-off-enforcement approach that caused this problem to go
unabated for over nine years" after the Stuy Town case.

This leads us to the current lawsuits, which are targeting
landlords who are still allegedly abusing the J-51 tax exemption.
All of the landlords named in the suit own buildings in upper
Manhattan: Two class action suits were filed against Scharfman
Organization, landlord of 55 Cooper Street in Inwood and 260
Convent Avenue in Hamilton Heights. The third suit was filed
against Chestnut Holdings, landlord of 310 Convent Avenue in
Hamilton Heights.  A fourth suit was filed against KMR Amsterdam,
landlord of Washington Height's 2201 Amsterdam Avenue.

According to HRI, these firms have either disregarded Cuomo's
voluntary compliance letter and failed to re-stabilize illegally
deregulated units, or have "created the illusion of compliance" by
re-stabilizing illegally deregulated units at illegal amounts.

The suits have been filed on behalf of hundreds of former and
current tenants in over 200 units across all the buildings. Aaron
Carr, founder of Housing Rights Initiative, calls it "a historic
opportunity to return tens of thousands of units back to the rent
stabilization rolls amid an affordable housing crisis." He adds,
"The only way this can be done is through transparency and
mandatory compliance." [GN]


SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Court Certifies Class in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LOU BAKER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SEA WORLD
ENTERTAINMENT, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 14cv2129-MMA
(AGS) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Michael M. Anello of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California granted the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

Lead Plaintiffs Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System
("APERS") and Pensionskassen for Borne-Og Ungdomspaedagoger
("PBU") bring the putative securities fraud class action against
the Defendants asserting claims pursuant to Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  They bring the action on behalf of all
individuals and entities who purchased or acquired common stock of
SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. during the proposed class period of
Aug. 29, 2013 and Aug. 12, 2014, inclusive.

The Plaintiffs filed their previous Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint ("CAC") on Feb. 27, 2015.  The CAC named 27
Defendants, including all of the banking institutions that
underwrote SeaWorld Entertainment's public offerings.  It also
included five counts, including three claims under Sections 11,
12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, and two claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss on March 31,
2016 and allowed the Plaintiffs 60 days to amend.  The Plaintiffs
filed their Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint
("SAC") on May 31, 2016.  They limited the Defendants in the
action to SeaWorld Entertainment, James Atchison, James M. Heaney,
Marc Swanson, and The Blackstone Group L.P.  They also limited
their causes of action to two counts for violations of Sections
10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Plaintiffs seek the following relief on behalf of the class:
(i) a declaration that the action is a proper class action,
designating them the class representatives under Rule 23 and their
counsel as the Class Counsel; (ii) compensatory damages against
the Defendants jointly and severally, including interest; (iii)
reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the action, including
counsel fees and expert fees; and (iv) awarding all equitable and
other relief as the Court may deem just.

On June 29, 2016, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' SAC for failure to state a claim under Rules 9(b) and
12(b)(6), as well as the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
of 1995.  The Court heard oral argument on the motion, and denied
the Defendants' motion to dismiss.

On May 19, 2017, the Plaintiffs move for class certification
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.  The Defendants
filed an opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion, to which the
Plaintiffs replied.  The Defendants also filed a sur-reply, to
which the Plaintiffs filed a sur-sur-reply.  After entertaining
the oral arguments of counsel at the hearing on Nov. 13, 2017, the
Court took the motion under submission for further review and
consideration.

In sum, Judge Anello concludes that the Plaintiffs have satisfied
the numerosity, commonality, and typicality requirements of the
Rule 23(a).  He also finds that the Plaintiffs and the Class
Counsel have shown that they will fairly and adequately protect
the interests of the class, thereby satisfying the adequacy
requirement.  He further concludes that the Plaintiffs have
sufficiently satisfied the predominance and the superiority
requirements of Rule 23(b)(3).

In addition, the Judge finds that where it was unclear whether the
first corrective disclosure identified by the parties was the
indeed the first corrective disclosure, the SAC alleges only one
corrective disclosure -- the August 13, 2014 statement. Thus, only
those who held SEAS Common Stock through that date were allegedly
harmed.  All other persons or investors who may have bought or
acquired SEAS Common Stock during the proposed class period, but
sold prior to Aug. 13, 2014, would not have suffered any injury
because they would have also sold the stock at an alleged
artificially inflated price, and the level of artificial inflation
present in the stock cannot change, absent any intervening
corrective disclosures.  Accordingly, he will exclude in-out
traders from the class (i.e., those who sold their SEAS Common
Stock shares prior to Aug. 13, 2014).

Based on this, Judge Anello granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.  He certified the Plaintiffs' class defined
as all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
the publicly traded common stock of SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc.
between Aug. 29, 2013 and Aug. 12, 2014, who did not sell such
acquired securities before Aug. 13, 2014, and were damaged.
Excluded from the class are: (i) Defendants, (ii) present or
former executive officers of SeaWorld, members of SeaWorld's Board
of Directors, and members of their immediate families, (iii) any
of the foregoing persons' legal representative, heirs, successors
or assigns, and (iv) any entity in which Defendants have or had a
controlling interest or any affiliate of SeaWorld.

Judge Baker appointed APERS and PBU as the Class Representatives
and the law firms Nix Patterson & Roach, LLP and Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Cheek, LLP as the Class Counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 29, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/jsrdDs from Leagle.com.

Lou Baker, Plaintiff, represented by Ethan Thomas Boyer --
eboyer@noonanlance.com -- Noonan Lance Boyer & Banach LLP.

Lou Baker, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory M. Castaldo, Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac vice, Joshua E. D'Ancona --
jdancona@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac
vice, Joshua A. Materese -- jmaterese@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac vice, Laurence M. Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Megan Koneski -
- mkoneski@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac
vice & Michael K. Yarnoff -- myarnoff@kehoelawfirm.com -- Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac vice.

Pensionskassen for Borne-Og UngdomspAedagoger, Plaintiff,
represented by Bradley E. Beckworth -- bbeckworth@nixlaw.com --
Nix Patterson & Roach LLP, pro hac vice, David J. Noonan --
dnoonan@noonanlance.com -- Noonan Lance Boyer & Banach LLP, Eli R.
Greenstein -- egreenstein@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP, Ethan Thomas Boyer, Noonan Lance Boyer & Banach LLP,
Gregory M. Castaldo, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac
vice, Joshua E. D'Ancona, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro
hac vice, Joshua A. Materese, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP,
pro hac vice, Megan Koneski, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP,
pro hac vice & Michael K. Yarnoff, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check
LLP, pro hac vice.

Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System, Plaintiff,
represented by Bradley E. Beckworth, Nix Patterson & Roach LLP,
pro hac vice, Cody L. Hill, Nix Patterson & Roach LLP, pro hac
vice, David J. Noonan, Noonan Lance Boyer & Banach LLP, Eli R.
Greenstein, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Ethan Thomas
Boyer, Noonan Lance Boyer & Banach LLP, Gregory M. Castaldo,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey J.
Angelovich, Nix Patterson & Roach LLP, pro hac vice, Joshua E.
D'Ancona, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac vice, Joshua
A. Materese, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac vice,
Lloyd Nolan Duck, III, Nix, Patterson & Roach, LLP, pro hac vice,
Megan Koneski, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac vice,
Michael K. Yarnoff, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac
vice & Susan Whatley, Nix Patterson & Roach, LLP, pro hac vice.

Seaworld Entertainment, Inc., Defendant, represented by Chet A.
Kronenberg -- ckronenberg@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher and
Bartlett LLP, Dean Michael McGee -- dean.mcgee@stblaw.com --
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro hac vice, Janet Gochman --
jgochman@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro hac
vice, Jonathan Youngwood -- jyoungwood@stblaw.com -- Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro hac vice & Meredith Karp --
meredith.karp@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro
hac vice.

James M Heaney, Defendant, represented by Chet A. Kronenberg,
Simpson Thacher and Bartlett LLP, Dean Michael McGee, Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro hac vice, Janet Gochman, Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan Youngwood, Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro hac vice & Meredith Karp, Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro hac vice.

Marc Swanson, Defendant, represented by Chet A. Kronenberg,
Simpson Thacher and Bartlett LLP, Dean Michael McGee, Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro hac vice, Janet Gochman, Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan Youngwood, Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro hac vice & Meredith Karp, Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro hac vice..

The Blackstone Group L.P., Defendant, represented by Chet A.
Kronenberg, Simpson Thacher and Bartlett LLP, Dean Michael McGee,
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro hac vice, Janet Gochman,
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan Youngwood,
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro hac vice & Meredith Karp,
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro hac vice.

James Atchison, Defendant, represented by Michael Joseph Diver --
michael.diver@kattenlaw.com -- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, pro hac
vice, Michael J. Lohnes -- michael.lohnes@kattenlaw.com -- Katten
Muchin Rosenman LLP, pro hac vice, Richard H. Zelichov --
chard.zelichov@kattenlaw.com -- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, Gil M.
Soffer -- gil.soffer@kattenlaw.com -- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP &
Jason Yuegin Kelly -- jason.kelly@kattenlaw.com -- Katten Muchin
Rosenman LLP.

The Blackstone Group, L.P., Defendant, represented by Dean Michael
McGee -- dean.mcgee@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP,
pro hac vice.

The Oklahoma City Employee Retirement System, ThirdParty
Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey Almeida, Grant & Eisenhofer
P.A., pro hac vice & Timothy G. Blood -- tblood@bholaw.com --
Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP.

Pembroke Pines Firefighters and Police Officers Pension Fund,
ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey Almeida, Grant &
Eisenhofer P.A., pro hac vice & Timothy G. Blood, Blood Hurst &
O'Reardon, LLP.

United States of America, Intervenor, represented by Michael John
Rinaldi, U.S. Department of Justice.


SENTINEL TRANSPORATION: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Padilla Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ARMANDO PADILLA, an individual on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SENTINEL TRANSPORATION, LLC,
and DOES 1 through 25; inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
BC686887 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 14, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime and unpaid minimum wages in violation of the California
Labor Code.

According to the complaint, Defendant failed to pay for all time
worked every pay period, specifically including required minimum
wages and daily overtime and daily double time; failed to provide
off-duty meal and rest periods to its California drivers in
accordance with the California Labor Code and Industrial Wage
Order; failed to pay its drivers one hour of pay at their regular
rate of compensation for each instance that Defendant failed to
provide statutorily mandated rest periods and off-duty meal
periods; for penalties arising from Defendant's issuing to its
drivers inaccurate wage statements; failed to reimburse employees
for uniforms and maintenance; and failed to provide sick days in
accordance with the law.

Sentinel Transportation provides transportation and logistical
services for Chemours and Phillips 66 companies. It transports
various chemicals and petroleum products through tankers,
containers, vans, flatbeds, and a large fleet of specialized
service vehicles in the United States and Canada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jasmine Duel, Esq.
          Kousha Berokim, Esq.
          BEROKIM & DUEL, P.C.
          270 North Canon Drive, Third Floor
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 993 3703
          Facsimile: (310) 300 1233
          E-mail: jasmine@berokimduel.com
                  berokim@berokimduel.com


SILVER SPRING: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, disclosed that it has filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, case No. 5:17-cv-06532, on behalf of
shareholders of Silver Spring Networks, Inc. ("Silver Spring" or
the "Company") (NYSE: SSNI) who have been harmed by Silver
Spring's and its board of directors' (the "Board") alleged
violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection with  the proposed
merger of the Company with Itron, Inc. ("Itron").

On September 17, 2017, the Board caused the Company to enter into
an Agreement and Plan of Merger ("Proposed Transaction"), under
which the Company's shareholders will receive $16.25 in cash for
each share of Silver Spring stock they own (the "Merger
Consideration").  The shareholder vote on the Proposed Transaction
is expected to occur on January 3, 2018.

If you wish to obtain information concerning this action, you can
do so by clicking here: www.faruqilaw.com/SSNInotice.

The complaint alleges that the Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A
(the "Proxy") filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC"), violates Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
because it provides materially incomplete and misleading
information about the Company and the Proposed Transaction,
including information concerning the Company's financial
projections and analysis, on which the Board relied to recommend
the Proposed Transaction as fair to Silver Spring shareholders.

Take Action

Plaintiff is represented by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a law firm with
extensive experience in prosecuting class actions, and significant
expertise in actions involving corporate fraud.  Faruqi & Faruqi,
LLP, was founded in 1995 and the firm maintains its principal
office in New York City, with offices in Delaware, California,
Georgia, and Pennsylvania.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from the date of this notice.  Any member of
the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.  If you wish to discuss this
action, or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact:

          Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
          James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 3rd Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330
          E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
                  jwilson@faruqilaw.com
          Web site: http://www.faruqilaw.com[GN]


SILVERTREE MOHAVE: Court Dismisses "Lewis" Suit with Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco Division, has entered final
judgment in the case captioned DOMENICA LEWIS, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. SILVERTREE MOHAVE HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-03581-WHA (JSC) (N.D. Cal.) as
between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants.

The Judge ordered the parties to comply with the terms of the
Settlement and Release Agreement, including without limitation,
the obligations imposed upon the Defendants under the Injunctive
Relief and Remediation terms.

The Settlement Agreement does not operate to release all claims
that class members have as alleged in the Plaintiffs' Complaint.
The release and waiver of claims in the Settlement Agreement only
applies to the first, second, third, fourth and seventh causes of
action of the Complaint.  It does not release and waive claims as
to class members who have opted out of the Settlement Agreement or
who the Plaintiffs' Counsel were unable to locate after a diligent
search.

Judge Alsup ordered that the case is dismissed with prejudice as
against the Defendants, each side to bear its own attorneys' fees
and costs except as provided by the Settlement Agreement and the
Court's orders.

The Final Judgment constitutes a final judgment and separate
document for purposes of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a).
Without affecting the finality of the Court's judgment in any way,
the Court retains jurisdiction over the action in accordance with
the Settlement Agreement.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 1, 2017 Final Judgment is
available at https://is.gd/v9h2HD from Leagle.com.

Domenica Lewis, Plaintiff, represented by Annette D. Kirkham --
annettek@lawfoundation.org -- Law Foundation of Silicon Valley
Fair Housing Law Project.

Domenica Lewis, Plaintiff, represented by Corey David Attaway --
cattaway@winston.com -- Winston and Strawn, Kyra Ann Kazantzis --
kyrak@lawfoundation.org -- Law Foundation of Silicon Valley Fair
Housing Law Project, Matthew Frederick Warren --
matthew.warren@lawfoundation.org -- Law Foundation of Silicon
Valley Fair Housing Law Project, Nadia Aziz --
nadia.aziz@lawfoundation.org -- Law Foundation of Silicon Valley
Fair Housing Law Project & Robert Alan Julian, Esq., --
rjulian@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP.

Jerrold Lewis, Domenica Lewis as guardian ad-litem for their minor
children S.L. and E.L., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Annette D. Kirkham,
Law Foundation of Silicon Valley Fair Housing Law Project, Corey
David Attaway, Winston and Strawn, Kyra Ann Kazantzis, Law
Foundation of Silicon Valley Fair Housing Law Project, Matthew
Frederick Warren, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley Fair Housing
Law Project, Nadia Aziz, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley Fair
Housing Law Project & Robert Alan Julian, Esq., Winston & Strawn
LLP.

S. L., a minor, Plaintiff, represented by Annette D. Kirkham, Law
Foundation of Silicon Valley Fair Housing Law Project, Kyra Ann
Kazantzis, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley Fair Housing Law
Project, Matthew Frederick Warren, Law Foundation of Silicon
Valley Fair Housing Law Project, Nadia Aziz, Law Foundation of
Silicon Valley Fair Housing Law Project & Robert Alan Julian,
Esq., Winston & Strawn LLP.

E. L., a minor, Plaintiff, represented by Annette D. Kirkham, Law
Foundation of Silicon Valley Fair Housing Law Project, Kyra Ann
Kazantzis, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley Fair Housing Law
Project, Matthew Frederick Warren, Law Foundation of Silicon
Valley Fair Housing Law Project, Nadia Aziz, Law Foundation of
Silicon Valley Fair Housing Law Project & Robert Alan Julian,
Esq., Winston & Strawn LLP.

Project Sentinel, a California non-profit corporation, on behalf
of itself and the general public, Plaintiff, represented by
Annette D. Kirkham, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley Fair Housing
Law Project, Kyra Ann Kazantzis, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley
Fair Housing Law Project, Matthew Frederick Warren, Law Foundation
of Silicon Valley Fair Housing Law Project, Nadia Aziz, Law
Foundation of Silicon Valley Fair Housing Law Project & Robert
Alan Julian, Esq., Winston & Strawn LLP.

Silvertree Mohave Homeowners' Association, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Drew Thomas Williams --
Drew.Williams@McNamaraLaw.com -- McNamara, Ney, Beatty, Slattery,
Borges Amacher LLP, Jacy C. Dardine --
Jacy.Dardine@mcnamaralaw.com -- McNamara Law Firm & Lisa Renee
Roberts -- Lisa.Roberts@McNamaraLaw.com -- McNamara Ney Beatty
Slattery Borges & Ambacher LLP.

Carol Lee Adams, also known as Lee Adams, Defendant, represented
by Drew Thomas Williams, McNamara, Ney, Beatty, Slattery, Borges
Amacher LLP, Jacy C. Dardine, McNamara Law Firm & Lisa Renee
Roberts, McNamara Ney Beatty Slattery Borges & Ambacher LLP.

Marilyn Black, Defendant, represented by Drew Thomas Williams,
McNamara, Ney, Beatty, Slattery, Borges Amacher LLP, Jacy C.
Dardine, McNamara Law Firm & Lisa Renee Roberts, McNamara Ney
Beatty Slattery Borges & Ambacher LLP.

Anand Bhaskaran, Defendant, represented by Drew Thomas Williams,
McNamara, Ney, Beatty, Slattery, Borges Amacher LLP, Jacy C.
Dardine, McNamara Law Firm & Lisa Renee Roberts, McNamara Ney
Beatty Slattery Borges & Ambacher LLP.

Tamela Durant, individually and as members of the Board of
Directors of Silvertree Mohave Homeowner's Association, Inc.,
Defendant, represented by Drew Thomas Williams, McNamara, Ney,
Beatty, Slattery, Borges Amacher LLP, Jacy C. Dardine, McNamara
Law Firm & Lisa Renee Roberts, McNamara Ney Beatty Slattery Borges
& Ambacher LLP.

Donald W Murphy, individually, and doing business as Management
Solutions, Defendant, represented by Drew Thomas Williams,
McNamara, Ney, Beatty, Slattery, Borges Amacher LLP, Jacy C.
Dardine, McNamara Law Firm & Lisa Renee Roberts, McNamara Ney
Beatty Slattery Borges & Ambacher LLP.


SONIQ SERVICES: Violates Wage and Hour Laws, Alexwright Says
------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXWRIGHT, both in his individual capacity and, in addition, as a
collective action on behalf of others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. SONIQ SERVICES, INC., a Washington corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-01990-AC (D. Ore., Dec. 13, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and liquidated damages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and federal wage and hour laws.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff:

          Jon M. Egan, Esq.
          547 Fifth Street
          Lake Oswego, OR 97034-3009
          Telephone: (503) 697 3427
          Facsimile: (866) 311 5629
          E-mail: Jegan@eganlegalteam.com


SP BANCORP: Md. Spec. App. Affirms Dismissal of "Stisser" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Andrea M. Leahy of the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
affirmed the circuit court's decisions dismissing SP and
Searchlight from the case styled ARY W. STISSER, ET AL. v. SP
BANCORP, INC., et al., Case No. 1790 (Md. Spec. App.).

Back in October 2010, SP converted its business structure from a
mutually-owned thrift to a stock-based ownership bank holding
company.  This conversion triggered federal regulations
prohibiting the sale of SP for the next three years.  SP was
incorporated in Maryland and served as the holding company and
parent of SharePlus Bank, a Texas-chartered state bank.  Its
principal place of business was in Texas, and the company did not
have any offices or employees in Maryland.  Indeed, according to
the record on appeal, none of the SP Directors resided or were
employed in Maryland.

By mid-2012, the SP Directors began entertaining the idea of a
possible merger with Green.  On Aug. 2, 2012, Mr. Jeffrey L.
Weaver, SP's President, and Mr. Paul M. Zmigrosky, the Chairman of
SP's Board of Directors, met in Dallas, Texas with representatives
from Green, during which the representatives of Green initiated a
high-level discussion of a potential reverse merger with SP
Bancorp following expiration of the three year restriction.

On May 5, 2014, the SP Directors voted unanimously to approve the
merger agreement.  SP announced the merger agreement that same day
and set Aug. 15, 2014, as the record date for its special meeting,
at which point then-current owners of SP common stock would be
entitled to a vote at the special meeting.  The special meeting,
scheduled for Oct. 8, 2014, in Plano, Texas, required a quorum of
eligible voters, in person or by proxy, representing a majority of
SP's 1,602,313 outstanding shares of common stock.  Of those
voting shareholders, the merger agreement required a bare majority
for its approval.

Stisser and Fundamental Partners ("Appellants") are not residents
of Maryland, but they owned shares of common stock in SP, which
was a company headquartered in Texas and incorporated in Maryland.
They filed a shareholder class action in the Circuit Court for
Baltimore City following the merger of SP into a newly formed
subsidiary of Green Bancorp, Inc. -- a bank holding company
incorporated under Texas law with its principal place of business
in Texas.

The Appellants filed the lawsuit against SP and the individual
members of SP's Board of Directors, and against Green and Green's
newly-formed Maryland subsidiary, Searchlight Merger Sub, Inc.
Their primary contention was that the SP Directors breached their
fiduciary duty, aided and abetted by Green, in contriving the
merger to advance their interests at the shareholders' expense.
The circuit court granted motions to dismiss filed by the SP
Defendants and the Green Defendants ("Appellees"), finding that
the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the SP Directors and
Green, and that, although the court had jurisdiction over SP and
Searchlight, the Appellants failed to state a claim against them.

The Appellants noted an appeal to the Court presenting four
questions: whether Green subjected itself to personal jurisdiction
in Maryland by forming Searchlight in Maryland for the purpose of
consummating a merger; (ii) whether the SP Directors are subject
to personal jurisdiction in Maryland because the Articles of
Merger were filed in Maryland; (ii) whether SP and Searchlight
were necessary parties under Maryland Rule 2-211(a); and (iv)
whether the Complaint states a claim for relief against each of
the Appellees.

Judge Leahy holds that Green was not subject to specific
jurisdiction in Maryland because (i) the quality and quantity of
its contacts in Maryland in relation to the merger did not rise to
the level of "transacting any business" in Maryland within the
meaning of Maryland's long-arm statute; and (ii) Maryland's
exercise of jurisdiction would not comport with traditional
notions of due process under International Shoe Co. v. Washington,
given Green's limited and attenuated contacts in Maryland.  In
accordance with the Supreme Court's recent decisions delimiting
the authority of state courts to exercise general jurisdiction
over nonresident corporations and corporate directors, the Judge
also conclude Green was not "at home" in Maryland for purposes of
general personal jurisdiction.

Consistent with Daimler AG v. Bauman, she holds that a nonresident
parent corporation is not subject to general jurisdiction in
Maryland based solely on its incorporation of a subsidiary within
Maryland.  She also declines to impute SP's contacts to its
directors, and holds that the SP Directors -- all nonresidents who
never entered Maryland in connection with SP business -- did not
purposefully avail themselves of the privileges and protections of
Maryland law.

Judge Leahy's resolution of the Appellants' first and second
questions disposes of their contentions that SP and Searchlight
were necessary parties under Maryland Rule 2-211(a), and that
their complaint stated a claim for relief against each of the
Appellees.  Although the circuit court acknowledged that it had
personal jurisdiction over SP and Searchlight, the Appellants'
sole contention and on appeal is that SP and Searchlight were
necessary parties in the litigation of their claims against Green
and the SP Directions.

Having held that the Appellants may not maintain their action in
Maryland against Green and the SP Directors, the Judge says there
is no longer a cause of action to which SP and Searchlight are
necessary parties.  Although the Appellants maintain that they
stated a claim for relief against each of the Appellees --
including SP and Searchlight -- the 27 pages of briefing they
dedicate to this issue refer to only the SP Directors and Green.
In fact, the Appellants concede that their complaint does not
specifically allege a claim against SP and Searchlight.

In light of these holdings, Judge Leahy does not reach the
Appellants' third and fourth questions.  Therefore, Judge Leahy
affirmed the circuit court's decisions dismissing SP and
Searchlight from the underlying action.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 29, 2017 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/FtAgSZ from Leagle.com.


STATE FARM: Transferred MAO-MSO Class Suit to C.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on February 23, 2017 captioned
MAO-MSO Recovery II, LLC, MSP Recovery, LLC, MSPA Claims 1, LLC,
v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Case No. 3:17-
cv-00202 was transferred on November 28, 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-01537-JBM-JEH to the
proceeding.

The case alleges that the Defendant failed to fulfill its
statutorily-mandated duty to reimburse Medicare Advantage
Organizations ("MAOs") for medical expenses arising out of
automobile accidents.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company offers automobile
insurance policies that contain no-fault1 coverages as well as
medical payments ("Med Pay") coverage for any automobile accident-
related medical expenses. [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-

      R. Brent Wisner, Esq.
      Adam M. Foster, Esq.
      Michael Baum, Esq.
      Pedram Esfandiary, Esq.
      BAUM, HEDLUND, ARISTEI & GOLDMAN, PC
      12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 950
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Telephone: (310) 207-3233
      Facsimile: (310) 820-7444
      E-mail: rbwisner@baumhedlundlaw.com
              afoster@baumhedlundlaw.com
              mbaum@baumhedlundlaw.com
              pesfandiary@baumhedlundlaw.com

         - and -

      Courtney L. Stidham, Esq.
      Nicholas R. Rockforte, 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
              nrockforte@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:

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

         - and -

      Joseph A. Cancila Jr., Esq.
      James P Gaughan, Esq.
      RILEY SAFER HOLMES & CANCILA LLP
      Three First National Plaza
      70 West Madison St., Suite 2900
      29th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (847) 951-6981
      E-mail: jcancila@rshc-law.com
              jgaughan@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 -

      Benjamine Reid, Esq.
      CARLTON FIELDS JORDAN BURT PA
      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


SUGAR TRANSPORT: Trial in "Guinn" Continued to Aug. 21
------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled RYAN GUINN, an individual, on behalf of
himself, and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. SUGAR TRANSPORT OF THE NORTHWEST, INC.; BRONCO WINE
COMPANY, a California corporation; CLASSIC WINES OF CALIFORNIA, a
California corporation, a California corporation, and DOES 1
through 100, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00325-WBS-EFB (E.D.
Cal.), Judge William B. Shubb of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California granted the Parties' stipulation
order amending the scheduling order.

On June 17, 2016, the Court entered a scheduling order, titled
"Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order."  On Aug. 24, 2016, it
entered a stipulated order, titled "Stipulation and Order
Extending Scheduled Dates for Settlement Efforts," revising the
Initial Scheduling Order in the Case.

On Jan. 24, 2017, the Court, on Plaintiff's motion, entered an
order granting the Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint in the
Case to add two additional defendants, Bronco Wine Company and
Classic Wines of California.  On Feb. 24, 2017, the Court entered
a stipulated order, titled "Stipulation and Order Extending
Scheduling Order," revising the Scheduling Order in the Case.  On
May 17, 2017, the Court entered a stipulated order, titled
"Stipulation and Order Further Amending Scheduling Order and
Extending Scheduling Date for Filing Motion for Class
Certification," further revising the scheduling order.

The Parties engaged in discovery, and the Defendants noticed
several depositions.  When it became apparent that the Parties
would not complete the necessary discovery in time for the
Defendants to utilize that discovery in their Opposition to the
Plaintiff's Motion for Proceeding as Collective Action and for
Class Certification, the Parties stipulated to move the hearing
date of that motion from Oct. 30, 2017 to Dec. 18, 2017, with
briefing to follow the new hearing date.

On Oct. 13, 2017, the Court entered a stipulated order, titled
"Stipulation Continuing Motion for Proceeding as Collective Action
and for Class Certification Hearing," moving the hearing date on
the Motion for Proceeding as Collective Action and for Class
Certification to Dec. 18, 2017.  Having moved the Motion hearing
date by two months, the Parties agree that it is necessary to move
the remainder of the dates in the action by at least a
commensurate amount.

Therefore, the Parties stipulated and agreed that the following
deadlines previously scheduled by the Court through the Further
Amended Scheduling Order, be extended as follows:

      a. The deadline for the Parties to disclose those experts
from whom they intend to offer testimony at trial and produce
reports in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(a)(2) be extended from November 30, 2017 to February 19, 2018.

      b. The deadline for the Parties to disclose any expert
witnesses intended solely for rebuttal at trial and to produce
their reports in accordance with Rule 26(a)(2) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure will be extended from Dec. 22, 2017 to
March 14, 2018.

      c. The deadline for the Parties to complete all discovery,
including depositions for preservation of testimony, will be
extended from Jan. 19, 2018 to April 19, 2018.

      d. The deadline for the Parties to notice all discovery-
related motions, including motions to compel discovery, on the
Magistrate Judge's calendar in accordance with the Local Rules of
this Court, will be extended from Jan. 19, 2018 to April 19, 2018.

      e. The deadline for the Parties to file all other non-
dispositive pre-trial motions, excluding motions for continuances,
applications for temporary restraining order, other emergency
applications, and motions in limine, will be extended from Jan.
19, 2018 to April 19, 2018.

      f. The deadline for the Parties to file dispositive pre-
trial motions will be extended from Feb. 16, 2018 to May 7, 2018.

      g. The Final Pretrial Conference will be continued from
April 9, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. to on or about June 22, 2018 at 1:30
p.m. in Courtroom No. 5, subject to the Court's availability.

      h. The Trial will be continued from June 5, 2018 at 9:00
a.m. to on or about Aug. 21, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 5,
subject to the Court's availability.

Judge Shubb granted the Parties' stipulation.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 29, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/Qpcrqo from Leagle.com.

Ryan Guinn, Plaintiff, represented by Ian A. Kass --
paganolaw@aol.com -- Pagano & Kass APC.

Ryan Guinn, Plaintiff, represented by James L. Pagano, Pagano &
Kass APC.

Sugar Transport of the Northwest, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Cassandra M. Ferrannini -- cferrannini@downeybrand.com -- Downey
Brand LLP & Alexandra K. LaFountain -- amurphy@downeybrand.com --
Downey Brand LLP.

Bronco Wine Company, Defendant, represented by Eric J. Sousa --
esousa@rodsoulaw.com -- Rodarakis & Sousa, APC.

Classic Wines of California, Defendant, represented by Eric J.
Sousa, Rodarakis & Sousa, APC.


T-MOBILE USA: Stanbury Sues over Spam Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------
RYAN STANBURY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. T-MOBILE USA, INC., a Delaware
corporation, and SUNRISE COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a Missouri
corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 6:17-cv-03396-BP (W.D. Mo.,
Dec. 14, 2017), seeks injunction requiring Defendants to cease all
improper wireless text-messaging activities and an award of
statutory damages to the Class members, together with costs and
reasonable attorneys' fees.

According to the complaint, in an attempt to increase its bottom
line, Defendant Sunrise, on behalf of Defendant T-Mobile, uses an
autodialer to send text messages to consumers on their cellular
telephones without their prior express written consent in an
effort to solicit consumers' business. Defendant conducted (and
continues to conduct) a wide-scale telemarketing campaign that
features the repeated sending of unwanted solicitation text
messages to consumers' cellular telephones without consent,
including even to those who have registered their numbers on the
National Do Not Call Registry, all in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

By sending these text messages, Sunrise caused Plaintiff and the
members of the Classes actual harm and cognizable legal injury.
This includes the aggravation and nuisance and invasions of
privacy that result from the receipt of such text messages, in
addition to the wear and tear on their cellular telephones,
consumption of battery life, lost cellular minutes, loss of value
realized for the monies consumers paid to their wireless carriers
for the receipt of such text messages, all contributing to the
diminished use, enjoyment, value, and utility of their cellular
telephone plans. Furthermore, Sunrise sent the text messages
knowing they interfered with Plaintiff and the other Class
members' use and enjoyment of, and the ability to access, their
cellphones, including the related data, software, and hardware
components.

T-Mobile is a wireless network provider and no stranger to the
TCPA. In fact, in August of 2015, T-Mobile concluded a TCPA
settlement worth up to $5 million for over 100,000 class members.
In an apparent attempt to circumvent its liability, while still
aggressively promoting its business, T-Mobile utilizes a third
party marketer, Sunrise Communications, to do its bidding.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff and the Proposed Classes:

          Matthew L. Dameron, Esq.
          John F. Doyle, Esq.
          WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
          1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 945 7110
          Facsimile: (816) 845 7118
          E-mail: matt@williamsdirks.com
                  jdoyle@williamsdirks.com

               - and -

          Matthew R. Wilson, Esq.
          Michael J. Boyle, Jr., Esq.
          MEYER WILSON CO., LPA
          1320 Dublin Road, Suite 100
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 224 6000
          Facsimile: (614) 224 6066
          E-mail: mwilson@meyerwilson.com
                  mboyle@meyerwilson.com

               - and -

          Stefan Coleman, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
          201 S. Biscayne Blvd., 28th floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (877) 333 9427
          Facsimile: (888) 498 8248
          E-mail: Law@stefancoleman.com


TAKE TWO: Seyfarth Shaw Attorneys Discuss BIPA Case Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------
Laura J. Maechtlen, Esq., and Thomas E. Ahlering, Esq., of
Seyfarth Shaw LLP, in an article for Lexoloyg, wrote that as
biometric technology has become more advanced and affordable, more
companies and employers have begun implementing procedures and
systems that rely on biometric data. Given the serious
repercussions of compromised biometric data, a number of states
have proposed or passed laws regulating the collection and storage
of biometric data, including Illinois through the passage of the
Illinois Biometric Privacy Act ("BIPA") -- the only biometric
statute which provides a private cause of action.

Plaintiffs' class action attorneys have taken notice, as the
number of class action lawsuits alleging violations of the BIPA in
Illinois has surged in recent months. As more and more employers
are utilizing biometric technology for various purposes, including
timekeeping, employers are at a significant risk of becoming a
target of class action litigation under the BIPA if it fails to
comply with the requirements of the statute. Cases brought
pursuant to the BIPA are akin to other "gotcha" statutory class
actions -- highly popular with the plaintiffs' bar due to the
inclusion of statutory damages and a provision for attorneys'
fees.

The theories underlying BIPA class actions, and the defenses
thereto, remain largely untested. However, the Second Circuit
became the first U.S. Court of Appeals to wade into the rising
tide of litigation under the BIPA in Santana v. Take Two
Interactive Software, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 23446 (2d Cir. Nov. 21,
2017), by affirming the district court's dismissal of the case
based upon a lack of Article III standing under the principles
announced by the Supreme Court in Spokeo v. Robins, 136 S. Ct.
1540 (2016), but vacating the district court's finding that
plaintiffs were not "aggrieved by" a violation the BIPA (e.g.,
failed to state a cause of action under the statute due to a
failure to plead actual damages).

The decision sheds light on the viability of certain potential
employer defenses in BIPA class actions, particularly at the
motion to dismiss stage.

                               ***

Requirements Of The BIPA

Notice And Consent

The BIPA prohibits companies from collecting employees' biometric
information until the company notifies the employee in writing
that the information is being collected. Specifically, the written
notice must inform the individual of the "specific purpose and
length of term for which a biometric identifier or biometric
information is being collected, stored and used." 740 ILCS Sec.
14/15(b). Likewise, a company must obtain a written release from
the individual enabling it to collect and store the information.
In the employment context, "written release" is defined as a "a
release executed by an employee as a condition of employment." 740
ILCS Section 14/10.

Written Policy

The BIPA also requires companies to develop a written policy
establishing a retention schedule and guidelines for permanently
destroying biometric information when the initial purpose for
collecting them has been satisfied or within three years of the
employee's last interaction with the employer, whichever occurs
first. 740 ILCS Section 14/15(a). The policy must be made
available to the public. Id.

Disclosure To Third-Parties

In addition, a company may not disclose biometric information to a
third party unless: it obtains consent for disclosure from the
individual; the disclosure completes a financial transaction
requested by the individual; the disclosure is required by law; or
the disclosure is required by a valid warrant or subpoena. 740
ILCS Section 14/15(d).

Standard Of Care

Also, the BIPA requires that a company use "the reasonable
standard of care" within its industry for storing, transmitting
and protecting biometric information and act "in a manner that is
the same as or more protective than the manner in which the
[company] stores, transmits and protects other confidential and
sensitive information." Id. Section 14/15(e).

Case Background

In Santana, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant violated the BIPA
based on the use of a feature in the NBA 2K15 and NBA 2K16 video
games, which contain a feature called "MyPlayer" which allows
gamers to create a personalized basketball player that has a
realistic 3-D rendition of the gamer's face. The 3-D mapping
process used cameras to capture a scan of the gamer's facial
geometry to disseminate a realistic rendition of the gamer's face
which requires gamers to hold their faces within 6 to 12 inches of
the camera and slowly turn their heads during the scanning
process. Id. *2-3. To use the feature, gamers must also first
agree to terms and conditions acknowledging that the face scan
will be visible and may be recorded during gameplay and requires
gamers to "agree and consent to such uses." Id.

Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant: (1) collected their biometric
data without their informed consent; (2) disseminated their
biometric data to others during game play without their informed
consent; (3) failed to inform them in writing of the specific
purpose and length of term for which their biometric data would be
stored; (4) failed to make publicly available a retention schedule
and guidelines for permanently destroying plaintiffs' biometric
data; and (5) failed to store, transmit, or protect from
disclosure plaintiffs' biometric data by using a reasonable
standard of care or in a manner that is at least as protective as
the manner in which it stores, transmits, and protects other
confidential and sensitive information. Id. *4.

Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims for lack of Article
III standing and for failure to state a cause of action under the
statute (i.e., lack of "statutory standing"). The district court
granted the motion on both grounds and dismissed the action with
prejudice, and Plaintiffs appealed.

The Second Circuit's Decision

In its ruling of November 21, 2017, the Second Circuit entered a
summary order affirming the district court's decision insofar as
it held that plaintiffs lacked Article III standing, but vacating
the decision in part insofar as it held that plaintiffs lacked a
statutory cause of action as "aggrieved" parties.

In regards to Article III standing, the Second Circuit held that
"none of the alleged procedural violations [] raise[d] a material
risk of harm" to Plaintiffs arising out of the use, collection, or
disclosure of an individual's biometric data. Id. *7. In reaching
this conclusion the Second Circuit noted that no reasonable person
would believe that the feature of the game at issue was anything
other than a facial scan and Plaintiffs did "not plausibly assert
(beyond a mere conclusory allegation) that they would have
withheld their consent had Take-Two included additional language
in its consent disclaimer. Id. *8. Plaintiffs' alleged violations
of the BIPA's notice provisions similarly failed to raise a
material risk of harm because Plaintiffs did not allege that
Defendant had not or will not destroy their biometric data within
the period specified by the statute nor did Plaintiffs allege that
Defendant lacked such protocols or that its policies were
inadequate and "there is accordingly no material risk that
[Defendant's procedural violations have resulted in plaintiffs'
biometric data being used or disclosed without their consent. Id.
*9. Finally, the Court was not persuaded by Plaintiffs attempts to
"manufacture an injury" by alleging that they would be deterred
from using biometric technology in the future because "Plaintiffs'
fear, without more, is insufficient to confer Article III injury-
in-fact. Id. *11.

Despite this ruling, the Second Circuit remanded to the district
court with the instruction that the district court shall enter
dismissal without prejudice finding that the district court did
not have subject matter jurisdiction to ultimately find that
plaintiff did not have "statutory standing," e.g., that Plaintiffs
had not alleged a cause of action under the statute --
specifically, that Plaintiffs were not "aggrieved by" a violation
of the statute because they did not allege "actual damages." The
Second Circuit held:

Since the statutory standing arguments here are based on differing
constructions of the term 'aggrieved party' as used in BIPA, the
district court's resolution of the issue was a judgment on the
merits that could not be properly addressed absent subject matter
jurisdiction. The district court was therefore without power to
dismiss the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a cause
of action under the statute.

Id. at *13.

Implications For Employers

The Second Circuit's ruling represents a victory for employers to
the extent that it will make it more difficult for plaintiffs to
plead and maintain Article III standing to survive a motion to
dismiss in federal courts. On the other hand, the Second Circuit
opinion did not bring any clarity as to who a "person aggrieved"
is for purposes of the statute and whether plaintiffs must plead
actual damages in order to state a cause of action under the BIPA.

The practical import of this ruling is that the battleground for
defenses based on subject-matter jurisdiction and standing grounds
and a lack of statutory standing (e.g. failure to plead a cause of
action because plaintiffs were not "aggrieved by" a violation of
the statute) will likely shift back to the Illinois state courts,
which (despite being similar in many respects) have different and
independent standing principles from federal courts.

Courts remain split as whether plaintiffs alleging violations
under the BIPA must allege actual damages in order to state a
cause of action, with state courts generally finding that actual
damages are not necessary to plead a cause of action under the
statute. Compare McCollough v. Smarte Carte, Inc., 2016 WL
4077108, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 1, 2016) (dismissing BIPA action
for lack of actual damages) and Rottner v. Palm Beach Tan, Inc.,
2015-CH-16695 (BIPA requires showing of actual damages) with
Monroy v. Shutterfly, Inc., 2017 WL 4099846, at *9 (N.D. Ill.
Sept. 15, 2017) ("[w]hile the matter is not free from doubt, the
court declines to hold that a showing of actual damages is
necessary in order to state a claim under the BIPA); Rosenbach v.
Six Flags Entertainment Corporation et al., 16 CH 13 (Cir. Court,
Lake County, IL, June 17, 2016) (finding sufficient statutory
standing for the plaintiff to survive a motion to dismiss where
the plaintiff had provided fingerprints to Six Flags as part of an
annual pass program to the amusement park); Sekura v. Krishna
Schaumberg Tan, Inc., 2017 WL 1181420 (Cir. Ct., Cook County, IL,
Feb. 9, 2017) (denying motion to dismiss BIPA claim and noting
that "the term 'aggrieved' has been used consistently in numerous
statutes to provide claims for the infringement of granted legal
rights without the need to plead specific or actual damages" and
"it is not this court's role to determine whether BIPA was well
intentioned or even well drafted, only to determine, in this case,
whether it requires that plaintiffs plead actual damages to state
claims thereunder.")

In sum, while the Second Circuit's opinion provides employers with
strong support for arguments based on a lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction and standing (particularly in federal courts),
arguments by employers at the motion to dismiss stage that a
plaintiff lacks statutory standing (e.g., whether the statute
requires a plaintiff to plead actual damages to state a cause of
action) will likely have to be resolved by Illinois state courts
and any such arguments in federal court may result in remand to
state court, or a dismissal without prejudice allowing plaintiffs
to re-file in state court. [GN]


TENAGLIA & HUNT: Raju Sues over Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
KARTHIKEYAN RAJU, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. TENAGLIA & HUNT, P.A., the Defendant,
Case No. 2:17-cv-12986 (D.N.J., Dec. 12, 2017), seeks to recover
actual and statutory damages and declaratory and injunctive relief
arising from the Defendant's violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Prior to December 12, 2016 Plaintiff allegedly incurred a
financial obligation to Bank of America, N.A. based upon purchases
made on a consumer credit card. The Bank of America obligation
arose out of a transaction in which money, property, insurance or
services, which are the subject of the transaction,
are primarily for personal, family or household purposes.

Bank of America is a "creditor" as defined by 15 U.S.C. section
1692a(4). At some time prior to December 12, 2016, the Bank of
America obligation became past due. At some time prior to December
12, 2016, Bank of America transferred or assigned the Obligation
to Defendant for collection. On or about December 12, 2016,
Defendant sent Plaintiff a collection letter with respect to the
Obligation. The December 12, 2016 letter was a "communication".
The December 12 collection letter contained the following language
("Debt Dispute Language"):

"If you dispute the debt in According to the Debt Dispute
Language, the least sophisticated consumer would be lead to
believe that under the law that Defendant would have to stop
collection efforts, by simply disputing the debt, at any time,
irrespective of whether or not the dispute was made within the 30
day period as required by section 1692g(b)."

Similarly, according to the Debt Dispute Language, the least
sophisticated consumer would be lead to believe that under the law
that Defendant would have to stop collection efforts if the
consumer requested proof of the debt or the name and address of
the original creditor within the 30-day time period, even if the
request was not in writing, as required by section 1692g(b).

The lawsuit contends that the Debt Dispute Language is not an
accurate statement of section 1692g(b) and is a false, deceptive
and misleading representation. The Plaintiff suffered injury in
fact by being subjected to unfair and abusive practices of
Defendant. The Plaintiff suffered actual harm by being the target
of Defendant's misleading debt collection communications.
Defendant violated Plaintiff's rights not to be the target of
misleading debt collection communications. Defendant violated
Plaintiff's right to a truthful and fair debt collection process.

Under the FDCPA, Plaintiff had the right to receive certain
information from Defendant. Plaintiff had the right to receive
from Defendant accurate information as what the law is, if
Defendant is going to make such representation. Defendant's
collection letter caused Plaintiff a concrete injury in that
Plaintiff was deprived of his right to receive accurate statement
of the law.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated:

          Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq.
          LAWRENCE HERSH, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102B
          Rutherford, NJ 07070
          Telephone: (201) 507 6300


TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Renteria Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JIMMY RENTERIA, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL,
INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, the
Defendant, Case No. BC686832 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 13, 2017),
seeks to recover statutory minimum wages for all hours worked and
overtime compensation in violation of California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff was initially hired by Alterra Pest Control in
December 2015, as a non-exempt Pest Technician. Alterra was
acquired by Defendant Terminix after Plaintiffs hire, and in
January 2017, Terminix officially assumed control of all of
Alterra's operations, including the employment of Plaintiff and
all other non-exempt employees of Alterra. Plaintiff's job duties
included residential and commercial pest inspection and control at
different locations in and around Southern California. The
Plaintiff continued in this role until he suffered a work-related
injury, for which he has been on a workers' compensation leave of
absence since May 30, 2017. The Plaintiff's typically work
schedule was from 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday,
although Plaintiff often worked longer hours. The Plaintiff was
paid on an hourly basis from the start of his employment until
January 2017, at which point Defendants switched to a commission
based compensation system, whereby Plaintiff was paid commissions
once a month upon completion of a certain number of inspection and
extermination jobs in that month. Despite being paid on a "salary"
basis, Plaintiff was still required to record the hours that he
worked both by handwritten timecards and through a "Workday" phone
application.

Under Defendants' Commission Compensation Plans, in pay periods
when Plaintiff received commissions he was not separately
compensated for time spent working on non-productive tasks, which
were not compensated on a commission basis. As a result, Plaintiff
was not paid for all hours worked, including all overtime hours
worked. Once Defendants' began requiring Plaintiff and other non-
exempt employees to use the "Workday" application, Defendants only
paid Plaintiff for a maximum of 12.0 hours per day, despite
Plaintiff regularly working shifts in excess of 12.0 hours in
order to complete scheduled extermination jobs and make mandatory
phone calls to confirm scheduled appointments for the next day at
the end of his shift.

Specifically, once Defendants began to use the Workday phone
application, the application would automatically clock Plaintiff
out of his shift for the day once his shift reach 12.0 hours,
despite Defendants' requirement that Plaintiff continue to perform
work duties beyond the twelfth hour of his shift. As a result,
Plaintiff was not paid for all hours worked, including all
overtime hours worked.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TESCO CORP: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., disclosed that it has filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas on behalf of holders of Tesco Corporation
("Tesco") (NasdaqGS:TESO) common stock in connection with the
proposed acquisition of Tesco by Nabors Industries Ltd. and its
affiliate ("Nabors") announced on August 14, 2017 (the
"Complaint").  The Complaint, which alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Tesco, its Board of
Directors (the "Board"), and Nabors, is captioned The Vladimir
Gusinsky Rev. Trust v. Tesco Corporation, Case No. 4:17-cv-02918
(S.D. Tex.).

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
plaintiff's counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120, Wilmington,
DE 19803, by telephone at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail at info@rl-
legal.com, or at http://rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/.

On August 13, 2017, Tesco entered into an agreement and plan of
merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Nabors.  Pursuant to the
Merger Agreement, shareholders of Tesco will receive, for each
share of Tesco they own, 0.68 shares of Nabors common stock (the
"Proposed Transaction").

Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to
secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction,
defendants issued materially incomplete disclosures in a
Preliminary Proxy Statement (the "Proxy Statement") filed with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission.  The Complaint
alleges that the Proxy Statement, which recommends that Tesco
stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits
material information necessary to enable shareholders to make an
informed decision as to how to vote on the Proposed Transaction,
including material information with respect to Tesco's and Nabors'
financial projections, the analyses performed by Tesco's financial
advisor, and the background of the Proposed Transaction.  The
Complaint seeks injunctive and equitable relief and damages on
behalf of holders of Tesco common stock.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than January 29, 2018.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  Any member of the proposed class may move the Court
to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

With offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden City, New York
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. -- http://www.rigrodskylong.com--
regularly prosecutes securities fraud, shareholder corporate, and
shareholder derivative litigation on behalf of shareholders in
state and federal courts throughout the United States. [GN]


TEZOS: Jan. 25 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP advises crowdfund investors in
Tezos (XTZ) that a securities class action on behalf of investors
who purchased or otherwise attempted to acquire "Tezzies" or "XTZ"
tokens during the Tezos Initial Coin Offering ("ICO") is pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.  The Lead Plaintiff deadline is January 25, 2018.  If
you submitted bitcoin (BTC), Ethereum (ETH) or other consideration
in the July 2017 Tezos offering or crowdsale in order to purchase
or otherwise acquire "Tezzies" or "XTZ" tokens contact Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.  For more information visit:

https://www/hbsslaw.com/cases/XTZ

or contact Reed Kathrein, who is leading the firm's investigation,
by calling 510-725-3000 or emailing
XTZ@hbsslaw.com.

The complaint alleges that Dynamic Ledger Solutions, Inc., Tezos
Stiftung (also known as the Tezos Foundation), Kathleen Breitman,
and Arthur Breitman engaged in an unregistered offering and sale
of securities in violation of Sections 5, 12(a)(1) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. Secs. 77e, 77l(a)(1) and 77o,
and that the Tezos ICO was an offering and sale of "securities" to
United States investors.  Defendants conducted the Tezos ICO
without filing a Registration Statement or seeking an exemption
from registration.  The lawsuit is seeking to recover the bitcoin
and Ethereum contributed to the Tezos ICO, along with any
corresponding appreciation in value of those invested assets, or
the equivalent in monetary damages or restitution.

"We are focused on recovering the consideration paid by Tezos
crowdfund investors, and to preserve these assets which have been
shuttled away to Zug Switzerland," said Hagens Berman partner Reed
Kathrein.

Whistleblowers:  Persons with non-public information regarding the
Tezos ICO should consider their options to help in the
investigation or take advantage of the SEC whistleblower program.
Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original
information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any
successful recovery made by the SEC.  For more information, call
Reed Kathrein at 510-725-3000 or email XTZ@hbsslaw.com

                    About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a national investor-
rights law firm headquartered in Seattle, Washington with 70+
attorneys in 11 offices across the country.  The firm represents
investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex
litigation.  [GN]


THE GAP: Faces Class Suit in New Jersey Over Deceiving Markdowns
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Hoover, writing for NJ.com, reports that a woman has filed
a class action suit on behalf of New Jersey customers who shopped
at The Gap and Banana Republic outlet stores, claiming the stores
advertised higher original prices and made deceiving markdowns.

The suit, filed in federal court in Camden, alleges that the
discount factory stores operated by the retailers inflated the
original prices on merchandise, leading customers to think they
were getting better deals off the markdowns than they actually
were.

"In actuality, the lower, purportedly discounted prices are the
prices at which defendants consistently and regularly sell their
items," the suit claims.

The suit encompasses any customer who shopped at the outlet stores
across the state between October 2011 and fall 2017.  Gap and
Banana Republic are operated by the same parent company.

The claim alleges the stores scheme customers by using in-store
signage to suggest the items are "up to 70 percent off original
Gap Factory prices" and also printing total discount amounts
customers received on the receipts. Because of the alleged
inflation, those numbers are "not based on any real prices" and
"entirely illusory," according to the claim.

Those alleged acts violate both federal and state sales
regulations, the lawsuit claims.

Other companies, including J.C. Penney and Kohl's, have been hit
with similar lawsuits in recent years as various companies seek to
lure customers in with seemingly slashed prices.

The plaintiff, Caron Coladonato, was a regular customer of the
stores who made purchases at outlet stores in Blackwood, Camden
County on Black Friday of 2016, the suit states.  Taking advantage
of an advertised 50 percent markdown, she bought two items of
children's apparel that she would not have otherwise purchased.

It was later determined that those prices were the regular prices
for items at the store, according to the suit.  The incident was
not an isolated one, but part of a "systematic scheme of false and
misleading advertising" the claim states.

The companies could be responsible for refunding the total price
for each discounted item sold in New Jersey during the six-year
period, amount to $10 million in refunds.

A representative from the company said the company does not
comment on legal matters. [GN]


TIRE DISCOUNTERS: Service Managers Class in "Lindsey" Decertified
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JUSTIN LINDSEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TIRE
DISCOUNTERS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-3065 (S.D. Ohio),
Judge George C. Smith of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, Eastern Division, granted Tire Discounters'
Motion to Decertify, denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification, denied Tire Discounters' Motion for Summary
Judgment, granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and denied the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Brief.

The case arises out of Tire Discounters' classification of its
Service Manager ("SM") position as exempt from the overtime
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Ohio
Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.  Named Plaintiffs Lindsey and
Matthew Titus worked as SMs at various Tire Discounters locations
for all or part of the period of Dec. 8, 2012 to Oct. 31, 2016.
The Plaintiffs claim that Tire Discounters improperly classified
them, and all other SMs employed by Tire Discounters around the
country during this time period, as exempt under the executive
exemption provided by 29 C.F.R. Section 541.100.

The Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on Dec. 8, 2015.  Soon after,
and Tire Discounters did not contest, they sought conditional
certification of a collective action pursuant to FLSA's provisions
at 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).

On March 1, 2016, the Court conditionally certified the collective
comprising all current and former SMs who work or worked for the
Defendant, within the United States at any time since Dec. 8,
2012.  The Plaintiffs then distributed Court-approved notice of
the FLSA collective action to potential members of the Collective.
The FLSA notice period has closed, and a total of 98 SMs,
including the two Named Plaintiffs, who worked for Tire
Discounters around the country have filed consent forms to join
the FLSA collective action.

Contemporaneously, the parties conducted discovery regarding Rule
23 class certification of an Ohio-only class, decertification of
the nationwide collective action, and dispositive motions.  The
parties agreed that Tire Discounters would be entitled to take the
depositions of the two Named Plaintiffs as well as eight other
opt-in Plaintiffs who had consented to join the FLSA collective
action.  However, Tire Discounters chose to depose only the two
Named Plaintiffs and three opt-in Plaintiffs (Scott Mustovich,
Wesley Lowe, and Ronald Litton).

Lindsey, Titus, and Mustovich worked at various Tire Discounters
locations in Ohio; Lowe and Litton worked at locations in
Kentucky.  Tire Discounters' written discovery responses indicated
that there are likely at least 124 current or former employees
falling within the definition of the Plaintiff's proposed Rule 23
Ohio-only class.

On March 1, 2017, Tire Discounters filed its Motion to Decertify
the FLSA collective action.  The same day, the Plaintiffs filed
their Motion for Class Certification of the OMWA claims under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) on behalf of those SMs
who had worked for Tire Discounters in Ohio.  While those motions
remained pending, both parties filed motions for summary judgment
per the Court's scheduling order on April 24, 2017: Tire
Discounters sought summary judgment on liability as to all issues
and all the Plaintiffs, and the Plaintiffs sought partial summary
judgment as to the method of calculating damages.

Finally, after briefing was complete on both summary judgment
motions, the Plaintiffs filed a motion on June 14, 2017, for Leave
to file a Supplemental Brief in support of their Motion for Class
Certification and in opposition to Tire Discounters' Motion to
Decertify.

Judge Smith finds that the Plaintiffs were clearly aware of Tire
Discounters' summary judgment position while briefing the class-
related motions and could have raised any inconsistency arguments
at that time -- and, in fact, they did.  The Plaintiffs have
therefore not shown good cause for filing their supplemental
brief.  Therefore, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a
Supplemental Brief is denied.

The Judge granted Tire Discounters' Motion to Decertify.  He finds
that the facts and circumstances of the SMs' employment, as it
relates to the components of the executive exemption, are so
varied that no judicial economy would be gained by proceeding as a
collective action.  Therefore, as all three components of the
decertification standard weigh in Tire Discounters' favor.  The
claims of all the opt-in Plaintiffs, excluding Lead Plaintiffs
Lindsey and Titus, are dismissed without prejudice.

Since it is clear, following his determination that the SMs around
the country are not "similarly situated," that the Plaintiffs also
cannot satisfy the more stringent predominance requirement of Rule
23(b)(3), nor the typicality requirement of Rule 23(a)(3), Judge
Smith denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.

The Judge also denied Tire Discounters' Motion for Summary
Judgment as to the Lead Plaintiffs, as well as the opt-in
Plaintiffs in the FLSA collective action and the members of the
putative Ohio-only Rule 23 class.  He explains that while Tire
Discounters has demonstrated with uncontroverted fact that both
Lindsey and Titus met the salary basis test of the executive
exemption, there are numerous disputed facts as to their relevant
job duties.  The Judge thus cannot conclude that Lindsey and Titus
were properly classified as exempt from the overtime provisions of
the FLSA and OMWA.

Finally, the Judge granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.  He is unable to
resolve the precise number of hours that Lindsey and Titus
expected to work each week at the summary judgment stage.  And
because SMs are not similarly situated, the Judge is not persuaded
that evidence of SMs' schedules "generally" will be accurate as to
Lindsey and Titus.  Accordingly, to the extent the Plaintiffs seek
a determination of the particular number of hours to be used as
the divisor of Lindsey's and Titus's weekly compensation to
determine their regular hourly rate, he denied the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.

However, Judge Smith agrees with Judge Economus' analysis in
Snodgrass v. Bob Evans Farms, LLC that while recognizing that the
fluctuating work week ("FWW") method may be agreed to between the
employer and employee to calculate wages on a forward-looking
basis, its retroactive application in misclassification cases is
inappropriate as a matter of law.  The FWW method sets forth a
framework for calculating compensation for non-exempt employees.
The Judge therefore holds that the FWW method may not be used to
retroactively calculate damages for unpaid overtime wages in a
misclassification case.  To that extent, the Plaintiffs' Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment is granted.

Judge Smith further recommended that the parties engage in
mediation to resolve the claims of Lindsey and Titus.  If the
parties wish to participate in mediation, they may contact Judge
Jolson's chambers at (614) 719-3470 to schedule a mediation
through the Court.  He directed the Clerk to remove Documents 68,
69, 79, 80, and 95 from the Court's pending motions list.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 1, 2017 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/FQ8O8w from Leagle.com.

James D. Colner, Mediator, represented by James Douglas Colner --
jcolner@slk-law.com -- Shumaker Loop & Kendrick LLP.

Justin Lindsey, Plaintiff, represented by Drew T. Legando --
drew@lgmlegal.com -- Landskroner - Grieco - Merriman, LLC, Gregg
I. Shavitz -- gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com -- Shavitz Law Group P.A.,
Jack Landskroner -- jack@lgmlegal.com -- Landskroner - Grieco -
Merriman, LLC & Paolo C. Meireles -- pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com --
Shavitz Law Group, P.A.

Matthew Titus, Plaintiff, represented by Drew T. Legando,
Landskroner - Grieco - Merriman, LLC, Gregg I. Shavitz, Shavitz
Law Group P.A., Jack Landskroner, Landskroner Grieco Merriman, LLC
& Paolo C. Meireles, Shavitz Law Group, P.A.

Tire Discounters, Inc., Defendant, represented by Colleen P. Lewis
-- colleen.lewis@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore & Shohl & Jason Hilliard
-- jason.hilliard@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore & Shohl LLP.


TIVITY HEALTH: Jan. 19 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, notified investors that a
class action lawsuit has been filed against Tivity Health, Inc.
("Tivity" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: TVTY) and certain of its
officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased Tivity
securities between February 24, 2017, and November 3, 2017, both
dates inclusive, (the "Class Period").  Such investors are
encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/tvty

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC

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

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period Defendants
issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) Tivity was aware that its customer United
Healthcare, Inc. planned to expand its fitness benefit to seniors,
(2) the abovementioned expansion would represent direct
competition to Tivity's core program SilverSneaker, and (3)
consequently, Tivity's financial statements, as well as
Defendants' statements about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/tvtyor you may contact Peretz Bronstein,
Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in
Tivity you have until January 19, 2018 to request that the Court
appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  In addition to representing institutions and other
investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the
firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial
litigation, as well as securities arbitration. [GN]


TOLEDO TOOL: Court Denies Class Certification in "Marek"
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Melvin Marek, Jr., Plaintiff. v. Toledo Tool & Die
Co., Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:16CV03005 (N.D. Ohio), Judge
James G. Carr, Sr., of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio, Western Division, denied without prejudice to
refiling the Plaintiff's motion for conditional class
certification.

Toledo Tool & Die hired Marek as a maintenance technician in
February 2012, and promoted him to maintenance supervisor a year
later.  Both before and after his promotion, the Plaintiff's
primary job duties consisted of general maintenance.  Despite his
supervisory title, the Defendant consistently paid Marek on an
hourly basis, and never on a salaried basis.

Although Marek was a non-exempt hourly employee, the Defendant
purportedly failed to pay him and others proper overtime wages for
hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek between 2014 and 2016.
When Toledo Tool & Die later terminated his employment, he
initiated the instant suit to recover the wages.

Marek now moves to conditionally certify his Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA") claim as a collective action so that potential
Plaintiffs can be notified of the suit's existence and of their
right to participate.  The class Marek seeks to certify consists
of all current and former hourly, non-exempt employees of the
Defendant, who worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, but
were not paid their overtime rate for all such hours worked,
resulting in unpaid overtime wages.

The Defendant opposes the motion.  While it concedes that the
required showing is minimal, Toledo Tool & Die argues that Marek
fails to meet even the lenient burden for conditional class
certification.

Judge Carr finds that Marek has provided little information in
support of his motion.  Nor does he describe the job duties of the
other potential Plaintiffs -- all of the Defendant's current and
former hourly, non-exempt employees.  As for geographic location,
Marek does not indicate whether Toledo Tool & Die has multiple
locations, multiple work sites within a single location, or a
single work site within a single location.  Nor can the Judge
adequately consider the different defenses to which the Plaintiffs
may be subject on an individual basis.  He says an individual
claimant can speak to an employer's company-wide policy if he has
personal knowledge of other employees' circumstances.  But key to
this strategy is articulating a "factual basis" for his personal
knowledge, one from which the Court can conclude the Plaintiff and
other employees were similarly situated and suffered from a common
policy that violated the FLSA.

In addition, although some courts credit employer-submitted
evidence at the conditional-certification stage, Judge Carr is not
inclined to do so.  Weighing the Defendant's affidavits would
require him to resolve factual disputes, decide substantive issues
on the merits, or make credibility determinations -- tasks better
left for after discovery, if he reached them at all.  Moreover,
form affidavits gathered by an employer from its current employees
are of limited evidentiary value in the FLSA context because of
the potential for coercion.

However, excluding this evidence does not make the Plaintiff's
case for conditional certification any stronger.  The payroll
records do not evince a FLSA violation in the first instance.
This is where Marek's lack of personal knowledge makes all the
difference.  He does not have personal knowledge that Toledo Tool
& Die denied other employees overtime compensation.

Judge Carr therefore denied without prejudice to refiling the
Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 29, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/e96Set from Leagle.com.

Melvin Marek Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Daniel I. Bryant.

Melvin Marek Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Matthew J.P. Coffman.

Toledo Tool & Die Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by James
B. Yates -- jbyates@eastmansmith.com -- Eastman & Smith & Sarah E.
Pawlicki -- sepawlicki@eastmansmith.com -- Eastman & Smith.


TRACTOR SUPPLY: Faces "Johnson" Wage-and-Hour Suit
--------------------------------------------------
TAMMY JOHNSON and VANESSA DETTWILER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. TRACTOR SUPPLY
COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-
06039 (W.D. Wash., Dec. 12, 2017), seeks to recover overtime pay
and damages as a result of Defendant's systematic scheme of wage
and hour violations.

The scheme involves systemic miscalculation of overtime and
failure to affirmatively provide meal and rest breaks. Plaintiffs
bring their claims as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure on behalf of a Washington state class, and as a
nationwide collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked as both an exempt Acting Manager, as well as
a non-exempt Assistant Manager. When she worked as a non-exempt
Assistant Manager during the last three years, Plaintiff Johnson
regularly worked pay periods in which she both worked overtime and
earned a non-discretionary bonus, yet Defendant failed to pay her
at the proper overtime rate by excluding the non-discretionary
bonus from the regular rate of pay. Defendant also failed to
affirmatively provide Plaintiff Johnson with 30-minute meal breaks
when she worked as a non-exempt Assistant Manager during the last
three years. Moreover, Defendant failed to affirmatively provide
her with paid ten-minute rest breaks for every four hours of work
and regularly required her to work more than three consecutive
hours without a rest break.

Tractor Supply Company is an American retail chain of stores that
offers products for home improvement, agriculture, lawn and garden
maintenance, and livestock, equine and pet care. It is a leading
U.S. retailer in its market.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc C. Cote, Esq.
          Michael C. Subit, Esq.
          FRANK FREED SUBIT & THOMAS LLP
          705 Second Avenue, Suite 1200
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 682 6711
          Facsimile: (206) 682 0401
          E-mail: msubit@frankfreed.com
                  mcote@frankfreed.com

               - and -

          Michael Malk, Esq.
          THE MALK LAW FIRM
          1180 S. Beverly Drive, Suite 302
          Telephone: (310) 203 0016
          Facsimile: (310) 499 5210
          E-mail: mm@malklawfirm.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: City of Chicago Files Data Breach Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Hamza Shaban, writing for The Washington Post, reports that the
city of Chicago and the Cook County state's attorney are suing
Uber after the company revealed that it waited more than a year to
disclose a massive data breach and, according to multiple reports,
paid the hackers responsible $100,000 to stay quiet.

The legal action by Illinois officials is the latest move in a
mounting backlash against the company, which said that the
personal information of 57 million customers and drivers had been
stolen in October 2016.  Uber now faces at least four lawsuits,
including three seeking class-action status, prompted by the data
breach.  The attorneys general of five states have launched
investigations, and the Federal Trade Commission said it is
closely evaluating reports of the hack.

The Chicago lawsuit alleges that Uber failed to safeguard the
personal data of Illinois residents and further violated the law
by withholding for an extended period of time the announcement of
the data breach and concealing the hack through its ransom payment
to the intruders.  The lawsuit claims that Uber willfully exposed
many Illinois residents to the risks of financial fraud, identity
theft and tax scams.

According to Uber chief executive Dara Khosrowshahi, the company
identified the hackers and "obtained assurances that the
downloaded data had been destroyed." But in the complaint,
Illinois officials took aim at what they described as a deeply
troubling arrangement between Uber and the people who stole
personal data from the company.  "Any agreement that Uber reached
with the criminal hackers couldn't possibly be trusted to protect
user data. Nor did Uber require any proof that the stolen data
was, in fact, deleted," stated the suit.  The officials added that
in the digital age it is "impossible" for Uber to know whether the
hackers still have copies of customer data.

A spokesman for Uber did not immediately respond to a request for
comment.

The city seeks a declaration that Uber broke the law and a series
of penalties that add up to hundreds of millions of dollars.  The
lawsuit asks the court to fine Uber $10,000 a day for every day
the company failed to notify Chicago and Illinois residents of the
data breach, which would amount to at least $3,650,000.  Uber also
faces penalties of up to $50,000 per individual violation, if the
court finds that the company intended to defraud Illinois
residents.  Officials, however, do not yet know how many state
residents were affected.

The lawsuit was filed on the same day that a group of four
Republican senators, including Orrin G. Hatch (Utah), chairman of
the Finance Committee, and John Thune (S.D.), chairman of the
Commerce Committee, sent a letter to Uber asking for more
information about the hack.  The lawmakers want to learn how Uber
officials responded to the breach and the purpose of the reported
payment to hackers. Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.) also sent a letter
to Uber describing "grave concerns" over the data breach and
asking for more details of what took place.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Data Breach Class Action in Australia
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robson Fletcher, writing for CBC News, reports that Uber is facing
a potential class-action lawsuit in Alberta over a 2016 data
breach that it initially tried to cover up.  The ride-hailing
company later admitted that personal information of tens of
millions of customers and drivers had been stolen.

The same law firm that won a Supreme Court decision granting the
right to sue Facebook in a B.C. court has now launched a class-
action lawsuit against Uber on behalf of Albertans whose personal
information was compromised in the company's recently revealed
data breach.

The international ride-hailing company admitted that personal
information belonging to 57 million of its customers had been
stolen in 2016.

Rather than disclose the breach, the company's new CEO said its
former chief security officer -- who has since been fired --
agreed to pay the hackers who stole the data $100,000 to destroy
it.

Uber admits covering up 2016 hack that affected millions
Uber's handling of the whole affair was "willful, reckless,
wanton, negligent, callous and in total disregard for the security
and rights of the plaintiff and class members," according to a
statement of claim filed in Calgary by Branch MacMaster LLP.

None of the allegations in the statement of claim has been proven
in court.

For now, the lawsuit names an Alberta woman who was affected by
the data breach as the plaintiff and seeks to have the class
action certified to apply to a broader group of people.

"When there is an alleged wrong on the part of a defendant that
affects a great number of people, it's typically ideal for
prosecution as a class action," said Luciana Brasil, a partner
with Branch MacMaster LLP.

"If the court does certify the case, then everyone who is a member
of the class, who fits in that definition, will be able to
participate in the case," Brasil said.

"And the rule, actually, is that they automatically participate
unless they take steps to exclude themselves."

Damages sought
In addition to a host of general damages, the lawsuit seeks
special damages for costs related to credit counselling,
compensation for the plaintiffs' lost time and income, as well as
costs for credit monitoring and other services to protect them
against identity theft.

The stolen data included customers' email addresses and mobile
phone numbers as well as driver's licence numbers of some 600,000
Uber drivers in the United States.

The lawsuit alleges Uber had a duty to inform both customers and
regulators in Alberta.

"At no time did Uber notify the Office of the Privacy
Commissioner, the plaintiff, class members or other affected
individuals," reads the statement of claim.

"Had it not been for recent media exposure of the Uber hack, class
members would to this day remain unaware that their personal
information had been compromised."

CBC News asked Uber for comment on Nov. 29 but has yet to receive
a reply.

Uber has not yet filed a statement of defence.

Branch MacMaster LLP fought a high-profile, years-long battle on
behalf of a B.C. woman who wanted to sue Facebook over its use of
her name and photo in advertising for a company that she had
"liked" on the social media service.

Facebook argued the case should be heard in a California court but
the Supreme Court ruled in June that the matter could proceed in
B.C.

Brasil expects it could take between six months and a year for an
Alberta court to decide on class-action certification in the Uber
case. [GN]

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Local Governments File Joint Data Breach Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The Recorder, reports that in the
race to hold Uber accountable for a massive data breach, consumer
class actions might end up in the slow lane -- but government
regulators have a chance to speed ahead.

About a dozen class actions have been filed since Nov. 21, when
Uber Technologies Inc. announced that hackers had stolen the
personal information of 57 million drivers and riders back in
2016.  Uber also admitted that it paid the hackers $100,000 to
destroy the information.

But the lawsuits face standing issues, which have plagued data
breach class actions in the past.  And Uber's hack involved names,
email addresses and driver's licenses -- information that's
replaceable and less lucrative to hackers than Social Security
numbers or health information.  As a result, lead plaintiffs could
have a hard time establishing they were injured from the breach.

That's left local governments -- many armed with new and amended
data breach laws -- to step up.  On Nov. 27, attorneys with the
city of Chicago and Cook County, Illinois, filed a joint lawsuit
against Uber alleging it failed to safeguard personal information
and didn't disclose the breach promptly under Illinois data breach
laws. Jay Edelson of Chicago's Edelson PC, who is working on the
case on contingency, declined to comment.

On Nov. 29, the state of Washington sued Uber. In a press release,
Attorney General Bob Ferguson noted that the case, which seeks
millions of dollars in penalties, was the first to be filed under
the state's 2015 amendments to its data breach law.  Those
amendments now require that consumers and the attorney general in
Washington be notified within 45 days of the breach.

"Washington law is clear: When a data breach puts people at risk,
businesses must inform them," Mr. Ferguson said in a statement.

Attorneys general in a handful of other states are investigating
Uber.

"This is a company that is facing a lot of different litigation, a
lot of different investigations by law enforcement, and they've
been investigated by attorneys general and the FTC," said
Cari Laufenberg -- claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com -- of Keller
Rohrback, who filed a case on Nov. 22 in Northern California's
federal district.  "They don't have a good track record. They have
a credibility problem already going into this.  So I think
everyone is going to look at this with a finer, granular
microscope than they might with a company with an outstanding
record."

In a Nov. 21 statement, CEO Dara Khosrowshahi, who took over in
August, insisted that more sensitive data like Social Security
numbers, birth dates and credit card numbers hadn't been stolen.
"None of this should have happened, and I will not make excuses
for it," he said.  "We are changing the way we do business,
putting integrity at the core of every decision we make and
working hard to earn the trust of our customers."

The lawsuits against Uber allege negligence and violations of
state data breach and consumer laws -- all claims that have been
brought before in cybersecurity class actions.

They face a common challenge in data breach cases: Establishing
that the plaintiffs were injured from the hack.  In 2015, U.S.
Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler of the Northern District of
California dismissed a case over a similar 2014 breach at Uber,
concluding that the lead plaintiff wasn't harmed in having his
name and driver's license stolen.  Even after Uber updated its
notice to state that some Social Security numbers had been stolen,
Judge Beeler dismissed the case on Nov. 25, concluding there
wasn't enough evidence that Uber's breach had caused immediate
harm to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs attorney in that case, Tina Wolfson of Ahdoot &
Wolfson in Los Angeles, who also filed a Nov. 21 class action over
Uber's 2016 breach, did not respond to a request for comment.

Not having more sensitive data stolen could threaten the new round
of lawsuits, said Ed McAndrew --
mcandrewe@ballardspahr.com -- co-chairman of the privacy and data
security group at Ballard Spahr in Philadelphia.

"That's going to make it more difficult for the consumer
plaintiffs to establish standing," he said.  "There will be
motions to dismiss filed in virtually all these consumer class
actions, and a number of them will go the way of past class
actions, where less permanent data elements have been involved in
the theft."

But he acknowledged that the cases could have a strong argument
that Uber misrepresented its security procedures to consumers.
"That misrepresentation cause of action is going to be much more
appealing to certain judges in a case like this than it would be
where you just said you misrepresented the facts based on your
website privacy policy statement," he said.

Ms. Laufenberg acknowledged the limitations the type of hacked
data could have in the cases.  But she said that could change. And
there's another red flag that makes the Uber case different.

"The big one that stands out of course is their having hid the
breach for a year, having attempted to handle it on their own by
paying a ransom to the hackers and supposedly having them attempt
to destroy the data," she said.  "That's a big outlier in terms of
fact patterns of these cases."

Uber also knew of the breach while resolving a Federal Trade
Commission investigation into its 2014 hack.

"This is perhaps the most problematic aspect for this for Uber,"
said Mr. McAndrew.  Under an Aug. 15 consent decree, he said, Uber
agreed not to make misrepresentations about its security. He
predicted that Uber could be facing $100 million in FTC penalties.
"I wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't the largest FTC penalty
related to data security we've seen."

It's unclear whether the FTC, now under the Trump administration,
plans to take any action. An FTC spokesman told law.com: "We are
aware of press reports describing a breach in late 2016 at Uber
and Uber officials' actions after that breach.  We are closely
evaluating the serious issues raised."

Congress also is digging in.  On Nov. 27, four Republican U.S.
senators and Sen. Mark Warner, D-Virginia, sent letters to
Ms. Khosrowshahi asking for more information about the breach.

"I have long championed the innovation and potential of the on-
demand economy," Mr. Warner wrote.  "However, Uber's conduct
raises serious questions about the company's compliance with
relevant state and federal regulations." [GN]


UNITED STATES: Bernsen Named Lead Counsel in "Andrus" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ANDRUS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED
STATES, Defendant, Case No. 17-1657 L (Fed. Cl.), Judge Susan G.
Braden of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims entered an order
regarding judicial assignment, appointment of the Plaintiffs'
counsel for the purpose of pre-trial discovery, the government's
motion to dismiss pursuant to rule of the U.S. Court of Federal
Claims 12(b)(1)-(7), and scheduling.

On Nov. 1, 2017, 81 Plaintiffs filed the Complaint alleging the
United States Army Corps of Engineers' release of water from the
Town Bluff Dam near Jasper, Texas in the wake of Hurricane Harvey
resulted in a taking of their respective property, in violation of
the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States
Constitution.

Judge Braden assigned Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby of the U.S. Court
of Federal Claims to manage the jurisdictional discovery and
adjudicate issues presented by any motion filed, pursuant to Rule
of the United States Court of Federal Claims ("RCFC").  She
appointed Mr. David E. Bernsen at Bernsen Law Firm as the
Plaintiff's Lead Counsel.  She ordered that all appointed counsel
will be compensated for work on pre-trial discovery issues and
dispositive motions, including any subsequent appeals.

To ensure the expeditious and orderly management of jurisdictional
discovery, the Judge established the following schedule:

     a. On or before Dec. 15, 2017, the Government will file any
Motion For A More Definite Statement, pursuant to RCFC 12(e).

     b. On or before Dec. 22, 2017, the parties will exchange
Mandatory Initial Disclosures, including lists of documents and
tangible items.

     c. On or before Jan. 5, 2018, the parties will exchange
electronically stored information and hard-copy documents.

     d. On or before Jan. 22, 2018, the Plaintiffs may file an
Amended Complaint, consolidated or otherwise, in response to any
motion filed on Dec. 15, 2017, pursuant to RCFC 12(e).

     e. On or before Feb. 22, 2018, the Government will file any
Motion To Dismiss, pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(1)-(7).

     f. On or before March 22, 2018, the Plaintiffs will file any
Response to the Government's Feb. 22, 2018 Motion To Dismiss.

     g. On or before April 9, 2018, the Government will file any
Reply to the March 22, 2018 the Plaintiffs' Response.

     h. On or before July 20, 2018, the Court will convene an oral
argument on the Government's Feb. 22, 2018 Motion To Dismiss.  It
will determine the date, time, and location of the oral argument
in a separate Order.

Page limitations for briefs and court filings, set forth in RCFC,
are suspended.  No extensions of time will be granted, but for
extraordinary circumstances.  Mr. Bernsen has filed a complaint on
behalf of the Individual Plaintiffs.  In the event that an
indirectly related complaint is filed that seeks class action
certification, the Court reserves the right to appoint the Co-Lead
Counsel to represent the interests of property owners who may
ultimately decide to opt-in to a certified class.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 29, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/NCUOQP from Leagle.com.

MALCOLM ANDRUS, Plaintiff, represented by David Eric Bernsen,
Bernsen Law Firm.

JACKIE ANDRUS, Plaintiff, represented by David Eric Bernsen,
Bernsen Law Firm.

ELIZABETH ANN ABBOTT, Plaintiff, represented by David Eric
Bernsen, Bernsen Law Firm.

CARL ANDERSON, Plaintiff, represented by David Eric Bernsen,
Bernsen Law Firm.

JAIME ANDERSON, Plaintiff, represented by David Eric Bernsen,
Bernsen Law Firm.

CHAD ANDERSON, Plaintiff, represented by David Eric Bernsen,
Bernsen Law Firm.

MARISSA ANDERSON, Plaintiff, represented by David Eric Bernsen,
Bernsen Law Firm.

DARYL BELL, Plaintiff, represented by David Eric Bernsen, Bernsen
Law Firm.

TIFFANY BELL, Plaintiff, represented by David Eric Bernsen,
Bernsen Law Firm.

MARGARET BELL, Plaintiff, represented by David Eric Bernsen,
Bernsen Law Firm.

USA, Defendant, represented by Kristine Sears Tardiff, U. S.
Department of Justice, ENRD Division Natural Resources Section.



UNITED STATES: Stetson Named Lead Counsel in "Andrus" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ANDRUS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED
STATES, Defendant, Case No. 17-1657 L (Fed. Cl.), Judge Susan G.
Braden of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims entered an order
regarding judicial assignment, appointment of the Plaintiffs'
counsel for the purpose of pre-trial discovery, dispositive
motions for partial or summary judgment and/or cross-motions
pursuant to rule of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims 56 and/or
trial on liability, and scheduling.

On Nov. 1, 2017, 81 Plaintiffs filed the Complaint alleging the
United States Army Corps of Engineers' release of water from the
Town Bluff Dam near Jasper, Texas in the wake of Hurricane Harvey
resulted in a taking of their respective property, in violation of
the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States
Constitution.

Judge Braden assigned Judge Elaine D. Kaplan of the U.S. Court of
Federal Claims is assigned to manage pre-trial discovery and
adjudicate all pre-trial dispositive motions.  She appointed Ms.
Christine L. Stetson at Bernsen Law Firm as the Plaintiffs' Lead
Counsel.  She ordered that all appointed counsel will be
compensated for work on pre-trial discovery issues and dispositive
motions, including any subsequent appeals.

To ensure the expeditious and orderly management of pre-trial
jurisdictional discovery, dispositive motions, and/or a trial on
liability, the Judge established the following schedule.

      a. On or before Feb. 6, 2018, all initial disclosures and
electronically stored information and hard copy documents filed in
the pre-trial phase of the case, will be provided to opposing
counsel.

      b. On or before March 7, 2018, the Government will file an
Answer, pursuant to RCFC 7(a)(2), in response to any Amended
Complaint filed on or before Jan. 22, 2018.  Thereafter, the
parties may conduct discovery, subject to court Order, including
any expert discovery, to conclude no later than June 7, 2018.

      c. On or before June 22, 2018, the Plaintiffs will file a
Motion For Summary Judgment, pursuant to RCFC 56.

      d. On or before July 23, 2018, the Government may file a
Response and/or Cross-Motion to Plaintiffs' June 22, 2018 Motion
For Summary Judgment.

      e. On or before Aug. 7, 2018, the Plaintiffs may file a
Response to the Government's July 23, 2018 Cross-Motion and/or a
Reply to the Government's July 23, 2018 Response.

      f. On or before Aug. 21, 2018, the Government may file a
Reply to Plaintiffs' Aug. 7, 2018 Response.

      g. On or before Nov. 5, 2018, the Court will convene an oral
argument on any dispositive motions.  It will determine the date,
time, and location of the oral argument in a separate Order.

If contested facts preclude disposition of the case on partial or
summary judgment, pursuant to RCFC 56, the case will be set for a
trial on liability by the assigned judge, at the earliest date
available.  The page limitations for briefs and court filings, set
forth in RCFC, are suspended.  No extensions of time will be
granted, but for extraordinary circumstances.

Ms. Stetson has filed a complaint on behalf of the Individual
Plaintiffs.  In the event that an indirectly related complaint is
filed that seeks class action certification, the Court reserves
the right to appoint the Co-Lead Counsel to represent the
interests of property owners who may ultimately decide to opt-in
to a certified class.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 29, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/6f3BgN from Leagle.com.

MALCOLM ANDRUS, Plaintiff, represented by David Eric Bernsen,
Bernsen Law Firm.

JACKIE ANDRUS, Plaintiff, represented by David Eric Bernsen,
Bernsen Law Firm.

ELIZABETH ANN ABBOTT, Plaintiff, represented by David Eric
Bernsen, Bernsen Law Firm.

CARL ANDERSON, Plaintiff, represented by David Eric Bernsen,
Bernsen Law Firm.

JAIME ANDERSON, Plaintiff, represented by David Eric Bernsen,
Bernsen Law Firm.

CHAD ANDERSON, Plaintiff, represented by David Eric Bernsen,
Bernsen Law Firm.

MARISSA ANDERSON, Plaintiff, represented by David Eric Bernsen,
Bernsen Law Firm.

DARYL BELL, Plaintiff, represented by David Eric Bernsen, Bernsen
Law Firm.

TIFFANY BELL, Plaintiff, represented by David Eric Bernsen,
Bernsen Law Firm.

MARGARET BELL, Plaintiff, represented by David Eric Bernsen,
Bernsen Law Firm.

USA, Defendant, represented by Kristine Sears Tardiff, U. S.
Department of Justice, ENRD Division Natural Resources Section.


UNITED STATES: Filing of 1st Amended Suit Against HUD Partly OKd
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned ASSOCIATED MORTGAGE BANKERS INC.,
Plaintiff, v. BEN CARSON, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 17-
0075 (ESH) (D. D.C.), Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia granted in part and
denied in part the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a first
amended complaint.

On Jan. 12, 2017, AMB filed its first complaint requesting the
Court to (i) set aside the Administrative Judge ("AJ")'s decision
as arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise
not in accordance with the law in violation of the Administrative
Procedure Act ("APA"); (ii) declare HUD to be in breach of the
Indemnification Agreement; (iii) enjoin HUD from issuing any
administrative offset or referring the debt to Treasury for
collection; (iv) certify the matter as a class action with AMB
representing a class of similarly-situated lenders; (v) issue a
preliminary injunction restraining HUD and its agents from taking
action against AMB or the proposed class; and (vi) award AMB
attorney's fees and expenses, as well as granting any other proper
relief.

AMB pleaded two counts in support of its requested relief: (i)
violation of the APA ("first APA claim") and (ii) breach of the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing ("first contract claim").
On May 23, 2017, the Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.

On Sept. 15, 2017, AMB moved to amend its first complaint, seeking
to plead additional facts regarding its original claims.  It also
seeks to add two new legal claims.  First, it wants to add a claim
that the Defendants violated the APA by failing to promulgate
rules governing the SFLS program and related programs by notice
and comment ("notice-and-comment claim").  Second, the Plaintiff
seeks to add a claim that HUD's AJs are inferior officers not
appointed in accordance with the U.S. Constitution's Appointment
Clause, and thus, HUD violated the Constitution and the statute
governing administrative offsets by failing to provide review by a
person within the agency legally allowed to do so ("Appointments
Clause claim").

On Sept. 20, 2017, before ruling on the Plaintiff's motion for
leave to file an amended complaint, the Court issued a Memorandum
Opinion on the Defendants' motion to dismiss.  The Court dismissed
with prejudice the Plaintiff's first contract claim as within the
Tucker Act's exclusive jurisdiction.  It also denied the
Defendants' motion to dismiss as to the Plaintiff's first APA
claim challenging the AJ's administrative offset decision.
However, the Court noted that its review on the first APA claim
going forward would be confined to that issue: The action will not
include discovery or class certification.  After the
administrative record is filed, the Court will decide whether the
AJ reached her decision in an arbitrary and capricious manner, or
otherwise violated an applicable statute or regulation.

On Sept. 28, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration of the Court's Memorandum Opinion.  On Nov. 15,
2017, the Court issued an opinion denying the Plaintiff's motion,
with the exception that it clarified that its dismissal of the
contract claim for lack of jurisdiction was without prejudice to
refiling in the Court of Federal Claims.

Judge Huvelle granted the Plaintiff leave to amend its complaint
to add factual allegations related to the first APA claim, the
notice-and-comment claim, and the Appointments Clause claim.
However, nothing in the Judge's opinion should be read as
prejudging the merits of the Plaintiff's notice-and-comment claim
or Appointments Clause claim for purposes of a motion to dismiss.

She denied in part the Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend to
the extent that the Plaintiff may not include its first contract
claim, which the Court has already dismissed without prejudice to
refiling in the Court of Federal Claims, and thus, Count IV of the
proposed amended complaint is stricken.  The Judge granted in part
the Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend to the extent that the
Plaintiff's amended complaint (minus Count IV) will be treated as
filed this date.  She directed the Defendants to file their
responsive pleading consistent with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 15 and D.C. Local Civil Rule 7(n), on or before Dec. 15,
2017.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 1, 2017 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/P9d7YK from Leagle.com.

ASSOCIATED MORTGAGE BANKERS, INC., on behalf of itself and a class
similarly-situated mortgage lenders, Plaintiff, represented by
Brian Michael Serafin -- serafin@thewbkfirm.com -- WEINER BRODSKY
KIDER PC.

ASSOCIATED MORTGAGE BANKERS, INC., on behalf of itself and a class
similarly-situated mortgage lenders, Plaintiff, represented by
David M. Souders -- souders@thewbkfirm.com -- WEINER BRODSKY KIDER
PC.

JULIAN CASTRO, in his official capacity as Secretary of the U.S.
Department of Housing And Urban Development, Defendant,
represented by Kevin Paul VanLandingham, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE Civil Division, Commercial Litigation Branch.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, Defendant,
represented by Kevin Paul VanLandingham, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE Civil Division, Commercial Litigation Branch.


WAL-MART STORES: 5th Cir. Denies En Banc Rehearing Bid in "Odle"
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEPHANIE ODLE, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, et al; Plaintiffs, WAL-MART STORES,
INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee, v. ORALIA FLORES; ROSIE LUJAN;
ALICE BISCARDI; DEBBIE HAYWORTH; BRENDA HENDERSON; LINDA MCFADDEN;
MARGARITA MURILLO; SANDRA PHELAN, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, Movants-Appellants, Case No. 16-10347
(5th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied
the Petition for Rehearing En Banc.

In the case, the Court faced the issue of whether, following a
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissal with prejudice by a
named plaintiff in a class action, a district court had
jurisdiction to entertain a motion to intervene by absent class
members seeking to appeal an earlier denial of class
certification.  It held only that the district court had
jurisdiction to consider the motion.  It did not express any
opinion on whether intervention was warranted.

In reaching that conclusion, the Court followed Sommers v. Bank of
America.  In Sommers, a shareholder sought to intervene in a
lawsuit after entry of a stipulated dismissal.  It affirmed the
district court's denial of the motion to intervene, finding that
the motion was untimely.  However, it rejected the argument that
intervention is always improper after a case has been dismissed.
In a substantive footnote, the Court reconciled that conclusion
with earlier cases.

The Appellant timely filed a motion for rehearing en banc.
Treating the Petition for Rehearing En Banc as a Petition for
Panel Rehearing, the Court denied the Petition for Panel
Rehearing.  Having been polled at the request of one of the
members of the Court and a majority of the judges who are in
regular active service and not disqualified not having voted in
favor, it denied the Petition for Rehearing En Banc.  In the poll,
five judges voted in favor of rehearing en banc, and nine voted
against.

The dissenting opinion criticized both Odle and Sommers, arguing
that they are contrary to Supreme Court precedent, the Court's
prior case law, a prominent treatise, and other circuits'
decisions.  With respect, the dissenting opinion failed to cite
any precedent showing that either Sommers or Odle are error.

The Appellate Court held that neither Sommers nor Odle is in
conflict with any authority from either the Supreme Court, or the
Appellate court, or its sister courts.  To the contrary,
overruling Odle and Sommers would create a circuit split on the
issue presented.  The Court respectfully declined the dissenting
opinion's invitation to do so and concurs in the Court's denial of
en banc review.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 1, 2017 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Y877eP from Leagle.com.

Hal K. Gillespie -- josephgillespie@grwlawfirm.com -- for Movant-
Appellant.

Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. -- tboutrous@gibsondunn.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Karl G. Nelson -- knelson@gibsondunn.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

Joseph M. Sellers -- jsellers@cohenmilstein.com -- for Movant-
Appellant.

Christine E. Webber -- cwebber@cohenmilstein.com -- for Movant-
Appellant.

Catherine Anne Conway -- cconway@gibsondunn.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

Mark Andrew Perry -- mperry@gibsondunn.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

Rachel Susan Brass -- rbrass@gibsondunn.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

Michelle L. Maryott -- mmaryott@gibsondunn.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.


WELLS FARGO: Court Reserves Ruling Bid to Arbitrate "Mitchell"
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LAWRENCE J. MITCHELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WELLS
FARGO BANK, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00966-CW-DBP (D.
Utah), Judge Clark Waddoups of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Utah, Central Division, reserved ruling on Well
Fargo's Motion to Compel Arbitration.

In September 2016, news broke that Wells Fargo had entered into a
consent order including penalties of $185 million with three
governmental agencies, after investigations revealed that Wells
Fargo had opened millions of unauthorized accounts and products
without consumer knowledge.

Investigations have concluded that sales practice violations were
widespread and recognized within the company for many years.  In
August 2017, Wells Fargo announced that a third-party review had
revealed more potentially unauthorized cases, bringing the total
reported unauthorized accounts, credit cards, and other services
between 2009 and 2016 to about 3.5 million.  On Oct. 3, 2017,
Wells Fargo's new CEO, Tim Sloan, testified in front of the Senate
Banking Committee about this latest disclosure, as well as Wells
Fargo's use of forced mandatory arbitration of these disputes.

On Sept. 16, 2016, in the midst of the public scandal, individuals
residing in Utah and many other states filed the action against
Wells Fargo.  Sixty-seven Plaintiffs have sued Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A. and Wells Fargo & Co. for engaging in various unauthorized
and fraudulent activities using their personal information.

The Plaintiffs have amended their complaint three times, most
recently their currently operative Third Amended Complaint on June
27, 2017.  They pursue several legal theories against Wells Fargo,
including violations of Utah law protecting privacy and personal
information; the Stored Communications Act; the Gramm-Leach-Bliley
Act; the Fair Credit Reporting Act; anti-tying violations; the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO");
electronic mail fraud; conversion; fraud and misrepresentation;
unjust enrichment; intentional/negligent infliction of emotional
distress; and declaratory and injunctive relief.

The Plaintiffs seek class certification; an injunction enjoining
Wells Fargo from further misconduct; compensatory, statutory, and
punitive damages (in excess of $1 billion); and costs and
attorneys' fees.  They purport to represent a class of individuals
who opened accounts with or purchased services from Wells Fargo,
or a bank later acquired by Wells Fargo, and/or were notified that
Wells Fargo had opened an account or service on their behalf
without their knowledge or consent, and who thereby suffered
damages from the unauthorized and fraudulent activities.

On Nov. 23, 2016, Wells Fargo moved to compel arbitration as to 58
of the 80 Named Plaintiffs and sought to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint.  In light of the amended pleading, the Court
denied Wells Fargo's motions to compel and dismiss without
prejudice and set a briefing schedule for refiling.  It also
facilitated the parties' efforts to identify information about 21
Named Plaintiffs whom Wells Fargo had not been able to identify,
to determine whether these Plaintiffs were also potentially
subject to arbitration agreements.

On Sept. 18, 2017, Wells Fargo renewed its Motion to Compel
Arbitration as to 65 out of the 67 Plaintiffs remaining in the
case.  The Court heard argument on Oct. 31, 2017.

Judge Waddoups finds that a summary trial is necessary to resolve
the disputes of fact identified as to the formation of agreements
to arbitrate between Wells Fargo and the specific Plaintiffs
identified, as well as the Plaintiffs who opened accounts prior to
2003 and who had accounts converted (excluding those Plaintiffs
who opened newer accounts with Wells Fargo directly) and the
Plaintiffs with business accounts.  He recognizes that Wells Fargo
drafted broad language in its CAAs attempting to submit
arbitrability issues to the arbitrator, but viewing the principles
articulated by the Supreme Court in the context of these facts,
the Judge is not prepared to rule as a matter of law that the
Plaintiffs agreed to delegate threshold questions.  He concludes
that factual questions exist regarding the formation of delegation
agreements with the consumer account the Plaintiffs.

In light of the many questions around the Plaintiffs' initial
engagement and contracting with Wells Fargo, and the varied
fraudulent conduct alleged, the case, according to the Judge,
raises a question of fact on whether enforcing the delegation
provision would be unconscionable in these circumstances.
Regarding procedural unconscionability, courts acknowledge that
standardized consumer contracts are generally adhesive, and that
the adhesion contract drafter holds superior, if not all,
bargaining power.

Moreover, Mr. Sloan's testimony to Congress, given under oath,
that Wells Fargo is no longer pursuing mandatory arbitration in
these cases raises a question of fact as to whether the company
made an intentional waiver in this matter.  Wells Fargo does not
argue that Mr. Sloan's statements could not have bound the
company; it merely argues that they do not show a knowing waiver.
This is a question of fact that can be resolved in a summary
trial.

For these reasons, Judge Waddoups reserved ruling on Well Fargo's
Motion to Compel Arbitration.  He will resolve material issues of
fact regarding the existence of certain arbitration agreements,
the parties' intent to delegate questions of arbitrability and the
potential unconscionability of doing so in these circumstances,
and the possibility that Wells Fargo intentionally waived its
right to arbitrate through its CEO's statements under oath to
Congress that it is no longer pursuing arbitration in these cases.

Upon entry of the Order, the Judge will set a telephonic status
conference with the parties for Dec. 1, 2017 at 2 p.m. to discuss
the timing for the summary trial and procedures.  In order to
comply with Section 4 of the Act, he directed that the parties
should come prepared to discuss the anticipated trial length and
whether a jury is requested, as well as whether a trial date in
early or mid-January would be feasible.  Finally, if either party
contends that the contract issues in the case are governed by some
law other than Utah law, that party will file a supplemental brief
citing the factual and legal basis for its position within 30 days
of the order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 29, 2017 Memorandum Decision
and Order is available at https://is.gd/B0y7da from Leagle.com.

Lawrence J. Mitchell, Plaintiff, represented by Zane L.
Christensen, CHRISTENSEN YOUNG & ASSOCIATES.

Lawrence J. Mitchell, Plaintiff, represented by Steven A.
Christensen, CHRISTENSEN YOUNG & ASSOCIATES PLLC.

Kay Mitchell, Plaintiff, represented by Zane L. Christensen,
CHRISTENSEN YOUNG & ASSOCIATES & Steven A. Christensen,
CHRISTENSEN YOUNG & ASSOCIATES PLLC.

Matthew C. Bishop, Plaintiff, represented by Zane L. Christensen,
CHRISTENSEN YOUNG & ASSOCIATES & Steven A. Christensen,
CHRISTENSEN YOUNG & ASSOCIATES PLLC.

Tracy Kilgore, Plaintiff, represented by Zane L. Christensen,
CHRISTENSEN YOUNG & ASSOCIATES & Steven A. Christensen,
CHRISTENSEN YOUNG & ASSOCIATES PLLC.

Jennifer K. Zeleny, Plaintiff, represented by Zane L. Christensen,
CHRISTENSEN YOUNG & ASSOCIATES & Steven A. Christensen,
CHRISTENSEN YOUNG & ASSOCIATES PLLC.

Joseph W. Steele, V, Plaintiff, represented by Zane L.
Christensen, CHRISTENSEN YOUNG & ASSOCIATES & Steven A.
Christensen, CHRISTENSEN YOUNG & ASSOCIATES PLLC.

Scott Westin, Plaintiff, represented by Zane L. Christensen,
CHRISTENSEN YOUNG & ASSOCIATES & Steven A. Christensen,
CHRISTENSEN YOUNG & ASSOCIATES PLLC.

Bruce Bird, Plaintiff, represented by Zane L. Christensen,
CHRISTENSEN YOUNG & ASSOCIATES & Steven A. Christensen,
CHRISTENSEN YOUNG & ASSOCIATES PLLC.

Allen Roberts, Plaintiff, represented by Zane L. Christensen,
CHRISTENSEN YOUNG & ASSOCIATES & Steven A. Christensen,
CHRISTENSEN YOUNG & ASSOCIATES PLLC.

Wells Fargo Bank, Defendant, represented by David H. Fry --
David.Fry@mto.com -- MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON LLP, pro hac vice,
Elaina M. Maragakis -- emaragakis@rqn.com -- RAY QUINNEY &
NEBEKER, Eric P. Tuttle -- Eric.Tuttle@mto.com -- MUNGER TOLLES &
OLSON LLP, pro hac vice, Erin J. Cox -- Erin.Cox@mto.com -- MUNGER
TOLLES & OLSON LLP, pro hac vice, James S. Jardine, RAY QUINNEY &
NEBEKER & Michael D. Mayfield -- mmayfield@rqn.com -- RAY QUINNEY
& NEBEKER.

Wells Fargo & Company, Defendant, represented by David H. Fry,
MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON LLP, pro hac vice, Elaina M. Maragakis, RAY
QUINNEY & NEBEKER, Eric P. Tuttle, MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON LLP, pro
hac vice, Erin J. Cox, MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON LLP, pro hac vice,
James S. Jardine, RAY QUINNEY & NEBEKER & Michael D. Mayfield, RAY
QUINNEY & NEBEKER.


WESTMINSTER MANAGEMENT: Asks Judge to Hide Names of Investors
-------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Donovan, writing for The Baltimore Sun, reports that the
apartment company owned by Jared Kushner, senior advisor and son-
in-law of President Donald J. Trump, has asked a federal judge in
Maryland to hide the names of the firm's investors to protect them
from what it says has been unfair media coverage of a lawsuit
filed by Baltimore-area tenants.

"Given the tenor of the media's reporting of this case, including
politically-motivated innuendo no doubt intended to disparage the
First Family, there is foreseeable risk of prejudice to the
privacy rights and reputations of innocent private investors,"
Westminster Management wrote in court papers.

Two tenants filed a class-action lawsuit in Baltimore Circuit
Court in late September saying the firm has charged them improper
fees and threatened eviction to force payment.

A judge moved the case to the U.S. District Court of Maryland
after Westminster invoked a rule that allows such a transfer if
the defendants are not residents of or companies in Maryland.

Westminster Management said in a court filing that four of its
members reside in other states: Kushner, "a resident of New York,
New York and Washington, D.C.," his parents, Charles and Seryl
Kushner of New York, and Westminster MGT GP Corp. of New York.  In
a separate filing, Westminster says Jared Kushner and his brother,
Josh, are members of another corporate entity, JK2 Westminster,
and that all are based in New York.  Another entity, Carroll Park
Holdings LLC, has one member, Delaware-based Middle River JV LLC.

Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump moved to Washington this year after
both became White House advisers for President Trump. Jared
Kushner was CEO of the Kushner Cos., the parent company of
Westminster Management, from 2008 until Jan. 19, when he stepped
down to join the Trump administration.  He retains ownership of
the firm.

The companies being sued by the tenants still need to prove to the
court that none of their investors are Maryland residents or
companies to keep the case in federal court.  Westminster
Management operates 17 apartment complexes in Maryland, mostly in
Baltimore County.

In its filing of Nov. 20, Westminster asked Chief Judge James K.
Bredar to shield the identities of other investors because there
is "unprecedented interest in this case."

The media have been "making outrageous allegations, and assigning
guilt and illegal conduct not only to the Defendants but to their
investor members and the families of those members (including the
Trump and Kushner families)," Westminster says.  "There has been
widespread coverage of those allegations as if fact, when they
have not been substantiated."

Westminster says publicly revealing the names of additional
investors would deprive them of their privacy and of their right
to an impartial decision by the court "versus the court of public
opinion."  The company says it can prove to the court, under seal,
that none of the additional investors are residents or companies
in Maryland.

"Defendants' remote and private investors are understandably
reticent to have their identities exposed to similar media
disclosure, scrutiny, speculation, and scorn," Westminster says.
The company included a Sept. 27 Baltimore Sun article about the
lawsuit as an exhibit.

Tenants Tenae Smith, who lives in Dutch Village apartments in
Northeast Baltimore, and Howard Smith, who lives in the Carroll
Park apartments in Middle River in Baltimore County, are seeking
damages in excess of $75,000 and attorneys' fees.  They want their
lawsuit to be certified as a class action.

An attorney for the plaintiffs, Andrew D. Freeman, said he had no
comment about the Westminster filing.

Westminster said the judge needs to rule on what right the public
has to know the identities of "private investors/members of remote
companies and partnerships not involved in the day-to-day
operations," especially since no allegations have been made
against them.

"The identities of Defendants' private investors also has
absolutely no bearing on the merits of the complaint before the
Court in this case," the company says.  The investors have the
right "to be free from unfair sensationalism by journalists and
entertainers." [GN]


WILLIS TOWERS: Pension Fund Files Class Action Over 2016 Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Lenihan, writing for Business Insurance, reports that
Willis Towers Watson CEO John Haley is named in a class action
lawsuit over the 2016 merger.

A Massachusetts city pension fund filed a class action lawsuit
against Willis Towers Watson P.L.C., its chief executive and
others, charging that investors were misled into accepting the
massive 2016 merger deal that created the insurance broking giant.

The case of Cambridge Retirement System vs. Willis Towers Watson &
Co., Willis Group Holding plc, Towers Watson & Co., ValueAct
Capital Management, John J. Haley, Dominic Casserley, and Jeffrey
W. Ubben was filed on November 21 in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia and alleges the merger of Willis
and Towers Watson violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The $18 billion deal, which brought together London-based
brokerage Willis Group Holdings P.L.C. and New York-based
consulting firm Towers Watson & Co., was completed in January
2016.

John Haley is the current CEO of Willis Towers Watson and Dominic
Casserley was CEO of Willis from 2013 until his resignation in
2016.  Jeffrey W. Ubben is the CEO of San Francisco-based
investment company ValueAct Capital Management, the largest
shareholder of Willis at the time of the merger, according to
court documents.

The complaint said that on June 30, 2015, Towers Watson and Willis
announced the merger agreement, where Towers Watson stockholders
would receive 2.649 shares of Willis stock and a $4.87 per share
cash dividend in exchange for each Towers Watson share.  Towers
Watson shareholders would own 49.9% of the combined entity, with
Willis shareholders owning the remaining majority.

"The merger required the approval of a majority of Towers
shareholders," the complaint said, "and it became immediately
apparent that many Towers shareholders were dissatisfied with the
consideration they would receive in the deal."

The complaint said the Towers' board of directors saw the waning
shareholder support for the originally agreed upon merger and
authorized Mr. Haley, Towers chairman and CEO, to renegotiate the
deal terms, including both the exchange ratio and the cash
dividend

"Haley, however," the complaint said, "had an economic incentive
for the deal to be consummated and when he recognized that Towers
shareholders would likely reject the deal, Mr. Haley conspired
with Willis executives and a major Willis shareholder, ValueAct,
to secretly help them execute this transaction."

The complaint alleges that Mr. Haley decided to "sell out" Towers
Watson shareholders in exchange for an undisclosed promise of a
three-year, $165 million pay package when he became CEO of the
merged company.  In return, the complaint said, Mr. Haley did not
negotiate to maximize the value of Towers shares and instead
worked to persuade Towers' board and shareholders that "a meager
$5 increase in the special dividend was the most he could extract
from Willis."

"As a result of Haley's disloyalty and self-dealing," the
complaint said, "many of the representations made to investors in
the Towers and Willis joint proxy materials were false and
misleading."

Among other things, the complaint said, the proxy materials
omitted the fact that Mr. Haley negotiated his compensation as the
future CEO of the combined entity, and that several statements
made by Mr. Haley in support of the merger were secretly
"ghostwritten" by ValueAct.

A Willis Towers Watson spokesman declined to comment on the
lawsuit and ValueAct did not respond to a request for comment. Mr.
Casserly is a senior advisor with New York private equity firm
Warburg Pincus and a spokeswoman for the firm declined to comment.

The class action was brought on behalf of all Towers Watson
shareholders of record as of October 2, 2015, the record date for
shareholders to be eligible to vote on the merger between Towers
and Willis.

Cambridge Retirement System represents about 5,900 active and
retired public employees from Cambridge, Massachusetts, and
manages more than $1.2 billion in assets to provide for them in
retirement, according to the complaint.


WISCONSIN: CCI Inmates' Bid for Class Certification Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned EFRAIN CAMPOS, JUAN NIETO, and STANLEY
NEWAGO, Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL DITTMAN, LINDA ALSUM O'DONOVAN,
DAVID KURKOWSKI, LUCAS M. WEBER, KEVIN W. PITZEN, BRAD HOMRE, and
CINDY O'DONNELL, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-545-jdp (W.D. Wis.),
Judge James D. Peterson of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin denied Campos' motion for class
certification and granted Nieto's motion for an extension.

Pro se Plaintiffs Campos, Nieto, and Newago are inmates in the
custody of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections ("DOC")
currently housed at the Columbia Correctional Institution ("CCI").
They bring the proposed class action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983
alleging that Defendants, CCI and DOC officials, terminated them
from their prison work assignments in retaliation for their
comments during a prison investigation and in violation of their
procedural due process and equal protection rights.

In an Oct. 31, 2017 order, Judge Peterson reviewed their complaint
and concluded that it did not meet the pleading requirements of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.  He set a deadline of Nov. 21,
2017, for the Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint alleging
facts showing each of the Defendant's retaliatory or improper
purpose in terminating them.  He also denied their motion for
certification of a class action.

Now Campos has filed an amended complaint and a renewed motion for
class certification.  Nieto has requested a 30-day extension of
the deadline, explaining that he needs additional time to
translate court documents into English.

Judge Peterson already explained that each of the Plaintiffs must
sign all papers submitted to the court when returning the initial
complaint for the signatures of the other Plaintiffs.  He says it
appears that Campos intends to be the sole representative for the
proposed class, including each of the Named Plaintiffs.  But a pro
se litigant cannot bring a class action on behalf of others.  Nor
can a pro se litigant represent another individual litigant.

Therefore, the Judge denied Campos' motion for class
certification, granted Nieto's motion for an extension, set Dec.
22, 2017 as a new deadline for them to file an amended complaint
alleging facts that show that each of the Defendant acted with a
retaliatory or improper purpose, and will delay screening the
amended complaint until that deadline has passed.  If the Judge
has not received an amended complaint bearing Nieto's or Newago's
signature by the deadline, he will dismiss them from the lawsuit
and proceed solely with the signed Plaintiffs' claims.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 1, 2017 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/Ul8zpg from Leagle.com.

Efrain Campos, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Juan Nieto, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Stanley Newago, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Michael Dittman, Defendant, represented by Corey Francis
Finkelmeyer -- federalorderscl@doj.state.wi.us -- Wisconsin
Department of Justice.


WOLFGANG'S STEAKHOUSE: N.Y. Court Dismisses FACTA Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
David M. Poell, Esq. -- dpoell@sheppardmullin.com -- of Sheppard,
Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, in an article for The National Law
Review, wrote that in the latest installment of what has become a
quickening trend, a New York federal court recently dismissed
another yet putative FACTA class action for lack of Article III
standing.  On her fourth (and final) attempt, the court in the
case (Fullwood v. Wolfgang's Steakhouse, Inc.) held the plaintiff
once again failed to plead a concrete injury against a New York
City steakhouse that provided her with a receipt displaying the
full expiration date of her credit card in 2013.

Although plaintiff did not allege that she had been a victim of
identity theft or credit card fraud, she nonetheless sought
statutory damages of "$100 to $1,000" on behalf of herself and a
nationwide class of similar situated customers who had dined at a
Wolfgang's steakhouse and received a credit card receipt with an
expiration date.  The district court had granted defendants'
motion to dismiss plaintiff's third amended complaint after
joining the chorus of other courts holding that a mere technical
violation of FACTA -- without more -- does not result in any
actionable harm.

The fourth time around, plaintiff tried to salvage her case by
alleging that she had used credit cards for previous purchases
from defendants, received credit card receipts, and then threw out
those earlier receipts "without burning them or otherwise
destroying them."  Relying on a trilogy of recent Supreme Court
and Second Circuit cases, the court held that a bare procedural
violation -- in the absence of allegations of concrete harm --
does not confer Article III standing. Finding that any attempt at
amending her complaint would be futile considering controlling
case law, the court dismissed plaintiff's case with prejudice.

Putting it Into Practice: This case is a reminder that while
plaintiffs may continue to bring FACTA cases when companies
display a full expiration date on a credit card, courts are less
willing to allow these cases to continue when plaintiffs cannot
establish harm.  For all intents and purposes, run-of-the-mill
FACTA claims are now an extinct breed in the Second Circuit, as
well as in the Seventh Circuit.


XE SERVICES: Court Dismisses "Mercadante" ERISA Suit w/ Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the District Court for the
District of Columbia dismissed with prejudice the case styled C.J.
MERCADANTE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. XE SERVICES, LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 11-1044 (CKK) (D. C.).

Nearly three years ago, the Court ordered the Plaintiffs to pursue
arbitration on the threshold issue of whether their claims are
arbitrable.  Since that time, the Plaintiffs have made only anemic
attempts to initiate arbitral proceedings, and in their most
recent communications with the Court, have admitted that they will
not pursue arbitration any further.   Although the Plaintiffs
continue to represent that they oppose dismissal, there is no
question that they have made the strategic decision to not pursue
arbitration in order to compel dismissal of the lawsuit, so that
they may pursue an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit.

Presently before the Court are the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
and Motion to Reinstate the Motion to Dismiss.  The Defendants
seek dismissal of the lawsuit pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(b) for the Plaintiffs' failure to prosecute the
action in accordance with the Orders of the Court.

In a prior Memorandum Opinion, the Court held the Motion to
Dismiss in abeyance, providing the Plaintiffs with one final
opportunity to move forward with the arbitration proceedings,
despite concluding that they had failed to pursue their case with
the requisite diligence.  The Plaintiffs have intentionally
squandered that opportunity.  The Court has provided the
Plaintiffs with every reasonable accommodation to comply with the
Orders of the Court.  The Plaintiffs have not done so, and by
their own admission, will not do so.

For these reasons, Judge Kollar-Kotelly concludes that the
Plaintiffs have presented no adequate excuse for failing to comply
with the Court's order that they proceed to arbitration.  They
have failed to prosecute their case and failed to comply with
Court Orders.  Accordingly, he granted the Defendants' Motion to
Reinstate and Motion to Dismiss.  The matter is dismissed with
prejudice.  An appropriate Order accompanies the Memorandum
Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 29, 2017 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://is.gd/5IRxjy from Leagle.com.

C. J. MERCADANTE, Plaintiff, represented by Scott J. Bloch, SCOTT
J. BLOCH, PA.

ROBERT BIDDLE, Plaintiff, represented by Scott J. Bloch, SCOTT J.
BLOCH, PA.

JOHNNY JEFFERSON, Plaintiff, represented by Scott J. Bloch, SCOTT
J. BLOCH, PA.

PHILLIP W. OHARA, Plaintiff, represented by Scott J. Bloch, SCOTT
J. BLOCH, PA.

XE SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, represented by Rene E. Thorne --
ThorneR@jacksonlewis.com -- JACKSON LEWIS LLP, pro hac vice,
Charles F. Seemann, III -- Charles.Seemann@jacksonlewis.com --
JACKSON LEWIS LLP, pro hac vice & Matthew F. Nieman, JACKSON LEWIS
P.C..

U.S. TRAINING CENTER, INC., Defendant, represented by Rene E.
Thorne, JACKSON LEWIS LLP, pro hac vice, Charles F. Seemann, III,
JACKSON LEWIS LLP, pro hac vice & Matthew F. Nieman --
NiemanM@jacksonlewis.com -- JACKSON LEWIS P.C..

BLACKWATER SECURITY CONSULTING, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Rene E. Thorne, JACKSON LEWIS LLP, pro hac vice, Charles F.
Seemann, III, JACKSON LEWIS LLP, pro hac vice & Matthew F. Nieman,
JACKSON LEWIS P.C..

BLACKWATER WORLDWIDE, Defendant, represented by Rene E. Thorne,
JACKSON LEWIS LLP, pro hac vice, Charles F. Seemann, III, JACKSON
LEWIS LLP, pro hac vice & Matthew F. Nieman, JACKSON LEWIS P.C..

BLACKWATER TRUST AND PLAN TRUSTEES, Defendant, represented by Rene
E. Thorne, JACKSON LEWIS LLP, pro hac vice, Charles F. Seemann,
III, JACKSON LEWIS LLP, pro hac vice & Matthew F. Nieman, JACKSON
LEWIS P.C..


XPO LOGISTICS: Faces "Alderson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Alderson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. XPO Logistics Freight, Inc., Case No. 7:17-
cv-09329-KMK (S.D.N.Y., November 28, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

XPO Logistics Freight, Inc. owns and operates a transportation and
logistics company located at 99 Washington Avenue Suite 1008
Albany, New York, 12260. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin D. Weisenberg, Esq.
      THE OTTINGER FIRM, P.C.
      401 Park Avenue South
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 571-2000
      Facsimile: (212) 571-0505
      E-mail: benjamin@ottingerlaw.com


YELP INC: 9th Cir. Upholds Dismissal of Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that on
November 21, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit affirmed a dismissal by Judge Jon S. Tigar of the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California of a putative class action against Yelp, Inc. ("Yelp")
and three of its senior executives. Curry, et al. v. Yelp, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 16-15104 (9th Cir. Nov. 21, 2017). Plaintiffs
brought claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), alleging that Yelp made
material misstatements regarding the authenticity and independence
of the reviews posted by users on its website, and that those
misstatements, when brought to light in media reports, caused
Yelp's stock value to drop.  The district court dismissed with
prejudice plaintiffs' amended complaint, finding that plaintiffs
failed to sufficiently allege material false statements, loss
causation, and scienter.  The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district
court's decision, concluding that plaintiffs failed to adequately
allege loss causation and scienter.  And holding that the amended
complaint fell short of the "demanding standards set for claims of
federal securities law violations."

Plaintiffs' allegations focused on statements made by Yelp -- over
several months in late 2013 to early 2014 -- that the reviews on
its website were "firsthand" and "authentic."  On April 2, 2014,
after the market had closed, The Wall Street Journal ("WSJ")
reported on certain disclosures from the Federal Trade Commission
("FTC") that businesses had filed over 2,000 complaints against
Yelp for tampering with reviews.  According to plaintiffs, in some
instances, these customer complaints contended that Yelp employees
would remove good reviews, or promote bad reviews, depending on
whether businesses agreed (or not) to advertise with Yelp.
Plaintiffs alleged that the disclosure of these complaints and the
release of the WSJ article had caused Yelp's stock price to drop
6% that day.  As such, plaintiffs alleged that Yelp's statements
that the reviews on its website were "authentic" and "independent"
constituted material misstatements that were actionable under the
Exchange Act.

The district court held that plaintiffs did not sufficiently plead
material falsity because Yelp had previously publicly acknowledged
that its screening of reviews was imperfect, and therefore "no
reasonable investor could have understood Defendants' statements
to mean that all Yelp reviews were authentic.   The district court
further found plaintiffs' loss causation allegations lacking
because plaintiffs did not allege that there was fraud on the
market, but that there was only potential fraud, which does not
meet the particularity requirements of the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA").  In addition, the district court
found plaintiffs' allegations were insufficient to connect the
drop in price of Yelp's stock to the FTC disclosures that were
reported by the WSJ--in part because the WSJ article was published
after the market closed on the day that the alleged stock drop
occurred--and that plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege
scienter against the individual defendants. Accordingly, because
plaintiffs' Section 10(b) claim failed, the district court found
that plaintiffs' derivative Section 20(a) claim similarly failed.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the decision of the district
court, concluding that plaintiffs did not adequately plead loss
causation or scienter.  Regarding loss causation, the Ninth
Circuit reaffirmed that to prove loss causation, the plaintiff
"must demonstrate a causal connection between the deceptive acts
that form the basis for the claim of securities fraud and the
injury suffered by the plaintiff."  Here, plaintiffs alleged that
the disclosure of the customer complaints and related WSJ article
caused the drop in Yelp's stock price as reported by various
sources. Citing its decision in Loos v. Immersion Corp., 762 F.3d
880 (9th Cir. 2014), the Ninth Circuit held that "[a]lthough a
securities fraud plaintiff need not allege an outright admission
of fraud to survive a motion to dismiss, the 'mere risk or
potential for fraud is insufficient to establish loss causation.'"
Accordingly, the customer complaints made to the FTC without a
subsequent investigation fell short of "revealing" fraudulent
practices to the market.  The Court emphasized that under the
PSLRA, "the element of loss causation cannot be adequately made
out merely by resting on a number of customer complaints and
asserting that where there is smoke, there must be fire."
Therefore, the Court affirmed the district court's decision that
the disclosure of customer complaints, some of which referred to
allegations of fraud, were insufficient to allege loss causation.

Turning to the issue scienter, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the
district court's ruling for two separate reasons.  First, in
response to plaintiffs' contention that the individual defendants'
high volume of insider sales supports a strong inference of
scienter, the Court held that plaintiffs failed to produce any
evidence of the individual defendants' prior trading history,
which is necessary when pleading scienter based on individual
defendants' stock trades during the putative class period.  The
Court emphasized that in order to support an inference of
scienter, stock sales must be "dramatically out of line with prior
trading practices at times calculated to maximize the personal
benefit from undisclosed inside information." Therefore, because
plaintiffs failed to produce any evidence of the individual
defendants' prior stock sales, plaintiffs' allegations were
insufficient to establish scienter.  Notably, the Court cited the
publicly-filed Form 4s in the record which indicated that "the
vast majority" of the individual defendants' stock sales were made
pursuant to a Rule 10b5-1 trading plan, which allows for stock
sales over a predetermined period "without concern for the
market."  Second, the Court held that the individual defendants'
alleged general awareness of the day-to-day business of the
company, such as its advertisement sales practices, cannot,
without more, establish scienter.  In this regard, plaintiffs did
not allege that any of the individual defendants had specific
information regarding the alleged manipulation of reviews when
they were trying to sell advertising and did not personally
oversee reviews or have notice of how some advertising was
garnered.  The Court cited to the fact that the alleged 2,000
customer complaints represented a very small percentage of the 53
million reviews that Yelp maintained on its platform, which
further undermined any inference of scienter. For these reasons,
the Court found that plaintiffs did not meet the heightened
pleading standards of the PSLRA.

Because plaintiffs' Section 10(b) claim failed, the Ninth Circuit
similarly affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs'
derivative Section 20(a) claim against the individuals defendants.
The Court also upheld the district court's denial of plaintiffs'
request for leave to amend, holding that plaintiffs' first amended
complaint failed to address the deficiencies in their original
complaint despite explicit warnings from the district court, and
that it was "clear that further amendment . . . would be futile."

This decision serves as an important reminder that plaintiffs must
meet the heightened specificity requirements of the PSLRA in
support of securities fraud allegations.  Allegations that amount
to "where there is smoke, there must be fire," will not suffice.
This decision also serves as a reminder that plaintiffs must
specifically address the deficiencies found in prior pleadings
when granted leave to amend and, when they fail to do so, courts
often will not give them another bite at the apple.


YUMS CHINESE: "Wei" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wei Guo Shi and Li Ming Yan individually and on behalf all other
employees similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Yums Chinese
Restaurant. d/b/a/ Yum's Subs, and Mei Ling Lin aka Mei Ling Chen,
the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02900-JPM-cgc (W.D. Tenn., Dec.
14, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

According to the complaint, Defendants own a chain of restaurants
located in Memphis, Tennessee, violating the FLSA by forcing its
employees to work a substantial amount of overtime without
properly paying all compensation due, thus depriving them of
rightful compensation for their work that Defendants are legally
obligated to pay.

The Plaintiffs worked for Defendants as cooks and restaurant
workers at Yum's Subs located at Memphis, Tennessee and was
damaged by their illegal policy and/or practices.  The Plaintiffs
bring this lawsuit on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated current or former, hourly-paid Yum's Subs
restaurant workers, including cooks and dishwashers, to recover
owed to them individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Jian Hang, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC.
          136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353 8588
          E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


* Elmira Housing Authority Wins Class Action Against D.C. Firm
--------------------------------------------------------------
Isabel Garcia, writing for WENY, reports that The Elmira Housing
Authority (EHA) is expecting to get financial boost after finding
the results of a class action lawsuit they were involved in for
years.

"Well, we won!" says Executive Director, James Mirando.

In 2012 , the Elmira Housing Authority had about $400,000 taken
from its reserve account to help fund the federal government.

As a result of those depleted funds, the agency suffered in
receiving subsidies in later years. Subsidies are typically
granted to housing agencies based on a number of different
factors, including bond ratings which are partially determined
based on reserve funds.

Mr. Mirando says EHA was downgraded from a AAA to an A,
subsequently awarding EHA with less subsidies.

"Back in 2014, we only got 60%.  That's because we had some excess
reserves, and the government -- at the time, the Secretary of
Housing, whose name was Donovan, was looking at ways in order to
get in tight with the President and he was trying to cut the
deficit," Mr. Mirando says.

That's when EHA entered into a class action lawsuit with hundreds
of other New York housing agencies with a firm from Washington,
D.C.  After years of legal battle, a final decision was in their
favor.

"We were looking for approximately $200,000.  We're only going to
be getting $120,000. Well, $120,000 is better than nothing to be
very honest with you! Right now, for the past four years, our
subsidies haven't been more than 84%" Mr. Mirando explains.

Mr. Mirando says the agency is in critical need of those funds for
operational and maintenance costs. As far as when EHA will see it
reflected in its bank account is yet to be determined.

"We're constantly doing repairs, repairs and repairs.  Whatever we
get it goes back into the buildings.  Our reserves are basically
depleted," he says.

"This last communication that I got from the Cohen & Lions Law-
firm was back on August 31st, and they told us, 'Send us your bank
account number and so forth, we're going to forward you the
money'. . . Well, we haven't seen it yet," Mr. Mirando continues.

Mr. Mirando explains that at this point and time, it's up to
Congress to ensure those funds are given to the Elmira Housing
Authority. [GN]


* "Natural" Class Action Reflects Rise in Food Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------
Charles Sipos and Mica Simpson, writing for The National Law
Journal, report that scattered among the dictionary definitions
for "natural," one reads: "formulated by human reason alone rather
than revelation."  This definition comes to mind when considering
recent decisions in the proliferating world of food labeling class
actions challenging use of the term "natural." In these cases,
judicial "reason alone" is increasingly doing away with complaints
alleging far-fetched notions of what the word "natural" means to
consumers.

The "natural" class action reflects the rise in litigation against
food and beverage manufacturers over the past 10 years. In a
typical case, plaintiffs allege the defendant misleadingly labels
its product as "natural," despite the product containing something
the plaintiff considers "unnatural."


* Vaginal Mesh Products Banned in Australia After Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kate Darvall, writing for Daily Mail Australia and Australian
Associated Press, reports that vaginal mesh implants have been
banned in Australia after more than 700 women who were left in
horrific pain, launched a class action lawsuit.

The medical watchdog found the risks of vaginal mesh implants far
outweighed the benefits of the product, which was used to treat
pelvic prolapse and urinary incontinence.

Hundreds of Australian women claimed the mesh left them with
debilitating, chronic pain and left them unable to have sex again.

The Therapeutic Goods Administration decided to remove
transvaginal mesh for the sole purpose of pelvic prolapse and
single incision mini-slings from the Australian Register of
Therapeutic Goods (ARTG) as a result of a review of the latest
international studies.

The review was conducted following dozens of complaints by women
across Australia, saying the implants had left them with chronic,
debilitating pain and unable to have sex.

"Based on this new information, and since the publication by the
TGA of the Results of review into urogynaecological surgical mesh
implants, the TGA is of the belief that the benefits of using
transvaginal mesh products in the treatment of pelvic organ
prolapse do not outweigh the risks these products pose to
patients," a TGA statement said.

"The TGA also considers that there is a lack of adequate
scientific evidence before the TGA for it to be satisfied that the
risks to patients associated with the use of mesh products as
single incision mini-slings for the treatment of stress urinary
incontinence are outweighed by their benefits."

The bans take effect from January 4.

A Senate inquiry into transvaginal mesh products was launched in
February after Senator Derryn Hinch labelled their use in
Australia as one of the country's worst health scandals.  The
findings of the inquiry are due to be handed down in early 2018.

The ruling of a class action launched in August by more than 700
Australians against manufacturer Johnson & Johnson is also
expected to be handed down by the federal court next year.

Hundreds of women launched a class action in the federal court
earlier this year.

The women claimed to have suffered horrific and chronic pain from
the implants.

Rebecca Jancauskas from Shine Lawyers said "many now live in
excruciating pain, suffering terrible side effects that impact all
aspects of their lives".

"This class action is about righting the wrong against these
women, who will suffer pain and complications for the rest of
their lives," Ms Jancauskas said.

Speaking to Daily Mail Australia in July, Louise King said the
vaginal mesh left her with debilitating chronic pain.

"I've had so much bad health since that operation.  There are days
that i can't get out of bed and there are days that i try to do
things and i just can't," she said.

Ms King said she was given "no choice" but to have the mesh
implant when she suffered a vaginal prolapse in 2006.

"I was told this was the only option," she said.

Ms King also said she was unable to have sex with her husband
after the operation.

"Before he even entered me i was screaming, it was agonising," she
said.

"We tried a few times but he became really scared to touch me.  He
got to a point where he couldn't touch me." [GN]






                             *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Marion
Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala,
Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2017. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *