CAR_Public/180103.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


            Wednesday, January 3, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 3



                            Headlines

A PLACE FOR MOM: Transferred "Kim" Class Suit to W.D. Washington
ABC NEWS: Trump Encourages Class Action Over Retracted Report
AMERICAN SELF STORAGE: Faces "Mendizabal" Suit in S.D. New York
APPLE INC: Faces "Cook" Suit in S.D. California
ARCADIA RECOVERY: Faces "Regan" Suit in Eastern District of NY

ARJ LAUNDRY: "Gervacio" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
ARS NATIONAL: Faces "Roshko" Suit in E.D. New York
ASCENA RETAIL: Sued in New York Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
AUCKLAND, NZ: Leaky Home Class Suit Cancer Sufferer's Last Hopes
AUSTRALIA: Pfas-Affected Katherine Residents to Get Blood Tests

BIG APPLE MOVING: Faces "Mendizabal" Suit in S.D. New York
BOGOPA ENTERPRISES: Faces "Matzura" Suit in S.D. New York
C. TECH COLLECTION: Faces "Marino" Suit in E.D. New York
CALATLANTIC GROUP: Sued in Virginia Over Proposed Lennar Merger
CALIFORNIA: Court Dismisses "Endsley" for Failure to Amend

CANADA: Indigenous Survivors of Abuse in Group Homes Want to Sue
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Faces "Kolbasyuk" Suit in E.D. New York
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Faces "French" Suit in N.D. New York
CAPITAL ONE: Must Face Overdraft Fee Lawsuit
CASPER SLEEP: Sued For "Wiretapping" Website Visitors

CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Faces "Johnson" Suit in E.D. New York
CHELSEA VAN LINES: Faces "Mendizabal" Suit in S.D. New York
CHIASMA INC: Bid to Dismiss "Gerneth" Suit Underway
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Court Compels Arbitration in Wage & Hour Suit
CLECO CORPORATE: Awaits Louisiana Appeals Court Ruling

CONDOCERTS.COM INC: Condo Owners Fight Hefty Document Fees
COOKNSOLO INC: Faces "Godino" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
CROWN RESORTS: Maurice Blackburn Files Class Action
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OH: Could Owe Millions of Dollars to Employees
D&A SERVICES: Faces "Narine" Suit in E.D. New York

DIRECTV LLC: 2nd Circuit Appeal Filed in "Frintzilas" Suit
DIVINE MOVING: Faces "Mendizabal" Suit in S.D. New York
DUMBO MOVING: Faces "Mendizabal" Suit in S.D. New York
EXTRA SPACE STORAGE: Faces "Mendizabal" Suit in S.D. New York
FIRST TRINITY: Trial on Policy-Related Suit Underway

FITBIT INC: Class Cert. Bid in Sleep Tracking Suit Underway
FITBIT INC: Heart Rate Tracking Suit Goes to Arbitration
FITBIT INC: Still Defends Securities Litigation
FORMFACTOR INC: Says $1.5MM Paid to Settlement Administrator
FORSTER & GARBUS: Faces "Maymi" Suit in E.D. New York

FORSTER & GARBUS: Faces "Dovey" Suit in E.D. New York
FORSTER & GARBUS: Faces "Buccilli" Suit in E.D. New York
GENCO SHIPPING: Appellate Case Underway in Baltic Trading Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Michigan Residents Sue Over Water Quality
GENTLE GIANT: Faces "Mendizabal" Suit in S.D. New York

GOLDEN KRUST: Workers' Class Action Over Unpaid OT Wages Pending
GOOGLE INC: Refuses Legal Request to Share Pay Records in Case
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES: Appeal Filed in "Garza" Dispute
HF HOLDINGS: Faces "Murphy" Suit in E.D. New York
HILTON RESORTS: Faces "Astrahan" Suit Over Unsolicited Calls

HUDSON AND MARSHALL: "Simmons" Suit Seeks OT wages under FLSA
HUMANIGEN INC: Settlement of Calif. Securities Suit Has Final OK
HUNAN GOURMET: "Yan" Suit Seeks OT Compensation under FLSA
IMERYS TALC: Union Company Named in $110 Million Talc Judgment
INC RESEARCH: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action

INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Customers File Class Action Complaint
JAMES HARDIE: New Hope for Leaky Home Owners
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Welfare Suit Over Remicade Price-Fixing
KAMALIKULTURE LLC: Faces "Lopez" Suit in S.D. New York
KEMPHARM INC: Iowa Class Action Suit Still Ongoing

KIRSCHENBAUM PHILLIPS: Faces "Joseph" Suit in E.D. New York
LORD & TAYLOR: Faces "Lopez" Suit in S.D. New York
MARKETSOURCE INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Sanford Says
MARRIOTT VACATIONS: "Astrahan" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations
MDL 2741: "Beaudet" Class Suit vs. Monsanto Consolidated

MDL 2800: "Butler" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Fried" Suit vs. Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Mead" Suit vs Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Quagliani" Suit vs Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Turner" Suit vs Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia

MERRIMAN RIVER: Faces "Santiago" Suit Over Prerecorded Calls
METHOD HOSPITALITY: Faces "Godino" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION: Faces "Sevin" Suit in S.D. New York
MISSONI USA: Faces "Lopez" Suit in S.D. New York
MOHAMMAD BASEL: Faces "Gutierrez" Suit in S.D. New York

MOPHIE INC: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in "Stotz" Case
MORRISONS: Victory for Workers in Data Leak Compensation Claim
MOVES LLC: Faces "Mendizabal" Suit in S.D. New York
MUJI USA: Faces "Lopez" Suit in Southern District of New York
NANETTE LEPORE: Faces "Lopez" Suit in S.D. New York

NFL: Separate Trial Sought in Lawsuit by Player's Daughter
NICOLE MILLER LTD: Faces "Lopez" Suit in S.D. New York
NORTH ATLANTIC SECURITY: "Salughter" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages
OLIPHANT FINANCIAL: Faces "Traina" Suit in E.D. New York
ONLINE INFORMATION: Faces "Antonov" Suit in E.D. New York

ONTARIO: EMDC Class Actions Gets National Primetime Coverage
OPORTUN FINANCIAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
OSCAR DE LA: Faces "Lopez" Suit in Southern District of New York
OSI SYSTEMS: "Longo" Suit Alleges Securities Law Violations
PACIFIC GAS: Lieff Cabraser Sues Over North Bay Fires

PAREXEL INTERNATIONAL: Shareholder Class Suits Dismissed
PAUL STUART: Faces "Lopez" Suit in S.D. New York
PAYPAL CANADA: Class Suit Alleges Hidden Currency Conversion Fees
PERRIGO COMPANY: Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Action Underway
PHARMAVITE LLC: Court Grants Final OK of "Barrera" Class Deal

PILOT FLYING J: Not Charged with Any Wrongdoing in Fraud Scheme
PURDUE PHARMA: Alabama Hospitals Join Class Suit Over Opioids
QUDIAN INC: Faces "Perez" Suit over October IPO
QUDIAN INC: Violates Securities Laws, "Zolotukhin" Suit Says
RAMOS FURNITURE: Court Grants Judgment on Default in FLSA Suit

REBECCA TAYLOR: Faces "Lopez" Suit in S.D. New York
REDLINE MOVING: Faces "Mendizabal" Suit in S.D. New York
ROSELAND RESIDENTIAL: Sued over Submetered Gas & Heater Charges
S.C.G.C. INC: "Ortega" Suit Seeks OT Compensation under FLSA
SANDFORD OIL: "Hearon" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA

SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: PETA Issues Statement in Class Suit
SEQWATER: Class Action Over 2011 Queensland Floods Begins
SEQWATER: Attorney Says Queensland Flood Devastation Avoidable
SEQWATER: Plaintiffs' Lawyer Begins Opening in Qld. Flood Suit
SHILOH INDUSTRIES: New York Securities Class Action Ongoing

SIERRA ONCOLOGY: NY Securities Class Action Suit Ongoing
SIERRA ONCOLOGY: Calif. Securities Class Action Underway
SIGNET JEWELERS: Expects Arbitration to Begin in April
SIGNET JEWELERS: Settlement Funds in Zale Suit Disbursed
SIGNET JEWELERS: Discovery Underway in "Masten" Class Suit

SKYLINE HIGHLAND: "Green" Remains in Arkansas District Court
SPOTIFY: Two Rightsholders Object to Class Action Settlement
STARBUCKS CORPORATION: Not Compelled to Reply to Discovery Bids
STATE FARM: Spine Care Suit Moved to Delaware Federal Court
STEADFAST INCOME: $103,360 Remains as Receivable as of Sept.

STEPHEN EINSTEIN: Faces "Somerset" Suit in E.D. New York
STRAUB DISTRIBUTING: Faces "Garcia" Suit in C.D. California
SUPPLEMENTAL INCOME: Union Retirement Plan Hit with ERISA Suit
T-MOBILE USA: Aug. 10 Deadline to File Class Cert Motion
TEZOS: Swiss Foundation to Cover ICO Suit Legal Costs

TIVITY HEALTH: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
TKG-STORAGEMART: Sued over Illegal Premium Lease Plans
TRAILER BRIDGE: Faces "Terry" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Faces "Bradford" Suit in S.D. Texas
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Faces "Danyarov" Suit in E.D. New York

TRIANGLE CAPITAL: Jan. 22 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
TRIANGLE CAPITAL: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action
TRUBRIDGE INC: "Core" Suit Alleges FLSA and Ohio Law Violations
TURTLE BEACH: Appeals Court Agrees to Case Dismissal
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Law Partner Hints Possibility of Class Action

US BANK: "Guiette" TCPA Suit Transferred to Colorado Court
VECTREN UTILITY: Settlement in Pension Plan Suit Has Final OK
VIRGINIA: Class Cert. Bid Filed in "Riggleman" Suit vs DOC
WELLS FARGO: Court Denies Appointment of Counsel in "Muniz"
WHITEFORD & TAYLOR: "Osinaga" Suit Moved to Maryland Federal Ct.

WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend "Shanklin" Suit
WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Discovery Ongoing in "Pressley" Suit
WOODLAKE RESORT: Taps Post Foushee as Counsel in Homeowners Suit

* More Travel Firms to Face Data Privacy Legal Challenges
* Taylor-Copeland Law Firm Investigates ICO-Related Misconduct
* Vaginal Mesh to Be Removed from Therapeutic Goods Register


                            *********


A PLACE FOR MOM: Transferred "Kim" Class Suit to W.D. Washington
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on August 7, 2017, styled Andrew
Kim, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. A Place for Mom, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-05716 was transferred
on December 5, 2017, from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington. The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:17-cv-01826-TSZ.

The case alleges violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

A Place for Mom, Inc., specializes in generating "leads" by
placing calls to consumers looking for senior care, and then
referring those consumers for a fee to customers of Defendant,
who are typically senior living communities. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary Michael Klinger, Esq.
      Ryan F Sullivan, Esq.
      KOZONIS LAW
      4849 North Milwaukee Avenue, Suite 300
      Chicago, IL 60630
      Telephone: (773) 545-9607
      E-mail: gklinger@kozonislaw.com
              rsullivan@kozonislaw.com

         - and -

      Daniel M. Hutchinson, Esq.
      LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN
      275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 956-1000
      E-mail: dhutchinson@lchb.com

         - and -

      John Tate Spragens, Esq.
      LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
      One Nashville Place
      150 4th Ave. N. Ste. 1650
      Nashville, TN 37219
      Telephone: (615) 313-9000
      E-mail: jspragens@lchb.com

         - and -

      Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
      LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN
      250 Hudson St, 8th Floor
      New York, NY 10013-1413
      Telephone: (212) 355-9500
      E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com

         - and -

      Tammy Gruder Hussin, Esq.
      HUSSIN LAW
      1596 N. Coast Highway 101
      Encinitas, CA 92024
      Telephone: (877) 677-5397
      E-mail: Tammy@HussinLaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Debra Rae Bernard, Esq.
      PERKINS COIE LLP
      131 S. Dearborn St., Suite 1700
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 324-8559
      Facsimile: (312) 324-9559
      E-mail: dbernard@perkinscoie.com


ABC NEWS: Trump Encourages Class Action Over Retracted Report
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Silverstein, writing for Newsweek, reports that U.S.
President Trump on Dec. 2 encouraged a class-action lawsuit
against ABC News over a retracted report on the Trump-Russia
investigation that took a hit on the stock market when it was
published.

"People who lost money when the Stock Market went down 350 points
based on the False and Dishonest reporting of Brian Ross of @ABC
News (he has been suspended), should consider hiring a lawyer and
suing ABC for the damages this bad reporting has caused -- many
millions of dollars!" he wrote.

This came hours after he posted a tweet congratulating ABC for
suspending the reporter behind the botched story, Brian Ross.

It is unlikely ABC could be held liable for the dip in the market
on Dec. 1, especially since stocks had already fallen that day
over reports about former national security adviser Michael Flynn
pleading guilty for lying to the FBI about contacts with Russians
during Trump's presidential transition. ABC did not immediately
comment about Trump's tweet.

Court papers from Dec. 1 said a "very senior member" of Trump's
transition team directed Flynn to contact the Russian ambassador
to the U.S. about Israeli settlements in December.  Multiple
media sources have identified that member as Jared Kushner,
Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser.   Kushner has not been
charged or officially connected in court papers to Flynn's call.

An apparent bombshell ABC News report on Dec. 1 said it was Trump
himself who gave Flynn the order.  The story, by chief
investigative correspondent Ross, could have marked an explosive
break in the Trump-Russia case, as it would have been the first
story proving Trump told his staff to covertly connect with the
Kremlin.

But ABC later said the story was "a serious error" and was "not
been fully vetted through our editorial standards process." It
corrected the story and suspended Ross for four weeks.  The
reporter wrote in a tweet, "My job is to hold people accountable
and that's why I agree with being held accountable myself."

The stock market fell 350 points after Ross's report dropped, and
it closed Dec. 1 40 points down.  It's unclear how much money
investors may have lost from the dip after the ABC story.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller is investigating the Trump
campaign for suspected collusion with the Russia to interfere
with the 2016 election. The probe has so far led to charges or
guilty pleas for four Trump campaign associates.

As a candidate and president, Trump has often suggested changing
libel laws or starting congressional investigations into news
network to make it easier to punish media outlets for reporting.
[GN]


AMERICAN SELF STORAGE: Faces "Mendizabal" Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Self
Storage 636, LLC. The case is styled Maria Mendizabal, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v
American Self Storage 636, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
10041-ALC (S.D.N.Y., December 22, 2017).

American Self Storage is proudly serving New Jersey and New York
with self storage.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


APPLE INC: Faces "Cook" Suit in S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Apple Inc. The case
is styled Thomas T. Cook, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v Apple Inc., a California
Corporation and Does 1 Through 10 inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
3:17-cv-02579-BEN-RBB (S.D. Cal., December 27, 2017).

Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company
headquartered in Cupertino, California, that designs, develops,
and sells consumer electronics, computer software, and online
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Phong L. Tran, Esq.
   Johnson Fistel, LLP
   600 West Broadway, Suite 1540
   San Diego, CA 92101
   Tel: (619) 230-0063
   Fax: (619) 255-1856
   Email: phongt@johnsonfistel.com


ARCADIA RECOVERY: Faces "Regan" Suit in Eastern District of NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arcadia Recovery
Bureau, LLC. The case is styled Kristin Regan, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v Arcadia
Recovery Bureau, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07542
(E.D.N.Y., December 27, 2017).

Arcadia Recovery Bureau, LLC is a collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


ARJ LAUNDRY: "Gervacio" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Maurilia Gervacio, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v.  ARJ Laundry Services Inc. dba Self Service
Laundromat & Cleaners, and Ray Javed, Case No. 1:17-cv-09632
(S.D.N.Y., December 7, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law.

Plaintiff Maurilia Gervacio is a resident in Bronx County, New
York.  Plaintiff was employed by Defendants at Self Service
Laundromat & Cleaners from approximately January 13, 2017 until
on or about November 26, 2017.

Defendants own, operate, or control a laundromat, located at 217
East 84th Street, New York, New York 10028 under the name Self
Service Laundromat & Cleaners. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ARS NATIONAL: Faces "Roshko" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ARS National
Services, Inc. The case is styled Ruslan Roshko, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v
ARS National Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07481
(E.D. N.Y., December 26, 2017).

ARS National Services, Inc., is doing business in the accounts
receivable management industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ASCENA RETAIL: Sued in New York Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------------
Virginia Norman, on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated v. Ascena Retail Group, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-09608
(S.D.N.Y., December 7, 2017), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the
plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.

Ascena Retail Group, Inc. operates Ann Taylor and its website
www.anntaylor.com, and advertises, markets, distributes, and
sells its products and services in the State of New York and
throughout the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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


AUCKLAND, NZ: Leaky Home Class Suit Cancer Sufferer's Last Hopes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Stuff, writing for Stuff.co.nz, reports that Lucy's Mangere
town house is one of the secret leakers.

The home's brick and linear board exterior gives no clue that it
isn't weathertight.

It looks like a tidy, solid home, with nothing in common with the
patched and decaying monolithic cladding leaky homes dotting
Auckland's suburbs.

But the 2004 home was badly built, and it leaks, and Lucy, who is
battling cancer and undergoing chemotherapy, faces a bill of
$150,000 to reclad it, at least.

That was a quote from 2011, and building prices have risen
dramatically since then.

"I thought $20,000 would fix it, but they said it all had to be
reclad," says Lucy, who asked for her real name, and street
address, not to be used.

Lucy's is just one of 11 identical homes in the street, but she's
the only owner to register with the Weathertight Services, and
fears her neighbours will be angered if she "outs" the street's
problems.

She's now been told the final bill could be as much as $250,000.

"I can't afford to fix it," she says even though she's been
approved for the Financial Assistance Package, which is now
closed to new applications, under which the homeowner would be
responsible for paying half the reclad costs, with the government
and council each picking up quarter shares of the bill.

So she's joined a class action law suit being prepared by lawyer
Adina Thorn, Esq. -- adina@adinathorn.co.nz

"It's my only hope," Lucy says, but that hope is waning as Thorn
is struggling to get enough leaky homeowners on board to take the
case.

Selling is not an option. Signing up to Weathertight Services was
"like shooting herself in the foot" as it's recorded on her
home's LIM.

"It's now on record as a leaky home," she says.

Thorn says there are many unidentified secret leakers around the
city.

Homeowners, and homebuyers, either have no clue to the future
problems of the buildings, or they choose to cross their fingers
and hope.

"In most you can't smell it, sometimes in the garages maybe,"
Thorn says.

Many, like Lucy's are solid-looking homes with two cladding
systems.

Lucy doesn't want people to think she was a foolish buyer.

She bought her place in 2008 after paying for a building report.
The inspector failed to identify inadequate flashings, and areas
where the two cladding systems did not actually meet.

These are not strong houses. Recently someone hit a golf ball
over the fence from the adjacent park. It went straight through
one of the linear weatherboard panels.

She's spent thousands on emergency repairs just to stop the
problems from escalating rapidly, and now she's just not got the
resources to go it alone.

"I can't afford to strip this building down and reclad it. I have
two cats and two dogs. How on earth am I supposed to go to a
hotel with them for months?"

Debilitating chemotherapy, and grief at the death of her mother
have made 2017 a very hard one, she says.

Thorn's planned class action case is that Auckland Council, and
its forerunner councils, were incompetent in allowing buildings
like Lucy's to be built, and then issuing them with code
compliance certificates.

"It's so easy to build these houses right. This was just utter
laziness," Thorn says.

Thorn has handled many claims to the Weathertight Homes Tribunal
in the Mangere area, and she believes there was no need for any
of them to have happened.

Manukau City Council consented Lucy's home in 2004 several years
after the publication of the Hunn Report, which confirmed the
country had a Canadian-style leaky building problem.

"They were on notice. It's just incompetence by council," Thorn
alleges.

But, she adds: "People with leaky homes can't afford to sue, and
that's been the council's best defence."

That's not translated into people signing up to her class action
which would be funded by litigation loans.

Litigation lenders take a cut of compensation in cases they fund,
but if the case is lost, they and their insurers bear the costs,
not those who signed up for the class actions.

Thorn needs to build a "book" of leaky home owners seeking a
combined $10 million of compensation.

She's not reached that yet.

There's a 10-year legal liability limit on seeking compensation,
but Thorn reckons there are still hundreds, if not thousands of
homeowners who are within that time-limit, including around many
who registered with the Weathertight Tribunal, but never advanced
their cases.

Each month a number withdraw their registrations, giving up all
hope of getting compensation.

An Auckland Council spokeswoman, Katherine Forbes, says: "Council
cannot comment on proceedings it has not seen, however, it is
likely that the council would defend any class action brought
against it."

Asked if the council had accepted being incompetent in its
consenting, and compliance inspections, of leaky buildings, she
adds: "Each case is dealt with on its own facts and circumstances
and we cannot comment on individual circumstances."

"The courts have made findings against Auckland Council in
relation to its inspection processes, which the council has
accepted."

Thorn is currently taking a number of class actions, including a
$250m case against James Hardie alleging it made and sold faulty
cladding, and a $40m case against Carter Hold Harvey alleging
failure of its Shadowclad cladding system.

But the true scale of the leaky homes crisis is unlikely to ever
be known.

A 2008 report by PricewaterhouseCoopers estimated $11.3 billion
costs to fix around 42,000 buildings, but there have been far
higher estimates from building experts.

The seeds were sown for the crisis, which also included leaky
schools and commercial buildings, in 1994 when New Zealand moved
to a "self-regulated" building regime, combined with a rise in
the use of cheap cladding systems that allowed fashionable
Mediterranean-style designs.

Also adding to the problem was a downgrading of apprenticeship
schemes, leading, it's believed, to many poorly trained, and
inefficient builders joining the workforce.

Between the start of 2007 and the end of 2016, just over $5.25b
of consents to alter buildings were granted in the Auckland
region, though it is not known how much was to fix leaky
buildings. Plastic covered buildings being fixed remains a
peculiarly Auckland sight. [GN]


AUSTRALIA: Pfas-Affected Katherine Residents to Get Blood Tests
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael McGowan and Christopher Knaus, writing for The
Australian, report that residents in the Northern Territory town
of Katherine affected by the defence department's firefighting
foam contamination scandal will be given access to free blood
testing after the federal government folded to pressure to pay
for the tests.

On Dec. 2 the government announced it would offer Katherine
residents access to the tests as part of a $5.7m package for
people affected by contamination from perfluoroalkyl and
polyfluoroalkyl substances, or Pfas, used in firefighting foam at
the Tindal RAAF base.

The funding, which will be available from early next year, will
pay for voluntary blood testing for people who live or work on or
near the base, or who did so in the past, as well as an
epidemiological study that will "examine potential causes and
patterns of health effects in Katherine".

The government has provided the same blood testing for residents
exposed to Pfas contamination in the New South Wales town of
Williamtown and at Oakey in Queensland, but had resisted calls
for the tests to be made available in Katherine.

In October the defence minister, Marise Payne, rejected calls for
the testing from NT Labor senator Malarndirri McCarthy, saying it
was a decision for health authorities.

But in a joint statement with the health minister, Greg Hunt, and
NT senator Nigel Scullion, Ms. Payne said the government was
offering the tests because the results of an interim human health
risk assessment had identified "potential exposure pathways to
the Katherine community".

"Following consideration of the risk assessment's findings,
enough information is now known about the potential exposure
pathways to provide a community support package," the ministers
said.

Ms. McCarthy said she was "disappointed" it took the threat of a
looming class action for the federal government to offer the
tests, and said it was "way overdue".

She said Katherine residents deserved the same treatment as
interstate communities affected by the pollutants.

"Listening to the families who've had water trucked in each week
by the defence force for them to drink on the rural properties
around Katherine, we're talking about a first-world country that
should not have to be doing that," she said.

The Katherine Labor MP Sandra Nelson said she was "relieved" by
the decision.

"There's still a long way to go but at least now we're at a stage
where we're being treated as an equal," she said.

The Katherine mayor, Fay Miller, welcomed the announcement.  She
will fly to Canberra to ask Mr. Hunt for help moving affected
landowners from their properties.

"I'm thinking of those families who want to get off their
properties, because they've got young people and they can't see a
future," Ms. Miller told Guardian Australia.  "They can't use
them, they can't grow anything on it."

Ms. Miller is also concerned media coverage of the town's Pfas
contamination could discourage tourists.  She wants federal help
for a marketing campaign to assure tourists Katherine's water
supply is safe enough for them to visit.

"As you know we're a really well-known tourist destination and
we're already receiving phone calls from people who are getting
the wrong message about Katherine," she said.

A public meeting to discuss the contamination was planned for
Dec. 4, but Ms. Miller said the issue was not being discussed
widely.  She said she had not received a single phone call from a
constituent expressing concern at the Pfas contamination.

"We definitely don't want to downplay this," Ms. Miller said.
"But the mood in Katherine -- I'm about to go to the Woolworths
mall, and chatting to people and Pfas hasn't even come into the
conversation." [GN]


BIG APPLE MOVING: Faces "Mendizabal" Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Big Apple Moving &
Storage, Inc. The case is styled Maria Mendizabal, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Big Apple
Moving & Storage, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-10043
(S.D.N.Y., December 22, 2017).

Big Apple Moving & Storage, Inc. is a moving and storage service
in Brooklyn, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BOGOPA ENTERPRISES: Faces "Matzura" Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bogopa Enterprises,
Inc. The case is styled Steven Matzura and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v Bogopa Enterprises, Inc.,
Bogopa Food Service LIC, Inc. and Bogopa Service Corp.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-10137 (S.D.N.Y., December 27, 2017).

Bogopa Enterprises, Inc. is a meat wholesale/trading arm of a
large and successful New York City metro-area supermarket
chain.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


C. TECH COLLECTION: Faces "Marino" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against C. Tech Collection,
Inc. The case is styled Tracey Marino, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v C. Tech Collection,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-07538-JFB-SIL (E.D.N.Y.,
December 27, 2017).

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph Mauro, Esq.
   The Law Office of Joseph Mauro, LLC
   306 McCall Avenue
   West Islip, NY 11795
   Tel: (631) 669-0921
   Fax: (631) 669-5071
   Email: JoeMauroesq@hotmail.com


CALATLANTIC GROUP: Sued in Virginia Over Proposed Lennar Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Vladimir Gusinsky Rev. Trust, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. CalAtlantic Group, Inc., Scott
D. Stowell, William L. Jews, Larry T. Nicholson, Bruce A. Choate,
Douglas C. Jacobs, David J. Matlin, Robert E. Mellor, Norman J.
Metcalfe, Peter Schoels, and Charlotte St. Martin, Case No. 1:17-
cv-01395-TSE-TCB (E.D. Va., December 7, 2017), stems from a
proposed transaction announced on October 30, 2017, pursuant to
which CalAtlantic Group, Inc. will be acquired by Lennar
Corporation and Cheetah Cub Group Corp for $48.26 in cash for
each share of CalAtlantic stock.

According to the complaint, CalAtlantic filed a Form S-4
Registration Statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. However,
the Registration Statement omits or misrepresents material
information concerning, among other things: (i) Background to the
Merger; (ii) CalAtlantic Board Recommendation and Its Reasons for
the Merger; and (iii) Interests of CalAtlantic Directors and
Executive Officers in the Merger. The failure to adequately
disclose such material information constitutes a violation of the
Exchange Act as stockholders need such information in order to
cast a fully-informed vote in connection with the Proposed
Transaction.  The Complaint says the Proposed Transaction will
unlawfully divest CalAtlantic's public stockholders of the
Company's valuable assets without fully disclosing all material
information concerning the Proposed Transaction to Company
stockholders. To remedy the Defendants' Exchange Act violations,
Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the stockholder vote on the Proposed
Transaction unless and until such problems are remedied.

CalAtlantic Group, Inc. is one of the nation's largest
homebuilders and offers homes in communities that meet the
desires of customers across the homebuilding spectrum, from entry
level to luxury, in forty-three Metropolitan Statistical Areas
spanning nineteen states. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott A. Simmons, Esq.
      Christopher J. Habenicht, Esq.
      1802 Bayberry Court, Suite 200
      Richmond, VA 23226
      Telephone: (804) 288-3600
      Facsimile: (804) 565-1231
      E-mail: simmons@mg-law.com
              habenicht@mg-law.com

          - and -

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

         - and -

      Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
      RM LAW, P.C.
      1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
      Berwyn, PA 19312
      Telephone: (484) 324-6800
      Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
      E-mail: rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com


CALIFORNIA: Court Dismisses "Endsley" for Failure to Amend
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order dismissing the complaint in the case
captioned MARK ANTHONY LOWELL ENDSLEY, and all other Non-LPS
patients who are or may be committed to Napa State Hospital,
Plaintiffs, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF STATE HOSPITALS; EDMUND
G. BROWN; DOLLY MATTEUCCI; PAM AHLIN, Defendants, No. C 16-4219
WHA (N.D. Cal.).

On November 22, 2016, the court dismissed the complaint with
leave to amend.

On February 22, 2017, he was granted an extension of time in
which to amend his complaint because he had filed a motion for an
interlocutory appeal in the United States Court of Appeals of the
dismissal order. He was granted until April 1, 2017, or 28 days
after a decision on his interlocutory appeal, whichever came
later. The Court of Appeals denied the motion for an
interlocutory appeal on March 4, 2017, but he filed a motion for
rehearing en banc, which was then denied on March 26, 2017.
Plaintiff then petitioned the United States Supreme Court for a
writ of certiorari on July 23, 2017, and he awaits a decision on
the petition. He was then granted another extension of time, to
and to October 15, 2017, or within 28 days of the date his
petition to the United States Supreme Court for a writ of
certiorari is resolved, whichever came later.

The Supreme Court denied the writ on October 24, 2017, and his
deadline to amend the complaint was November 21, 2017. Plaintiff
did not heed the warning, and he did not file an amended
complaint by that deadline, and instead he asked for an even
further extension of time.

Plaintiff has been given one year to prepare and file his amended
complaint, and he has not shown good cause for needing more time
than that. Plaintiff was cautioned that he would not be given a
further extension of time to file his amended complaint, and that
the case would be dismissed if he did not file an amended
complaint in a timely manner. As he has not done so, or shown
good cause why not, the request for an extension of time is
denied and this case is dismissed without prejudice to filing his
claims in a complaint on his own behalf and not in a pro se class
action.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 4, 2017 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9c66t27 from Leagle.com.

Marc Anthony Lowell Endsley, and all other Non-LPS patients who
are or may be committed to Napa State Hospital, Plaintiff, Pro
Se.


CANADA: Indigenous Survivors of Abuse in Group Homes Want to Sue
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse Winter, writing for Vice News Canada, reports that when
Christine Mullin thinks back on her childhood, words fail her.

"They're in there, they just won't come out," says the 56-year-
old. After a moment, she presses on describing her early life in
the Ridgeview Home, an institution for Indigenous children in
Whitehorse, Yukon.

"When they would bath you, they had this brush that was so stiff
it was like toenails. They'd scrub me so hard that it hurt. They
said I was a dirty Indian," Mullin says quietly.

"They would take that bar of soap and put it right up inside me,
even with their fingers. They said they had to clean the dirt off
of me: inside and out. They weren't cleaning me, they were
abusing me," she told VICE News.

Like thousands of other Indigenous children across the country,
Mullin was taken from her family in Dawson City, Yukon and placed
in foster care, group homes or put up for adoption in what is
today called the Sixties Scoop.

In early October the federal government announced a plan pay a
total of $750 million to some Indigenous survivors of the Sixties
Scoop, and create a $50 million foundation to support healing and
reconciliation.

If approved by the courts this spring, the agreement in principle
between the lead plaintiffs in an Ontario class action brought by
Beaverhouse First Nation Chief Marcia Brown Martel, will also
settle 18 similar class-actions across the country.

But that settlement includes no compensation for the abuse Mullin
says she suffered. According to the terms of the agreement in
principal, Canada's liability is limited to its failure to
protect Indigenous children's culture and identity, but not for
what happened to many inside the homes and adopted families that
children were placed in.

To be compensated for the abuse itself, survivors like Mullin
will have to sue the children's aid society that took them into
care or the province or territory that ran the program. So that's
exactly what she's doing.

Mullin is one of two lead plaintiffs in a newly proposed class
action suit filed in October in the Yukon which names both the
federal and territorial governments as defendants, claiming the
federal settlement proposal doesn't go far enough.

The statement of claim in the Yukon class-action, filed by
Whitehorse law firm Shier and Jerome, says that along with
attempting to "destroy the class member's national, ethnic and
racial groups," the federal and territorial governments are also
liable for the psychological, physical, and sexual abuse, neglect
and forced labour Yukon survivors suffered in the homes.

The Yukon Government said in a statement that it has no comment
on the proposed class action because it is still before the
courts.

Dan Shier, one of the two lawyers who filed the proposed Yukon
class-action, said he worries about the lack of clarity around
exactly who qualifies to be compensated under the proposed
federal settlement. As it stands, only Status Indians and Inuit
survivors will be compensated.

"Our class action includes non-status people," Shier told VICE
News. "We refer to them as First Nations because we want to take
the focus off a categorization imposed by the government (and the
Indian Act)."

Shier says by his estimates there could be up to a thousand class
members in the Yukon alone.

Individual survivors who aren't covered under the categories laid
out in the federal settlement proposal, or who lack the necessary
paperwork to prove it, can still file an exceptional
circumstances application for inclusion, according to Jeffrey
Wilson, one of the lead lawyers who negotiated the settlement.

"It's intended . . .  so that people who don't fall under the
particular classifications, or who may not have the records they
need would still be able to bring an exceptional circumstances
application to be included," Wilson said.

But Wilson said that he still has questions about why the
government insisted Metis not be included in the class for
compensation even though they can be part of the healing
foundation, the aim of which is to provide education and
activities that revitalize and protect First Nations, Inuit, and
Metis languages and cultures.

And while all of this is being sorted out, the federal government
recently promised to change the Indian Act to remove gender-
biased rules around who qualifies for Indian Status.

That raises another question: what about a Scoop survivor who had
no status when they were taken as a child but are granted it,
say, three or four years from now when (or if) the Indian Act is
changed? Will they have missed out on compensation under the
proposed settlement?

When asked about that particular scenario, the Crown-Indigenous
Reconciliation Ministry said, well, it's complicated.

"While this particular Agreement-in-Principle addresses the
claims of those individuals in the Brown class action and similar
claims -- it does not mean all issues around the Sixties Scoop
have been addressed," the ministry told VICE News an emailed
statement.

"We know that there are other claims that remain unresolved,
including those of the Metis, and we are committed to working
collaboratively and collectively with the parties and our
partners to resolve these outstanding claims, through
negotiation," the statement said.

Organizers with the National Indigenous Survivors of Child
Welfare Network (NISCWN), a national non-profit group, say as
well-intentioned as the federal settlement proposal may be, it
was hastily rolled out and caught vulnerable people off guard.

"Since the announcement . . . we're seeing people are really left
hanging," said Colleen Cardinal, a NISCWN co-founder.

"Legal, emotional, spiritual and cultural supports weren't in
place for this announcement. It's kind of like picking a scab and
just leaving it open. That's what the settlement announcement has
done, and there's no medicine to help it heal," she said.

Cardinal's organization, which is not directly connected to any
lawsuits, launched a toll-free national support hotline for
Sixties Scoop survivors who are struggling with the emotional
impact of a deluge of media requests and seeing their pain
splashed across headlines. She has been fielding many of the
calls herself.

"People are telling us 'I don't know where to get help from, I
don't know any information about this, or who to call or where to
get counselling, I don't know anything,'" she said.

Meanwhile Bill Stewart, a Metis Scoop survivor and a NISCWN
member is working to create an official national day of
recognition for the Sixties Scoop.

"The idea of establishing the day is to help cement it in the
consciousness of the country, something we can all feel connected
to and so the country has it there in its mind," he said.

Even so, Stewart says he wants to see the current agreement in
principal thrown out entirely and a new one negotiated, that
would include all Indigenous scoop survivors at once regardless
of their Indian status.

"I think a real opportunity was lost when the lead plaintiffs
signed off on (the proposed settlement). I think they shouldn't
have," Stewart says.

"I understand all their fears and concerns, I understand how long
it's been. But if we say no to this deal the government will have
to come back with something better because there is international
pressure on them," he said. [GN]


CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Faces "Kolbasyuk" Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital Management
Services, LP. The case is styled Yuri Kolbasyuk, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v Capital
Management Services, LP, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07499 (E.D.
N.Y., December 26, 2017).

Capital Management is a nationally licensed and recognized
collections agency, providing the highest level of delinquent
receivables resolution.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Faces "French" Suit in N.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital Management
Services, LP. The case is styled Robert G. French, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v
Capital Management Services, LP, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
01386-GTS-ATB (N.D. N.Y., December 27, 2017).

Capital Management is a nationally licensed and recognized
collections agency, providing the highest level of delinquent
receivables resolution.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CAPITAL ONE: Must Face Overdraft Fee Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------
Nasdaq reports that a federal appeals court on December 1 revived
a proposed class-action lawsuit accusing Capital One Financial
Corp of imposing illegal overdraft fees on customers.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan said Capital
One's overdraft fee rules were ambiguous, and a lower court judge
was wrong to dismiss a breach of contract claim. It also revived
a claim under a New York state consumer protection law.

"We're pleased with the outcome," said Matthew Wessler, Esq. --
matt@guptawessler.com -- a lawyer for the plaintiff Tawanna
Roberts, a Capital One customer in the New York City borough of
the Bronx. "Capital One illegally extracted overdraft fees for
purchases that were made when consumers had enough funds in their
accounts."

Banks impose overdraft fees, typically $35, when they pay
merchants for purchases by customers who lack sufficient funds in
their accounts. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has said
U.S. overdraft and bounced check fees totaled about $15 billion
in 2016.

Roberts accused Capital One of illegally imposing overdraft fees
when it settled transactions, the time it paid merchants, instead
of when it authorized transactions at the cash register.

Transactions settle after merchants request payments, which is
not always immediate and can take days.

To illustrate, if a customer with $100 in her account made five
$10 purchases and then made a $100 purchase, she would face only
one overdraft fee if the transactions were settled in order, but
five fees if the $100 purchase were settled first.

Capital One told customers it had sole discretion to "elect to
pay checks and other items drawn on your deposit account or to
permit automatic bill payments and withdrawals against your
account for an amount in excess of your available balance (an
'Overdraft')."

The three-judge appeals court found it "equally reasonable" to
understand the term "overdraft" as referring to Capital One's
decision to make a payment, at the time of authorization, or the
payment itself, at the time of settlement.

It returned the case to U.S. District Judge Lorna Schofield in
Manhattan for further proceedings. The appeals court upheld
Schofield's dismissal of three other claims.

The case is Roberts v. Capital One NA, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals, No. 17-1762. [GN]


CASPER SLEEP: Sued For "Wiretapping" Website Visitors
-----------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Berr, writing for Money Watch, reports that a federal
lawsuit accuses Casper Sleep, Inc., the direct-to-consumer
mattress startup, and a software company named NaviStone of
illegally collecting information from visitors to the Casper
website in an attempt to learn their identities.

The 21-page suit, which is seeking class-action status, alleges
that New York City resident Brady Cohen visited the Casper
website several times over the past six months while he was
shopping for a new mattress. He didn't know the company, which
has disrupted a $14 billion mattress industry, was using
NaviStone's technology to learn his personally identifiable
information (PII), such as his name and postal address, without
his consent. Cohen wound up not buying a Casper mattress.

According to the court filing, Casper is able to observe the
keystrokes, mouse clicks and other electronic communications and
get detailed information on visitors' habits, thanks to secret
NaviStone code embedded in its site, which functions as an
illegal wiretap.

The Nov. 28 filing says: "...when connecting to a website that
runs this remote code from NaviStone, a visitor's IP address and
other PII is sent to NaviStone in real-time. This real-time
interception and transmission of visitors' electronic
communications begins as soon as the visitor loads casper.com
into their web browser."

The filing added that "The intercepted communications include,
among other things, information typed on forms located on
casper.com, regardless of whether the user completes the form or
clicks 'Submit.'"

New York-based Casper, which reportedly more than doubled sales
in 2016 to $220 million, vehemently denied the allegations in the
suit, calling them a "blatant attempt to cash in on and extort a
successful, high-growth startup." Casper said its online
advertising practices are standard in the industry and are
documented in its privacy policy.

The company announced in June that it raised $170 million from
investors including Target (TGT) after earlier buyout talks with
the retailer broke down, according to The New York Times.

On its website, NaviStone says its technology enables clients to
reach "previously unidentifiable website visitors." The company,
which says it takes privacy laws seriously and insists that its
clients do the same, said it was surprised to learn of the
lawsuit.

"The first NaviStone heard of this lawsuit was when it was
filed," NaviStone said in a statement. "As a result, we have not
had the opportunity to speak to the plaintiff or his attorneys
about their concerns. We are hopeful that, once that conversation
takes place, we can clear up any misunderstandings they may have
regarding what NaviStone does -- and does not."

New York attorney Scott Bursor, Esq. -- scott@bursor.com -- who
is representing Cohen, didn't immediately respond to a phone
message left at his office. Bursor is arguing that Casper and
NaviStone violated the federal Wiretap Act and is seeking to
represent all consumers nationwide whose communications were
intercepted after visiting Casper.com.

NaviStone's business practices came under scrutiny in an expose
on Gizmodo that found at least 100 sites use the company's code,
including Quicken Loans, home goods retailer Wayfair and Road
Scholar, a nonprofit educational travel company. According to
Gizmodo, NaviStone masks its activity through so-called "dummy
domains."

Both Wayfair and Road Scholar have said they have since quit
using NaviStone. Officials from Quicken Loans didn't immediately
respond to a request for comment. [GN]


CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Faces "Johnson" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cavalry Portfolio
Services, LLC. The case is styled Meghan Johnson, Jean M.
Schwizer and James Canetty, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v Cavalry Portfolio
Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-07529 (E.D.N.Y.,
December 27, 2017).

Cavalry Portfolio serves debt collection.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CHELSEA VAN LINES: Faces "Mendizabal" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chelsea Van Lines,
Inc. The case is styled Maria Mendizabal, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v Chelsea Van Lines,
Inc. also known as: a/k/a Chelsea Movers, Inc. a/k/a Chelsea
Movers, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-10075 (S.D.N.Y.,
December 24, 2017).

Van Lines brings to you affordable & reliable international
moving services. With over 10,000 moves to its credit, Van Lines
can simply be called the best full service moving company in
Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CHIASMA INC: Bid to Dismiss "Gerneth" Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------
Chiasma, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017, that the company's motion to dismiss the
amended complaint in the case Gerneth v. Chiasma, Inc., et al.,
is awaiting court's decision.

On June 9, 2016, Chiasma, Inc. and certain of its current and
former officers were named as defendants in a purported federal
securities class action lawsuit filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, styled Gerneth
v. Chiasma, Inc., et al. This lawsuit challenges the company's
public statements regarding its Phase 3 clinical trial
methodology for octreotide capsules and its ability to obtain FDA
approval for the marketing and sale of octreotide capsules.

In December 2016, a lead plaintiff was appointed in the case. An
amended complaint was filed by the lead plaintiff on February 10,
2017 similarly challenging the company's statements regarding the
Phase 3 clinical trial methodology and results, and its ability
to obtain FDA approval for octreotide capsules, in violation of
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The amended
complaint adds as defendants current and former members of the
company's board of directors, as well as the investment banks
that underwrote the company's initial public offering ("IPO") on
July 15, 2015. The lead plaintiff seeks to represent a class of
all purchasers of our stock in our IPO.

The plaintiff is seeking an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages on behalf of himself and members of a putative
shareholder class, including interest and reasonable costs and
expenses incurred in litigating the action, and any other relief
the court determines is appropriate. The defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint on March 27, 2017 and
await a decision from the court following oral argument held on
July 17, 2017.

Chiasma said "We believe this lawsuit is meritless and intend to
vigorously defend against it. At this time, no assessment can be
made as to the likely outcome of this lawsuit or whether the
outcome will be material to us."

Chiasma, Inc. a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused
on improving the lives of patients who face challenges associated
with their existing treatments for rare and serious chronic
disease. The company is based in Waltham, Massachusetts.


CHILDREN'S PLACE: Court Compels Arbitration in Wage & Hour Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
issued an Opinion granting Plaintiff's Motion to Compel
Arbitration in the case captioned ANGELA R. ESSEX and GABRIELA
MARADIAGA, individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE CHILDREN'S PLACE, INC.,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 15-5621 (D.N.J.).

This case is a collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendant is a Delaware corporation and a public company with
more than 959 specialty retail stores nationwide, selling
children's clothing and related goods and services. Plaintiff
Angela Essex is a former TCP Store Manager, who worked for TCP.
Plaintiff Gabriela Maradiaga is also a former TCP Store Manager,
who TCP employed. Plaintiffs represent a class of 377 current and
former TCP Store Managers.

TCP developed an arbitration program.  The program applied to all
TCP Associates (Associates), which includes Store Managers,
working at retail stores in the United States. Declaration of
Jennie Commoreto in Support of Defendant's Motion to Compel
Arbitration. TCP uses an intranet portal (Portal) to communicate
with Associates. To gain access, Associates use an employee
identification number and personal password. The Portal has
included The Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate Claims (Arbitration
Agreement).

Plaintiffs filed a Complaint alleging that they are entitled to,
inter alia: (i) unpaid overtime wages for hours worked above 40
in a workweek, as required by law, and (ii) liquidated damages
pursuant to the FLSA.

Notwithstanding the presumption of favoring arbitration
agreements, a district court must affirmatively answer the
following two questions before compelling arbitration pursuant to
Section 4 of the FAA: (1) whether the parties entered into a
valid arbitration agreement; and (2) whether the dispute at issue
falls within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

The relevant Opt-In Plaintiffs were not required to participate
in TCP's arbitration program as a condition of employment with
TCP. TCP's Arbitration Agreement Announcement and the Arbitration
Agreement expressly state that signing the Arbitration Agreement
is not a mandatory condition of employment. To the contrary, the
Arbitration Agreement has a clear opt out provision. Indeed, the
named Plaintiffs and numerous other Plaintiffs who have opted
into this case first opted out of the Arbitration Agreement. As
noted, here, forty-nine Plaintiffs did opt out of the Arbitration
Agreement and Defendant admits that they are, therefore, not
subject to this motion to compel.

In sum, the Court finds that Plaintiffs who signed the TCP
Arbitration Agreement entered into a valid and enforceable
arbitration agreement and that this wage-and-hour dispute falls
within the scope of the Arbitration Agreement. Thus, the relevant
Opt-In Plaintiffs must, as a consequence, arbitrate their claims.
Plaintiffs who opted out of the Arbitration Agreement are not
bound by it.

The Court grants Defendant's motion to compel arbitration as to
the relevant Opt-In Plaintiffs.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 4, 2017 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yb8qa9lz from Leagle.com.

ANGELA R. ESSEX, Plaintiff, represented by MICHAEL HAYDEN REED --
mhreed@gmail.com -- KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP.

ANGELA R. ESSEX, Plaintiff, represented by SETH RICHARD LESSER --
Seth@klafterolsen.com -- KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER, LLP & MICHAEL
JOHN PALITZ -- mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com -- Shavitz Law Group, P.A..
GABRIELA MARADIAGA, Individually and on Behalf of All Other
Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by MICHAEL
HAYDEN REED, KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP, SETH RICHARD LESSER,
KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER, LLP & MICHAEL JOHN PALITZ, Shavitz Law
Group, P.A..

John Estrada, Plaintiff, represented by MICHAEL JOHN PALITZ,
Shavitz Law Group, P.A..

Tammy Brooks, Plaintiff, represented by MICHAEL JOHN PALITZ,
Shavitz Law Group, P.A..

Rafael Vasquez, Plaintiff, represented by MICHAEL JOHN PALITZ,
Shavitz Law Group, P.A..

Karen Vance, Plaintiff, represented by MICHAEL JOHN PALITZ,
Shavitz Law Group, P.A..

Tinda Kilo, Plaintiff, represented by MICHAEL JOHN PALITZ,
Shavitz Law Group, P.A..

Rachel Joseph, Plaintiff, represented by MICHAEL JOHN PALITZ,
Shavitz Law Group, P.A..

Jessica Shelby, Plaintiff, represented by MICHAEL JOHN PALITZ,
Shavitz Law Group, P.A..

Tiffany Murabito, Plaintiff, represented by MICHAEL HAYDEN REED,
KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP.

THE CHILDRENS PLACE, INC., Defendant, represented by MICHAEL T.
GROSSO  -- mgrosso@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. & RYAN
DONALD FREEMAN -- rfreeman@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON.


CLECO CORPORATE: Awaits Louisiana Appeals Court Ruling
------------------------------------------------------
Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC and Cleco Power LLC said in
regulatory filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission
that the parties in a merger-related class action lawsuit are
awaiting a ruling by the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal.

Cleco Corporate Holdings said in its Form 10-Q Reports filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly periods
ended June 30, 2017, and September 30, 2017, that in connection
with the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of October 17,
2014, by and among Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, and Cleco
Corporation, four actions were filed in the Ninth Judicial
District Court for Rapides Parish, Louisiana and three actions
were filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans Parish,
Louisiana. The petitions in each action generally alleged, among
other things, that the members of Cleco Corporation's Board of
Directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things,
conducting an allegedly inadequate sale process, agreeing to the
Merger at a price that allegedly undervalued Cleco, and failing
to disclose material information about the Merger. The petitions
also alleged that Cleco Partners, Cleco Corporation, Merger Sub,
and in some cases, certain of the investors in Cleco Partners,
either aided and abetted or entered into a civil conspiracy to
advance those supposed breaches of duty. The petitions seek
various remedies, including monetary damages, which includes
attorneys' fees and expenses.

The four actions filed in the Ninth Judicial District Court for
Rapides Parish that are captioned as follows: Braunstein v. Cleco
Corporation, No. 251,383B (filed October 27, 2014), Moore v.
Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, No. 251,417C (filed
October 30, 2014), Trahan v. Williamson, No. 251,456C (filed
November 5, 2014), and L'Herisson v. Macquarie Infrastructure and
Real Assets, No. 251,515F (filed November 14, 2014).

On November 14, 2014, the plaintiff in the Braunstein action
moved for a dismissal of the action without prejudice, and that
motion was granted on November 19, 2014. On December 3, 2014, the
Court consolidated the remaining three actions and appointed
interim co-lead counsel. On December 18, 2014, the plaintiffs in
the consolidated action filed a Consolidated Amended Verified
Derivative and Class Action Petition for Damages and Preliminary
and Permanent Injunction (the Consolidated Amended Petition).

The consolidated action named Cleco Corporation, its directors,
Cleco Partners, and Merger Sub as defendants. The Consolidated
Amended Petition alleged, among other things, that Cleco
Corporation's directors breached their fiduciary duties to
Cleco's shareholders and grossly mismanaged Cleco by approving
the Merger Agreement because it allegedly did not value Cleco
adequately, failing to structure a process through which
shareholder value would be maximized, engaging in self-dealing by
ignoring conflicts of interest, and failing to disclose material
information about the Merger.  The Consolidated Amended Petition
further alleged that all defendants conspired to commit the
breaches of fiduciary duty.

Cleco believes that the allegations of the Consolidated Amended
Petition are without merit and that it has substantial
meritorious defenses to the claims set forth in the Consolidated
Amended Petition.

The three actions filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans
Parish are captioned as follows: Butler v. Cleco Corporation, No.
2014-10776 (filed November 7, 2014), Creative Life Services, Inc.
v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-11098 (filed November 19, 2014),
and Cashen v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-11236 (filed November
21, 2014).

Both the Butler and Cashen actions name Cleco Corporation, its
directors, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, MIRA, bcIMC, and John
Hancock Financial as defendants. The Creative Life Services
action names Cleco Corporation, its directors, Cleco Partners,
Merger Sub, MIRA, and Macquarie Infrastructure Partners III,
L.P., as defendants. On December 11, 2014, the plaintiff in the
Butler action filed an Amended Class Action Petition for Damages.
Each petition alleged, among other things, that the members of
Cleco Corporation's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary
duties to Cleco's shareholders by approving the Merger Agreement
because it allegedly does not value Cleco adequately, failing to
structure a process through which shareholder value would be
maximized and engaging in self-dealing by ignoring conflicts of
interest. The Butler and Creative Life Services petitions also
allege that the directors breached their fiduciary duties by
failing to disclose material information about the Merger. Each
petition further alleged that Cleco, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub,
and certain of the investors in Cleco Partners aided and abetted
the directors' breaches of fiduciary duty.

On December 23, 2014, the directors and Cleco filed declinatory
exceptions in each action on the basis that each action was
improperly brought in Orleans Parish and should either be
transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides
Parish or dismissed. On December 30, 2014, the plaintiffs in each
action jointly filed a motion to consolidate the three actions
pending in Orleans Parish and to appoint interim co-lead
plaintiffs and co-lead counsel.

On January 23, 2015, the Court in the Creative Life Services case
sustained the defendants' declinatory exceptions and dismissed
the case so that it could be transferred to the Ninth Judicial
District Court for Rapides Parish. On February 5, 2015, the
plaintiffs in Butler and Cashen also consented to the dismissal
of their cases from Orleans Parish so they could be transferred
to the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish.

On February 25, 2015, the Ninth Judicial District Court for
Rapides Parish held a hearing on a motion for preliminary
injunction filed by plaintiffs Moore, L'Herisson, and Trahan
seeking to enjoin the shareholder vote at the Special Meeting of
Shareholders held on February 26, 2015, for approval of the
Merger Agreement. Following the hearing, the Court denied the
plaintiffs' motion. On June 19, 2015, three of the plaintiffs
filed their Second Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative and
Class Action Petition. This will be considered according to a
schedule established by the Ninth Judicial District Court for
Rapides Parish. Cleco filed exceptions seeking dismissal of the
amended petition on July 24, 2015.

On March 21, 2016, the plaintiffs filed their Third Consolidated
Amended Verified Derivative Petition for Damages and Preliminary
and Permanent Injunction. On May 13, 2016, the plaintiffs filed
their Fourth Verified Consolidated Amended Class Action Petition.
This petition eliminated the request for preliminary and
permanent injunction and also named an additional executive
officer as a defendant. Cleco filed exceptions seeking dismissal
of the amended Petition. A hearing was held on September 15,
2016. On September 26, 2016, the District Court granted the
exceptions filed by Cleco and dismissed all claims asserted by
the former shareholders. The plaintiffs appealed the District
Court's ruling to the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal on
November 9, 2016. The plaintiffs filed their brief on May 18,
2017, and Cleco filed its brief on July 7, 2017.

Cleco disclosed in its Form 10-Q Reports for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2017, that the Third Circuit Court of Appeal
heard oral arguments in the case on September 21, 2017.

Cleco expects a ruling by December 31, 2017. Cleco believes that
the allegations of the petitions in each action are without merit
and that it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims
set forth in each of the petitions.

Cleco is a regional energy company that conducts substantially
all of its business operations through its primary subsidiary,
Cleco Power. Cleco Power is a regulated electric utility company
that owns nine generating units with a total nameplate capacity
of 3,310 MW and serves approximately 288,000 customers in
Louisiana through its retail business and supplies wholesale
power in Louisiana and Mississippi. The company is based in
Pineville, Louisiana.


CONDOCERTS.COM INC: Condo Owners Fight Hefty Document Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
Don DeBat, writing for Loop News, reports that several Chicago
and Illinois condominium owners -- fed up with being ripped off
by management companies charging excessive fees to access legal
documents -- are fighting back with class-action lawsuits.

On November 20, CondoCerts.com Inc., a national web database that
sells statutorily mandated certification documents to owners
selling condos in Illinois, was hit with a $5 million punitive
class-action lawsuit from sellers who claim it is illegal for the
website to charge "more than the reasonable cost of copying those
documents."

Condo owner Robert Ahrendt, the plaintiff in the class-action
lawsuit, said he paid $370 for the documents he needed from
CondoCerts. However, Ahrendt and other sellers say that based on
how easy and fast the documents were downloaded, CondoCerts is
charging far more than the cost of providing them.

CondoCerts is marketed by Mutual of Omaha as an online document
management service. It electronically stores the real estate
documents related to condominium transactions and provides copies
upon request, tasks typically handled by a property manager.

The class-action suit accuses CondoCerts of violating the
Illinois Condominium Property Act, fraud, unjust enrichment, and
deceptive business practices.

The suit seeks refunds of monies paid to the company as well as
punitive damages and court costs for owners who paid a fee to the
company for documents related to the sale of a condo in Illinois
over the past five years.

Owners claim fees excessive for documents needed to close sales

Three Illinois condominium owners filed a similar class-action
lawsuit over allegations they were charged unlawful and excessive
fees by a property management company for documents needed to
close on the sales of their condo units.

Cecil Mathew, Nirupa Mathew, and John Murphy, on behalf of
themselves and all Illinois condo property owners, filed suit on
October 5 in Cook County Circuit Court against Foster/Premier
Inc., of Buffalo Grove, and San Francisco-based companies
Homewise Service Corp. and Next Level Association Solutions Inc.,
for alleged violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and
Illinois Condominium Property Act.

According to their complaint, the plaintiffs contacted the
companies for copies of their condo disclosure documents in order
to sell their properties. To obtain the documents, the plaintiffs
were allegedly charged hundreds of dollars, an amount greatly in
excess of any "reasonable fee" permitted by law to cover the
direct out-of-pocket costs of providing such information.

The condo owners are seeking actual and punitive damages,
attorney fees, interest, other expenses, and further relief as
the court deems appropriate.

Documents easily available but for steep fees

Often, sellers, buyers, brokers, attorneys, appraisers, and
lenders are referred to an online website to access documents
they need, which are provided in an electronic format by a third-
party servicer or management company for a hefty fee.

However, legal experts say the sales of the documents often are
then recycled multiple times in a single transaction and each
party requesting them pays the fee.

A resale disclosure package, which includes documents and
mandatory disclosures listed in Section 22.1 of the Illinois
Condominium Property Act, could range in cost from as little as
$200 to a whopping $1,250 or more for each party requesting the
documents. Additional "rush" fees may add hundreds of dollars to
the cost of obtaining the documents even if they are stored
online.

Benson believes that providing documents should be included in
the management contract's scope of services. Also, governing
documents and resale information should be posted on a password-
protected website for all owners, so they can be shared with
prospective buyers at no cost, she said.

Because failing to provide documents to the seller as required by
the Illinois Condominium Property Act can kill the sale of a
condo, Ahrendt, one of the plaintiffs, argues that sellers are
stuck paying the unfairly high fees or risk the sale of their
real estate.

Ahrendt said he was charged a total of $370 for access to
documents, including two unexplained $20 service fees. Within
minutes of receiving confirmation that the transaction went
through, Ahrendt received an email saying the documents were
ready for download.

The suit claims that obtaining copies of the documents filed with
the Recorder of Deeds typically costs about $2.50 and it calls
CondoCert's fees "unreasonable" considering they are digital and
immediately accessible.

"Plaintiff, and other similarly situated individuals, had no
choice or option but to pay the unreasonable fees and costs
charged by defendant to obtain and access the...documents in
order to comply with the statute and the terms of the real estate
sales contract," Ahrendt's complaint states.

Owners pay for information that is sometimes publicly available

According to the suit, the document servicing company's conduct
caused Ahrendt and other individuals to suffer harm by depriving
them of a choice, charging an unlawful and unreasonable fee for
the documents, and forcing them to pay the unlawful and
unreasonable fees to comply with the Illinois Condominium
Property Act.

Necessary documents also include a statement of any liens or
other unpaid assessments against the unit, insurance information,
rules and regulations, outstanding association loans, and other
information common to the sale of a condo, some of which should
be publicly available.

Ahrendt said that after he received a written purchase offer for
his condo in May 2017, he was instructed to use CondoCerts to
obtain the documents and was forced to pay the $370 in fees or
risk losing the sale.

"To be clear, a selling unit owner's failure to turn over the
Illinois Condominium Property Act documents to the potential
buyer will terminate a real estate sale and the selling unit
owner could be precluded from selling his own real property," the
complaint says. "This can cause litigation, monetary and non-
monetary damages for seller."

Among the four counts in the complaint, Ahrendt and the sellers
say CondoCerts violated the Illinois Condominium Property Act, as
the statute caps the "reasonable fee" associated with copying and
providing the documents to the direct out-of-pocket cost incurred
by the provider.

Ahrendt alleges CondoCerts has basically no cost on its end to
provide the documents, as evidenced by the speed with which the
documents are provided, and the $370 is not "reasonable."

Other counts in the suit include allegations that CondoCerts
violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act and that it unjustly enriched itself.

The complaint asks the court to certify a class to include anyone
who paid CondoCerts for the Illinois Condominium Property Act
documents, dating back to November 20, 2012. The complaint also
seeks more than $5 million in damages, interest, and court costs.
[GN]


COOKNSOLO INC: Faces "Godino" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cooknsolo, Inc. The
case is styled Michael Godino, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v Cooknsolo, Inc. doing
business as: Federal Donuts, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-
05767-GEKP (E.D. Pa., December 26, 2017).

CookNSolo Inc. owns and operates restaurants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   C. K. LEE, Esq.
   LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
   30 EAST 39TH STREET
   SECOND FLOOR
   NEW YORK, NY 10016
   Tel: (212) 465-1188
   Email: cklee@leelitigation.com


CROWN RESORTS: Maurice Blackburn Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Australian Associated Press reports that Crown Resorts has been
hit with a class action alleging it did not give shareholders
enough information about risks it was taking in China.

The law firm Maurice Blackburn on Dec. 4 filed the federal court
action, saying the James Packer-controlled casino operator did
not make timely and accurate disclosures to the market about
activities that led to last year's arrest of 18 employees in
China and a 14% fall in its share price.

Current and former Crown employees, including three Australians,
pleaded guilty to charges of illegal promoting of gambling on the
Chinese mainland at a hearing in China in June.  Some received
fines and jail terms from China's Baoshan district court.

Crown shares fell 13.9% to $11.15 in the wake of the October 2016
detentions, wiping more than $1.3bn off the company's market
value.

The law firm, which is acting on behalf of hundreds of individual
and institutional shareholders, says the arrests significantly
impacted Crown's future revenue from VIP gaming.

The arrests also raised questions regarding Crown's significant
investment in its Barangaroo, Sydney, venture, which has been
spruiked as a VIP-focused casino and luxury resort.

Maurice Blackburn's national head of class actions,
Andrew Watson, said shareholders should have been told of the
risks Crown was taking in China and the threat those risks posed
to the company's revenue streams.

"Chinese authorities could not have made the risks of marketing
gambling any plainer to Crown or other casino operators, yet
Crown ignored these warnings," Mr. Watson said on Dec. 4.  "Those
legal obligations are what underpins the integrity of the entire
market -- it is how investors can make properly informed
decisions about how to allocate capital where it is most
deserving."

In a statement on Dec. 4, Crown said it would "vigorously defend"
the proceedings.

Shareholders can still register online to be part of the class
action, which seeks compensation for their Crown shares bought
between 6 February 2015 and 16 October 2016. [GN]


CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OH: Could Owe Millions of Dollars to Employees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Fakas, writing for Cleveland.com, reports that a judge has
granted class-action status to two lawsuits that could force
Cuyahoga County government to reimburse millions of dollars to
400 current and former employees.

The Nov. 28 ruling by Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge Robert
McClelland allows the employees to join lawsuits that contend the
county violated state civil service law by reducing their pay and
benefits.

What's at issue?

In 2011, the county's new, voter-approved charter government
decided to establish a 40-hour work week, that included a paid
lunch hour each day, for all county employees.

Under the old government, led by three elected commissioners,
employees in some departments worked a 35-hour week with no paid
lunch hour each day.

After the change, the employees pay remained the same. But
benefits such as overtime, sick pay and vacation pay were reduced
because they are calculated using hourly compensation rates.

"They were making the same amount of money for five additional
hours on the clock," said attorney Joshua Cohen, who represents
the employees.

For example, employees who earn $36,400 a year have a
compensation rate of $20 an hour under a 35-hour week, but a
compensation rate of only $17.50 an hour under a 40-hour week.

What did the employees do?

Three county employees filed a lawsuit in 2013.

Among other claims, the lawsuit argued that employees were
entitled to back pay because the new paid lunch hours kept them
on the clock for an additional five hours each week.

The lawsuit also argued that the employees were improperly
deprived of benefits because of the calculations made at the
lower hourly compensation rate.

McClelland ruled in 2016 that the addition of five hours to the
work week did constitute a reduction in pay.

He ordered the employees to receive back pay.

Hearings still must be held in that case to determine damages,
Cohen said.

What led to the class action?

McClelland's ruling in the 2013 case affected only the three
plaintiffs and 20 others who later joined the lawsuit.

After McClelland failed to certify a class action in that
lawsuit, Cohen filed two lawsuits regarding the work-week
extension and sought class status.

McClelland made his current ruling on those two lawsuits.

The judge wrote that the case centers upon the alteration in the
employees' work schedule with the addition of five hours per week
of paid lunch hour and whether that alteration resulted in
financial loss to the plaintiffs.

What happens next?

The county can appeal the ruling.

"The county has received the opinion and the law department is
reviewing it," spokeswoman Mary Louise Madigan said.

If the employees prevail, the county could owe millions of
dollars in back pay.

For example, an employee making $25 an hour would be owed an
additional $6,500 a year for a 40-hour work week.

That would be $45,500 for the seven years since the new work week
went into effect.

For 400 employees, at that rate of pay, it would cost the county
$18.2 million. [GN]


D&A SERVICES: Faces "Narine" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against D&A Services, LLC
of IL. The case is styled Ayala Narine, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v D&A Services, LLC of
IL, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07536 (E.D.N.Y., December 27,
2017).

D&A Services, LLC, provides all aspects of customer service and
compliant collection remedies while providing a quality
experience for all people that come in contact with its
employees.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DIRECTV LLC: 2nd Circuit Appeal Filed in "Frintzilas" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
William Frintzilas and Angelo Pozzuto, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff -- Appellants, v.
DIRECTV, LLC and Mas Tec, Inc., Defendant -- Appellees, Case No.
17-3939 (2nd Cir, Dec. 5, 2017), is an appeal filed before the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from a
lower court decision in a class action, Case 17-cv-2368
(S.D.N.Y., April 2, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiff - Appellants:

          Steven Bennett Blau, Esq.
          BLAU LEONARD LAW GROUP, LLC
          23 Green Street
          Huntington, NY 11743
          Telephone: (631) 458 1010

Attorneys for DIRECTV, LLC:

          Michelle Joy Annunziata, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          1221 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 506 2318

Attorneys for Mas Tec, Inc.:

          Daniel B. Moar, Esq.
          GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP
          665 Main Street
          Buffalo, NY 14203
          Telephone: (716) 566 5400


DIVINE MOVING: Faces "Mendizabal" Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Divine Moving &
Storage, LTD. The case is styled Maria Mendizabal, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v Divine
Moving & Storage, LTD., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-10072
(S.D.N.Y., December 24, 2017).

Divine Moving & Storage, LTD. is a moving company in New York
City, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DUMBO MOVING: Faces "Mendizabal" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dumbo Moving &
Storage, Inc. The case is styled Maria Mendizabal, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v Dumbo
Moving & Storage, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-10046
(S.D.N.Y., December 22, 2017).

Dumbo Moving and Storage is a moving company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EXTRA SPACE STORAGE: Faces "Mendizabal" Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Extra Space Storage
Inc. The case is styled Maria Mendizabal, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v Extra Space
Storage Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-10073 (S.D.N.Y.,
December 24, 2017).

Extra Space Storage Inc. is a self-administered and self-managed
real estate investment trust (REIT). The Company owns, operates,
manages, acquires, develops and redevelops self-storage
properties located throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FIRST TRINITY: Trial on Policy-Related Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------
First Trinity Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that trial in the
Decreasing Term to 95- Policy related class suit was scheduled
to begin on November 27, 2017.

Prior to its acquisition by Trinity Life Insurance Company(TLIC),
First Trinity Financial Corporation (FBLIC) developed, marketed,
and sold life insurance products known as "Decreasing Term to 95"
policies. On January 17, 2013, FBLIC's Board of Directors voted
that, effective March 1, 2013, it was not approving, and
therefore was not providing, a dividend for the Decreasing Term
to 95 policies. On November 22, 2013, three individuals who owned
Decreasing Term to 95 policies filed a Petition in the Circuit
Court of Greene County, Missouri asserting claims against FBLIC
relating to FBLIC's decision to not provide a dividend under the
Decreasing Term to 95 policies.

On June 18, 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended petition. Like the
original Petition, the amended Petition asserts claims for breach
of contract and anticipatory breach of contract, and alleges that
FBLIC breached, and will anticipatorily breach, the Decreasing
Term to 95 policies of insurance by not providing a dividend
sufficient to purchase a one year term life insurance policy
which would keep the death benefit under the Decreasing Term to
95 policies the same as that provided during the first year of
coverage under the policy. It also asserts claims for negligent
misrepresentation, fraud, and violation of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA"). It alleges that during its
sale of the Decreasing Term to 95 policies, FBLIC represented
that the owners of these policies would always be entitled to
dividends to purchase a one-year term life insurance policy and
that the owners would have a level death benefit without an
increase in premium.

The main difference between the original Petition and the amended
Petition is that the amended Petition also seeks equitable relief
based on two new theories: that the Decreasing Term to 95
policies should be reformed so that they will provide a level
death benefit for a level premium payment until the policyholder
reaches 95 years of age; and alternatively, Count VIII of the
amended Petition asks the Court to (1) find that the dividend
provisions in the Decreasing Term to 95 policies violate Missouri
law, specifically, Section 376.360 RSMo.; (2) order that the
policies are void ab initio; and (3) order that FBLIC return all
premiums collected under these policies. In addition, as part of
the MMPA claim, plaintiffs are now alleging that FBLIC undertook
a fraudulent scheme to sell the Decreasing Term to 95 policies as
a level premium for level benefit even though FBLIC never
intended to pay dividends for the life of the policies and that
part of this alleged fraudulent scheme included having a dividend
option which is not allowed under Missouri law. FBLIC denies the
allegations in the amended Petition and will continue to defend
against them.

On February 1, 2016, the plaintiffs asked that the Court certify
the case as a class action. With their motion, Plaintiffs filed
an affidavit from an actuary stating the opinion that FBLIC has
collected at least $2,548,939 in premiums on the Decreasing Term
to 95 policies. This presumably is the amount that Plaintiffs
will seek to be refunded to policyholders if the policies are
declared void. FBLIC opposed the request for class certification.
On July 21, 2016, the Court certified three classes to maintain
the claims for breach of contract, anticipatory breach of
contract, violation of the MMPA, reformation, and to void the
Decreasing Term to 95 policies.

On August 1, 2016, FBLIC filed a Petition for Leave to Appeal
with the Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District asking for
permission to appeal the Court's class certification. The
Petition for Leave to Appeal was denied.

FBLIC intends to defend vigorously against the class and
individual allegations. The Company is unable to determine the
potential magnitude of the claims in the event of a final
certification and the plaintiffs prevailing on this substantive
action. The trial in this case was scheduled to begin November
27, 2017.

First Trinity Financial Corporation conducts operations as an
insurance holding company emphasizing ordinary life insurance
products and annuity contracts in niche markets. As an insurance
provider, the company collects premiums in the current period to
pay future benefits to our policy and contract holders. The
company is based in Tulsa, Oklahoma.


FITBIT INC: Class Cert. Bid in Sleep Tracking Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Class certification bid in the so-called sleep tracking class
action lawsuit against Fitbit remains pending.

Fitbit, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that on May 8, 2015, a purported class action
lawsuit was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, alleging that the sleep
tracking function available in certain trackers does not perform
as advertised. Plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution,
an award of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, an
award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys'
fees, and other further relief as the Court may deem just and
proper. On January 31, 2017, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification. A ruling on this matter has not yet issued. On
April 20, 2017, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment.

Fitbit said in its Form 10-Q Report for the September 30, 2017,
quarter, that the hearing on this motion was held on August 31,
2017. All other dates, including the prior trial date of July 10,
2017, have been vacated.

Fitbit said "The Company believes that the plaintiffs'
allegations are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend
against the claims. Because the Company is in the early stages of
this litigation matter, the Company is unable to estimate a
reasonably possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may
result from this matter."

Fitbit, Inc. is an American company headquartered in San
Francisco, California, known for its products of the same name,
which are activity trackers, wireless-enabled wearable technology
devices that measure data such as the number of steps walked,
heart rate, quality of sleep, steps climbed, and other personal
metrics involved in fitness.


FITBIT INC: Heart Rate Tracking Suit Goes to Arbitration
--------------------------------------------------------
A California court has sent the so-called Heart Rate Tracking
class action lawsuit against Fitbit to arbitration.

Fitbit, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that on January 6, 2016 and February 16, 2016, two
purported class action lawsuits were filed against the Company in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
alleging that the PurePulse(R) heart rate tracking technology
does not consistently and accurately record users' heart rates.
Plaintiffs allege common law claims as well as violations of
various states' false advertising and unfair competition
statutes, and seek class certification, injunctive and
declaratory relief, restitution, an award of unspecified
compensatory damages, exemplary damages, punitive damages, and
statutory penalties and damages, an award of reasonable costs and
expenses, including attorneys' fees, and other further relief as
the Court may deem just and proper. On April 15, 2016, the
plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Master Class Action Complaint
and, on May 19, 2016, filed an Amended Consolidated Master Class
Action Complaint. On January 9, 2017, the Company filed a motion
to compel arbitration.

Fitbit said in its Form 10-Q Report for the September 30 quarter
that on October 11, 2017, the Court granted the motion to compel
arbitration.

Fitbit said "The Company believes that the plaintiffs'
allegations are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend
against the claims. Because the Company is in the early stages of
this litigation matter, the Company is unable to estimate a
reasonably possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may
result from this matter."

Fitbit, Inc. is an American company headquartered in San
Francisco, California, known for its products of the same name,
which are activity trackers, wireless-enabled wearable technology
devices that measure data such as the number of steps walked,
heart rate, quality of sleep, steps climbed, and other personal
metrics involved in fitness.


FITBIT INC: Still Defends Securities Litigation
-----------------------------------------------
Securities class action lawsuits remain pending against Fitbit,
Inc., the Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2017.

On January 11, 2016, a putative securities class action was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California naming as defendants the Company, certain of its
officers and directors, and the underwriters of the Company's
initial public offering (the "IPO"). On May 10, 2016, the Court
appointed the Fitbit Investor Group (consisting of five
individual investors) as lead plaintiff, and an Amended Complaint
was filed on July 1, 2016. Plaintiffs allege violations of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), and
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, based on alleged
materially false and misleading statements about the Company's
products between October 27, 2014 and November 23, 2015.
Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's securities (i) on the open
market between June 18, 2015 and May 19, 2016; and/or (ii)
pursuant to or traceable to the IPO. Plaintiffs seek class
certification, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, an
award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys'
fees, and other further relief as the Court may deem just and
proper.

On April 28, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit alleging
violations of the Securities Act was filed in the Superior Court
of California, County of San Mateo, naming as defendants the
Company, certain of its officers and directors, the underwriters
of the IPO, and a number of its investors. Plaintiffs allege that
the IPO registration statement contained material misstatements
about the Company's products. Plaintiffs seek to represent a
class of persons who purchased the Company's common stock in
and/or traceable to the IPO and/or the November 2015 follow-on
public offering (the "Secondary Offering"). Plaintiffs seek class
certification, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, an
award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys'
fees, and other further relief as the Court may deem just and
proper. On May 17, 2016, a similar class action lawsuit was filed
in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco. The
cases have now been consolidated in the County of San Francisco.
On April 7, 2017, the Court granted a motion to dismiss the
Section 11 claim based on the Secondary Offering and stayed the
cases.

On November 11, 2016, a derivative lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California
derivatively on behalf of the Company naming as defendants
certain of its officers and directors and as a nominal defendant
the Company. Plaintiffs allege breach of fiduciary duty based on
the same set of alleged facts in the federal and state securities
class action litigation. On February 3, 2017, a second derivative
lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware on the same allegations. Both Courts have ordered a stay
in these two cases.

On June 1, 2017 and June 9, 2017, two additional derivative
complaints were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery.
Plaintiffs allege breach of fiduciary duty misappropriation of
information against certain defendants who sold shares in the IPO
and/or the Secondary Offering. On June 27, 2017, a fifth
derivative lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on the same allegations.

On June 27, 2017, an individual investor lawsuit alleging
violations of the Securities Act and state law claims for
statutory fraud and unfair business practice was filed in the
Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, naming as
defendants the Company and certain of its officers. The
allegations are based on the same set of alleged facts in the
federal and state securities class action litigation.

The Company believes that the plaintiffs' allegations in these
actions are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend
against the claims. Because the Company is in the early stages of
these litigation matters, the Company is unable to estimate a
reasonably possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may
result from these matters.


FORMFACTOR INC: Says $1.5MM Paid to Settlement Administrator
------------------------------------------------------------
FormFactor, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017, that the company has paid the settlement
administrator $1.5 million in accordance with the settlement
agreement in a class action lawsuit.

The Company said, "In August 2013, a former employee filed a
class action lawsuit against us in the Superior Court of
California for the County of Alameda alleging violations of
California's wage and hour laws and other claims on behalf of
himself and all similarly situated current and former employees
at our Livermore facilities."

FormFactor said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2017, that on March 14, 2017, the court granted preliminary
approval of the parties' stipulation under which the parties have
agreed to settle the lawsuit, subject to certain conditions. The
stipulation provides for payment by the Company of $1.5 million
in settlement of the lawsuit, and, accordingly, as of July 1,
2017 and December 31, 2016, the Company had $1.5 million accrued
in our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets for potential
payment under the stipulation of settlement.

In its Form 10-Q Report filed in November, the Company said, "On
August 25, 2017, the court granted final approval of the parties'
agreement to settle the lawsuit. The settlement provides for
payment by the company of $1.5 million in settlement of the
lawsuit. As of September 30, 2017, the company had paid to the
settlement administrator $1.5 million in accordance with the
settlement agreement."

                             *     *     *

FormFactor also disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that the settlement of the "Solak" class action
lawsuit has been granted final Court approval.

On April 8, 2016, an individual plaintiff filed a class action
lawsuit against Cascade Microtech, its directors and others,
alleging breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with our
acquisition of Cascade Microtech. The lawsuit, captioned Solak v.
Cascade Microtech, Inc., et al., was filed in Multnomah County
Circuit Court in the State of Oregon.

On March 17, 2017, the court entered an Order Granting Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement and filed a General Judgment
in the case which provided for a payment of plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees and the dismissal with prejudice of all claims
asserted in the action.

FormFactor, Inc., headquartered in Livermore, California, is a
provider of electrical test and measurement solutions. The
company provides a broad range of high-performance probe cards,
analytical probes, probe stations, thermal sub-systems and
reliability test systems to both semiconductor companies and
scientific institutions.


FORSTER & GARBUS: Faces "Maymi" Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forster & Garbus,
LLP. The case is styled Wilson Maymi, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v Forster & Garbus,
LLP, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-07540 (E.D.N.Y., December 27,
2017).

Forster & Garbus, LLP is a debt collection law firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


FORSTER & GARBUS: Faces "Dovey" Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forster & Garbus,
LLP. The case is styled Michael Dovey and Wilson Maymi,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v Forster & Garbus, LLP, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-
07534 (E.D.N.Y., December 27, 2017).

Forster & Garbus, LLP is a debt collection law firm.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE.


FORSTER & GARBUS: Faces "Buccilli" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forster & Garbus,
LLP. The case is styled Theresa Buccilli and Panagiota Matrakas,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v Forster & Garbus, LLP, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-
07498 (E.D. N.Y., December 26, 2017).

Forster & Garbus is a full service New York Law Firm
concentrating on creditor's rights law since 1970.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GENCO SHIPPING: Appellate Case Underway in Baltic Trading Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appellate proceedings related to the Baltic Trading Ltd.
Stockholder Litigation remain pending and are scheduled to be
completed for the Appellate Division's February 2018 term.

Genco Shipping & Trading Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that in April 2015, six
class action complaints were filed in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, County of New York.  On May 26, 2015, the six
actions were consolidated under the caption In Re Baltic Trading
Ltd. Stockholder Litigation, Index No. 651241/2015, and a
consolidated class action complaint was filed on June 10, 2015
(the "Consolidated Complaint").  The Consolidated Complaint is
purported to be brought by and on behalf of Baltic Trading's
shareholders and alleges that the then-proposed July 2015 merger
did not fairly compensate Baltic Trading's shareholders and
undervalued Baltic Trading.  The Consolidated Complaint names as
defendants the Company, Baltic Trading, the individual members of
Baltic Trading's board, and the Company's merger subsidiary. The
claims generally allege (i) breaches of fiduciary duties of good
faith, due care, disclosure to shareholders, and loyalty,
including for failing to maximize shareholder value, and (ii)
aiding and abetting those breaches. Among other relief, the
complaints seek an injunction against the merger, declaratory
judgments that the individual defendants breached fiduciary
duties, rescission of the merger agreement, and unspecified
damages.

On July 9, 2015, plaintiffs in that action moved to enjoin the
merger vote, scheduled to take place on July 17, 2015.  The
motion was thereafter fully briefed and argued on July 15, 2015.
The motion to enjoin the vote was denied on July 15, 2015 (the
"Preliminary Injunction Denial").  Plaintiffs sought an emergency
injunction and temporary restraining order from the New York
State Appellate Division, First Department the following day, on
July 16, 2015.  The Appellate Division denied the request, and
the vote, and subsequent merger, proceeded as scheduled on July
17, 2015.  Plaintiffs thereafter withdrew that appeal.

On June 30, 2015, Defendants had moved to dismiss the
Consolidated Complaint in its entirety. Plaintiffs subsequently
served an Amended Consolidated Complaint, and Defendants directed
their motion to dismiss to that amended complaint.  The motion to
dismiss was granted and the Amended Consolidated Complaint was
dismissed with prejudice on August 29, 2016 (the "Dismissal
Decision").

On September 29, 2016, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York,
which recites their appeal of the Dismissal Decision, "including
. . . and as referenced in" the Dismissal Decision, the
Preliminary Injunction Denial.

On June 28, 2017, plaintiffs moved the Appellate Division to
extend the time to perfect the appeal to October 2, 2017.

Genco said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the SEC for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that the motion was
granted, and on that date, plaintiffs subsequently filed an
appellate brief and record.  Briefing on the appeal is continuing
and is presently scheduled to be completed for the Appellate
Division's February 2018 term.

Genco Shipping said that "Based on currently available
information, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the loss, if
any, in the event of an unfavorable outcome in any of these
matters. However, the Company does not believe that it is
probable that the resolution of these matters will have a
material effect on the Company, its financial condition, results
of operations or cash flows."

Genco Shipping & Trading Limited is a Marshall Islands company
that transports iron ore, coal, grain, steel products and other
drybulk cargoes along worldwide shipping routes through the
ownership and operation of drybulk carrier vessels. The company
is based in New York.


GENERAL MOTORS: Michigan Residents Sue Over Water Quality
---------------------------------------------------------
San Francisco Chronicle reports that a lawsuit alleges that
General Motors has contaminated water near a Michigan testing
facility since the 1980s and has attempted to cover it up.

Attorneys Edward J. Hood, Esq. -- ehood@clarkhill.com -- of the
Detroit-based Clark Hill law firm and Alexander Memmen of the
Chicago-based Memmen law firm filed the lawsuit on behalf of six
Brighton Township residents.

The lawsuit alleges that the Milford Proving Grounds contaminated
water with high levels of sodium and chloride. The lawsuit said
the facility released thousands of tons of salt over the past 30
years. The 4,000-acre vehicle testing site uses salt for
maintenance, water treatment and other vehicle testing purposes.

The lawsuit alleges the company has known about the high
concentrations for years but didn't inform regulatory authorities
or local residents.

General Motors said the suit doesn't have merit, stating that
salt deposits occur in the area naturally and salt is frequently
used on the roads during winter.

"Nonetheless, acting as a good neighbor, salt usage at the
Milford Proving Ground has been reduced by 60 percent over the
last two decades and GM submits regular reports on the
groundwater quality at the Milford Proving Ground to the Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality," the company said.

Prolonged exposure to high amounts of sodium and chloride can
damage the liver and kidney, as well as cause hypertension and
high blood pressure, according to the Environmental Protection
Agency.

Memmen said he plans to seek class-action status on behalf of an
estimated 100 other residents who may have been impacted by the
contamination. [GN]


GENTLE GIANT: Faces "Mendizabal" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gentle Giant Moving
Company (NY), LLC. The case is styled Maria Mendizabal, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v Gentle
Giant Moving Company (NY), LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-10044
(S.D.N.Y., December 22, 2017).

Gentle Giant Moving Company (NY), LLC is a moving and storage
service in Brooklyn, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GOLDEN KRUST: Workers' Class Action Over Unpaid OT Wages Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Rex Brown and Reuven Blau, writing for New York Daily
News, report that the owner of the Golden Krust restaurant chain
who committed suicide in his Bronx factory was deep in tax debt
and was being sued by a former staffer for thousands in lost
wages, court records show.

Lowell Hawthorne was "worried" about the liens, which included
more than $150,000 in city taxes on the company's buildings, a
police source said.  He also owed at least $15,000 in state
taxes, records show.

Authorities also said they discovered a note that Mr. Hawthorne
left before he shot himself in the head on Dec. 2.  They did not
disclose what he wrote.

In addition to Mr. Hawthorne's tax issues, a former maintenance
staffer was suing him in Manhattan Federal Court.  Onetime
employee Robert Wray said he was never paid for the overtime he
worked during his 11-year tenure.

Mr. Wray's May 8 lawsuit contends more than 100 other Golden
Krust staffers were similarly stiffed on OT.

The case -- which seeks class-action status -- is pending.

Mr. Hawthorne's popular restaurant chain did not outwardly appear
to be struggling while allegedly cutting corners as it served up
meat patties, jerk treats and pastries.

Court documents show Mr. Hawthorne was being sued for not giving
his Golden Krust workers overtime pay.

In fact, he boasted about expanding the "McDonald's of the
Caribbean" during an episode of CBS' "Undercover Boss" in May
2016.

"By 2020, all Americans we expect to be eating Golden Krust
patties," he said.

Mr. Hawthorne, 57, shot himself inside the firm's Claremont
factory at about 5:30 p.m., police sources said.

Some of his staffers said they suspected something was wrong when
they saw his silver Tesla 85D parked oddly outside the factory,
straddling two lanes.

On Dec. 3, friends and relatives were struggling to understand
the suicide.

"Does not make any sense whatsoever," said Pat Russo, who worked
with Hawthorne and his brother since the 1990s.  "The one thing I
learned a long time ago: You just don't know what you think you
know."

Mr. Hawthorne's death hit the city hard.

"We are shocked and saddened by the death of Lowell Hawthorne,"
tweeted Mayor de Blasio.  "Our prayers are with his family and
his loved ones."

"The legacy of Lowell Hawthorne will live on," tweeted Brooklyn
Congresswoman Yvette Clarke. "I admire him greatly for bringing
our shared love for Jamaican culture to life on a larger scale
through food and fellowship."

Mr. Hawthorne came to the U.S. from Jamaica when he was 21.  With
the financial help of family, he opened his first Golden Krust
store on E. Gun Hill Road in 1989.

There are now 120 stores in nine states, supplying more than
18,000 dollar stores and supermarkets. [GN]


GOOGLE INC: Refuses Legal Request to Share Pay Records in Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Levin, writing for The Guardian, reports that Google is
resisting a legal request to disclose salary records in a class-
action gender discrimination lawsuit, marking the technology
company's latest efforts to prevent scrutiny of how much it pays
its female employees.

Google attorneys argued in court on December 1 that a judge
should block a suit brought by former employees alleging
systematic pay disparities on behalf of all women at the company.
The company is also arguing that it should not have to provide
information on the salaries of men and women or disclose wage
policy documents until a first ruling on the class-action status.

The judge has not yet made an official decision but on December 1
appeared to side with the tech giant on a number of issues.

The class-action complaint filed in September provided the most
detailed formal accounts to date of gender discrimination at
Google, alleging that the company denies promotions and career
opportunities to qualified women and "segregates" them into
lower-paying positions. Google's latest efforts to thwart the
lawsuit and avoid disclosures come at a time when the tech
industry is reeling over allegations of misogyny, sexual
harassment and an overall lack of diversity.

"Clearly the data is not good for them, and they don't want to
turn it over," James Finberg, Esq. --
jfinberg@altshulerberzon.com -- a civil rights attorney
representing the employees, said after the hearing in San
Francisco. "Eventually, the truth will come out, and the truth
will show that they do in fact pay women less than men in the
same job title in nearly every job."

The suit -- which provides accounts of alleged discrimination
against a former engineer, business manager and sales employee --
builds on claims by the US Department of Labor (DoL). Earlier
this year, the federal regulator alleged "extreme" pay
discrimination in positions and departments throughout Google and
sued the Mountain View, California-based company for salary
records as part of its audit.

Google has publicly insisted that it has no gender pay gap and is
a leader on diversity and inclusion. But the company has also
repeatedly resisted efforts to open its books to the government,
has tried to block media coverage of its DoL dispute and has
faced accusations that its strict confidentiality policies
silence whistleblowers. In July, a judge ultimately forced the
company to disclose certain compensation documents to federal
investigators.

In court on December 1, Google's lawyers argued that it was
overly broad to file a complaint on behalf of all women employed
by the company in California over the last four years and that
the allegations of discrimination extended beyond applicable fair
pay laws.

"It's just an open-ended probe into the job duties of every
employee in the entire company," said the Google attorney Zachary
Hutton, Esq. -- zachhutton@paulhastings.com -- Later, referencing
the plaintiffs' requests for salary records, he said: "I cannot
conceive of a more probing, more onerous set of discovery."

Google faced backlash when it argued it was too financially
burdensome and challenging to compile the compensation data that
the federal government had requested.

On December 1, after the plaintiffs' attorneys argued that Google
should turn over policy records and salary data the company had
already disclosed to the DoL, the Google attorney Felicia Davis,
Esq. -- feliciadavis@paulhastings.com -- argued that the request
was premature and that it should come after a ruling on the
class-action status of the case.

Davis also said some of what the lawyers had requested was too
expansive and not relevant, adding: "It's just a lot of extra
work."

Judge Mary Wiss responded: "I don't know that because it's a lot
of work it shouldn't be produced."

But the judge questioned the scope of the class-action case and
seemed to agree with Google on some matters. She issued no formal
ruling, but said she believed there were "deficiencies" in the
plaintiffs' claims, called the suit "overly broad" and said she
was inclined to rule in favor of Google in its initial pleadings
to limit the class-action scope of the case. She also said Google
did not yet have to provide any of the broader documents and
records at this preliminary stage.

Hutton also repeatedly argued that even if there was a wage gap
at the company, it was not necessarily illegal: "Pay disparity by
itself does not establish a violation. You have to examine the
reasons the disparity exists."

The class-action attorneys argued that, based on the DoL's
investigation and the claims of their plaintiffs, the pay gaps
were widespread and unlawful at Google.

"There is a serious problem at Google of paying women less,"
testified Kelly Dermody, another lawyer representing the
employees. "This is a critical cutting-edge matter in society."

Google initially declined to provide a comment. However,
following publication of the article, a Google spokeswoman, Gina
Scigliano, emphasized in a statement to the Guardian that the
judge's tentative ruling had sided with the company.

"The plaintiffs want class-wide discovery but haven't provided
the facts to support that. We argued that discovery should
therefore be on hold until that's resolved. The Judge agreed,"
she said. "We believe the data makes our case and have agreed to
produce compensation policies and practices, as well as
additional compensation data once their pleadings are finalized."

When the case was filed, the company defended its pay practices
in a statement: "Job levels and promotions are determined through
rigorous hiring and promotion committees, and must pass multiple
levels of review, including checks to make sure there is no
gender bias in these decisions."

After the hearing, Finberg noted that Google's attorneys did not
deny there was a pay disparity and criticized the corporation for
a lack of transparency: "They fought hard against the DoL. They
fought hard against us. To me, it's an indication they have
something to hide." [GN]


HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES: Appeal Filed in "Garza" Dispute
----------------------------------------------------------
Rochelle Garza, As guardian ad litem to unaccompanied minor J.D.,
on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, and Jane Roe,
on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff
-- Appellees, v. Eric D. Hargan, Acting Secretary, Health and
Human Services; Steven Wagner, Acting Assistant Secretary,
Administration for Children and Families, in his official and
individual capacity; and Scott Lloyd, Director, Office of Refugee
Resettlement, in his official and individual capacity, the
Defendant -- Appellants, Case No. 17-5277 (Col. Cir, Dec. 19,
2017), is an appeal filed before the United States Court of
Appeals for the Columbia Circuit, from a lower court decision in
a fraud class action, Case No. 1:17-cv-02122-TSC (D. Colo., Oct.
13, 2017).[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff -- Appellees:

          Arthur B. Spitzer, Esq.
          Brigitte Amiri, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
          UNION OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL AREA
          4301 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 434
          Washington, DC 20008-2368
          Business: (202) 457 0800
          Personal: (202) 457 0800

Attorneys for Eric D. Hargan, Acting Secretary,
Health and Human Services:

          August Edward Flentje, Esq.
          Catherine H. Dorsey, Esq.
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20530-0001
          Business: (202) 514 2000

Attorneys for Steven Wagner and Scott Lloyd:

          William Spencer Consovoy, Esq.
          CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PLLC
          3033 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 700
          Arlington, VA 22201
          Business: (703) 243 9423
          Personal: (703) 243 9423


HF HOLDINGS: Faces "Murphy" Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HF Holdings, Inc.
The case is styled Gary Murphy, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v HF Holdings, Inc., Basil
Hamdam and Mineola Medical Lab, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-07537-JFB-SIL (E.D.N.Y., December 27, 2017).

HF Holdings, Inc. is a debt collection agency in Pine Castle,
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph Mauro, Esq.
   The Law Office of Joseph Mauro, LLC
   306 McCall Avenue
   West Islip, NY 11795
   Tel: (631) 669-0921
   Fax: (631) 669-5071
   Email: JoeMauroesq@hotmail.com


HILTON RESORTS: Faces "Astrahan" Suit Over Unsolicited Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
Cheri Astrahan, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Hilton Resorts Corporation d/b/a Hilton
Grand Vacations, and Does 1 through 10, Case No. 8:17-cv-02124
(C.D. Cal., December 5, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendants'
practice of making any telemarketing/solicitation call, other
than a call made for emergency purposes or made with the prior
express consent of the called party using an automatic telephone
dialing system or any artificial or prerecorded voice to any
telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service.

Hilton Resorts Corporation is a business engaged in the sale of
vacation timeshares and other hospitality services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Meghan E. George, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 S. Beverly Dr., #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
              abacon@toddflaw.com
              mgeorge@toddflaw.com


HUDSON AND MARSHALL: "Simmons" Suit Seeks OT wages under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
CATHERINE SIMMONS, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated employees, the Plaintiff, v. HUDSON AND MARSHALL, LLC,
the Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-03818 (S.D. Tex., Dec. 19, 2017),
seeks to recover overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff consistently worked
between 55 to 65 hours a week for Defendant during the last three
years of her employment with Defendant. The Defendant classified
Plaintiff as exempt from the FLSA's overtime-pay requirement. The
Defendant did not pay Plaintiff 1.5 times her regular rate of pay
for each hour she worked over 40 each week during the three-year
period immediately preceding the filing of this lawsuit.
Defendant owes Plaintiff 1.5 times her regular rate of pay for
each hour she worked over 40 each week during the three-year
period immediately preceding the filing of this lawsuit.

Hudson & Marshall, LLC is a licensed real estate service provider
in Dallas, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dennis A. Clifford
          THE CLIFFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          712 Main Street, Suite 900
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: 713 999 1833
          Facsimile: 866 232 0999
          E-mail: dennis@cliffordemploymentlaw.com


HUMANIGEN INC: Settlement of Calif. Securities Suit Has Final OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
Humanigen, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017, that the settlement of a securities class
action in California has obtained final court approval.

On December 18, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit (captioned
Li v. KaloBios Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., 5:15-cv-05841-EJD)
was filed against the Company in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California (the "Class Action
Court"), alleging violations of the federal securities laws by
the Company, Herb Cross and Martin Shkreli, the Company's former
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.

On December 23, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company in the Class Action Court (captioned
Sciabacucchi v. KaloBios Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., 3:15-cv-
05992-CRB), similarly alleging violations of the federal
securities laws by the Company and  Mr. Shkreli.

On December 31, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company in the Class Action Court (captioned Isensee
v. KaloBios Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., Case No. 15-cv-06331-
EJD) also alleging violation of the federal securities laws by
the Company, a former officer and Mr. Shkreli.

On April 18, 2016, an amended complaint was filed in the Isensee
suit, adding Herb Cross and Ronald Martell as defendants. On
April 28, 2016, the Class Action Court consolidated these cases
(the "Securities Class Action Litigation") and appointed certain
plaintiffs as the lead plaintiffs. The lead plaintiffs in the
Securities Class Action Litigation were seeking damages of $20.0
million on behalf of all the affected members of the class
represented in the Securities Class Action Litigation, (the
"Securities Class Action Members").

On June 15, 2016, a settlement stipulation (the "Securities Class
Action Settlement"), was approved by the Bankruptcy Court. The
Securities Class Action Settlement required the Company to issue
300,000 shares of common stock and submit a payment of $250,000
to the Securities Class Action Members and advance insurance
proceeds of $1.25 million to the Securities Class Action Members
(collectively, the consideration is the "Securities Class Action
Settlement Consideration"). On January 20, 2017, the Class Action
Court preliminarily approved the Securities Class Action
Settlement and on June 22, 2017, the Class Action Court issued
its final approval order.

The Securities Class Action Settlement provides that any
Securities Class Action Member is entitled to share in the
Securities Class Action Settlement Consideration. The Securities
Class Action Settlement provides for releases and related
injunctions to be granted for the benefit of, among others, the
Company, Ronald Martell, Herb Cross and all of the Company's
past, present and future directors, officers and employees,
excluding Mr. Shkreli. Securities Class Action Members had the
option to exclude themselves from the Securities Class Action
Settlement and are thereby not bound by the terms of the
Securities Class Action Settlement nor entitled to receive any
amount of the Securities Class Acton Settlement Consideration.

Such Securities Class Action Members, to the extent they properly
excluded themselves from the Securities Class Action Settlement
and timely and properly filed a proof of claim in the bankruptcy
case, may have certain rights under the Plan with respect to such
claims. Pursuant to the Plan and Confirmation Order, such claims
are subordinated to the level of the Company's common stock that
was issued and outstanding when the Company's bankruptcy case was
filed. Such claims are also subject to the Company's objection.

The Company's agreement to the Securities Class Action Settlement
was not in any way an admission of the Company's wrongdoing or
liability. During the year ended December 31, 2016, the 300,000
shares were issued and the $250,000 payment was made.

Humanigen, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on
developing medicines for patients with neglected and rare
diseases with focus on pediatric conditions in the United States.
The company's lead product candidate is benznidazole for the
treatment of Chagas disease, a parasitic illness that can lead to
long-term heart, intestinal, and neurological problems. The
company is based in Brisbane, California.


HUNAN GOURMET: "Yan" Suit Seeks OT Compensation under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
Li Ming Yan individually and on behalf all other employees
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Hunan Gourmet, Inc. d/b/a/
Hunan Express, a Florida Profit Corporation, and Min Jiang,
Individually, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00928-MCR-CJK
(N.D. Fla., Dec. 19, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, together with an equal amount as liquidated damages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Defendants own a restaurant located in Fort Walton Beach,
Florida, 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 Plaintiff Li Ming Yan worked for Defendant as a cook and
restaurant worker at Hunan Express located at 450 Racetrack Rd NW
No. F, Fort Walton Beach, FL 32547 and was damaged by their
illegal policy and/or practices. The Plaintiff was denied the
compensation he was due under the FLSA. The class of similarly
situated employees consists of all current and former restaurant
workers, including cooks and dishwashers who were employed by
Defendant during the three-year period preceding the filing of
this Complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jian Hang, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC.
          136-18 38th Ave., Suite 10G
          Flushing, New York 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353 8588
          E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


IMERYS TALC: Union Company Named in $110 Million Talc Judgment
--------------------------------------------------------------
Monte Miller, writing for Missourian, reported that a union
company contracted with a subsidiary of pharmaceutical giant
Johnson & Johnson is listed as the reason Missouri was an
appropriate venue for a lawsuit resulting in a $110.5 million
personal injury award.

The world's leading talc producer, Imerys Talc, contracts with
Pharma Tech Industries, which has a facility in Union, for
labeling, packaging and distribution of its talc products.

The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed in 2014 by Virginia
resident Lois Slemp, who claimed the use of Johnson & Johnson
baby powder and Shower to Shower products caused her ovarian
cancer.

New Jersey-based Johnson & Johnson had appealed the class action
award citing only two of the 59 plaintiffs were from Missouri and
the case did not meet jurisdictional requirements to file the
case in Missouri.

Lawyers for Johnson & Johnson and Imerys have argued that Pharma
Tech was only a contractor for the larger firms and should not
have been a factor in the case being filed in Missouri.

On November 29, St. Louis Circuit Judge Rex Burlison ruled the
case met the parameters to file the case in Missouri, which
preserved the original verdict.

Other personal injury awards in the 22nd Judicial Circuit in St.
Louis against Johnson & Johnson have been overturned based on a
U.S. Supreme Court ruling limiting where injury lawsuits can be
filed.

Johnson & Johnson issued a statement that they would appeal Judge
Burlison's ruling.

Pharma-Tech

According to its corporate website Pharma Tech is the largest
pharmaceutical contract manufacturer and packager of powder
products worldwide.

Pharma Tech Industries offers fully integrated supply chain
support for some of the most trusted pharmaceutical and wellness
companies in the world.

It is headquartered in Athens, Ga., and in addition to the Union
facility it also has a plant in Royston, Ga.

Pharma Tech Industries, which is located at 1310 Style Master
Drive in the Union Industrial Park, manufactures pharmaceutical
products.

More specifically, the company produces topical powders --
medicated powders and foot and body powders -- for other
pharmaceutical companies.

It is known as a "contract manufacturer," which means the company
doesn't produce its own products, but rather its customers'
products.

In 1994, the company moved to its current location at the Union
Industrial Park from its former location off Highway 47, between
Washington and Union.

The Union facility employs about 100 people. [GN]


INC RESEARCH: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of persons and entities that acquired INC Research
Holdings, Inc. securities between May 10, 2017, and November 9,
2017, inclusive, asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from the
date of this notice to move the court to serve as lead plaintiff
in this action.

On August 1, 2017, the Company announced that it completed a
merger (the "Merger") with inVentiv Health, Inc. ("inVentiv").
And, the Company represented to investors that the Merger was the
beginning of an industry changing company, with high expectations
for revenue growth and profitability. However, on November 9,
2017, the first quarter after the Merger, INCR reported a net
loss of $88.9 million, as well as impairment charges to the
Company's intangible assets. Analysts noted that the Company's
fourth quarter guidance was worrisome given the challenges that
inVentiv's commercial business faced.

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $16.35 per share, or
28.4%, to close at $41.15 per share on November 9, 2017, on
unusually heavy trading volume. The Company's share price
continued to fall over the next three trading sessions, closing
on November 14, 2017 at $34.35 per share, a total decline of
$23.15 per share, or 40.3%.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse
facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose: (1) that the Merger
was not providing the benefit that Defendants stated it would;
(2) that inVentiv was underperforming; (3) that, as a result, the
Company's 2017 financial performance would be negatively
impacted; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
statements about INCR's business, operations, and prospects, were
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Follow us for updates on Twitter: twitter.com/GPM_LLP.

If you purchased shares of INCR during the Class Period you may
move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this notice
to ask the Court to appoint you as lead if you meet certain legal
requirements. To be a member of the Class you need not take any
action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or
take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you
wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley
Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los
Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-
9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our
website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.

         Contact:
         Lesley Portnoy, Esq.
         Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP, Los Angeles
         Tel. No.: 310-201-9150
         888-773-9224
         Email: lportnoy@glancylaw.com [GN]


INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Customers File Class Action Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------
Maria Nikolova, writing for Finance feeds, reports that the
peculiarities of portfolio margin accounts are at the heart of a
newly launched lawsuit against electronic trading firm
Interactive Brokers LLC. The class action complaint was filed by
two clients of the broker -- Timothy Moss and Heather Hauptman,
with the New York Southern District Court on December 1.

The document, seen by FinanceFeeds, accuses the broker of
unlawful management of a number of portfolio margin accounts.

The plaintiffs explain that "portfolio margin" generally allows
for the use of higher leverage than standard "strategy-based"
margin lending (commonly referred to as "Regulation T" margin
lending). The United States Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) and the regulatory predecessor to the Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority (FINRA) amended FINRA Rule 4210 in 2007 to
allow, for certain types of securities, portfolio margin trading
in retail customer accounts. Rule 4210(g) provides that broker-
dealers may use portfolio margin to calculate margin requirements
using a "risk-based" model. However, this is allowed only in
relation to specifically enumerated security types, such as
equity-based securities, and derivatives on eligible equity
securities -- like options or warrants on equities.

According to the plaintiffs, Interactive Brokers disregarded this
rule in administering its customers' Portfolio Margin Accounts.
Instead, the broker provided portfolio margin treatment for
Exchange Traded Notes (ETNs), such as the Barclays Bank PLC iPath
S&P 500 VIX Short-Term Futures ETN, traded under the symbol VXX.
The plaintiffs argue that ETNs, and the VXX in particular, are
not equities or (derivatives of equities), but instead are
unsecured debt instruments. As unsecured debt instruments, ETNs
-- like the VXX -- are not among the approved list of investment
products eligible for portfolio margin.

Interactive Brokers is said to have been informed by both FINRA
regulators and the Options Clearing Corporation that unsecured
debt instruments such as the VXX are ineligible for portfolio
margin and risk-based margining treatment. For instance, in an
email to David Battan, General Counsel and Executive Vice
President of Interactive Brokers, Steve Yannolo from FINRA Credit
Regulation stated: "it was recently brought to our attention that
the OCC is providing P/L for ETNs. Since these are debt
instruments, they are ineligible for portfolio margin."

The plaintiffs allege that by continuing to provide portfolio
margin's risk-based margining treatment for open positions in
ETNs and options on ETNs -- such as the VXX -- the broker
violated FINRA rules and breached its contractual agreements with
its customers.

The plaintiffs -- Mr Moss and Ms Hauptman, engaged the services
of a financial advisory firm, Meridian Capital Advisors, LLC and
provided the firm with discretionary authority over their
investments. Their accounts with IB account included VXX
positions and IB was improperly applying Portfolio Margin
treatment to their VXX positions.

As of the end of day on August 21, 2015, the total value in Ms.
Hauptman's Portfolio Margin Account was in excess of $200,000. At
the end of the day on August 21, 2015, Mr. Moss' account was
valued at approximately $186,000.

Over the weekend after August 21, 2015, events unfolding in the
Asian markets led to a drop in US stock futures. At around 12:00
AM on the morning of August 24, 2015, Interactive Brokers changed
the margin requirements, increasing the margin requirement for
the VXX and VXX option positions for all of its clients,
including the plaintiffs. When the market opened on August 24,
2015, the Dow index dropped 1,000 points and the price of the VXX
spiked. As a result, the value of plaintiffs' Portfolio Margin
Accounts (and those of all similarly situated IB customers)
dropped. Also, because the broker had increased the Portfolio
Margin requirements, many customers were put into a margin
deficiency situation.

In the month of August, Ms. Hauptman's account lost over
$175,000, primarily as a result of the VXX and VXX option trades
that occurred using Portfolio Margin leverage. Likewise, in the
month of August, Mr Moss lost around $150,000, with most of the
losses due to VXX and VXX option trades that occurred using
portfolio margin leverage.

Plaintiffs propose the following Class definition: All persons
who held a Portfolio Margin Account with Interactive Brokers,
LLC, containing a position or option in an ETN at any point from
December 1, 2011 through the date of judgment, and whose ETN
positions received Portfolio Margin treatment.

They accuse Interactive Brokers of, inter alia, Breach of
Contract, Unjust Enrichment, and Breach of the Implied Covenant
of Good Faith and Fair Dealing. The Plaintiffs seek injunctive
and declaratory relief on behalf of themselves and all Class
members, as well as damages in their individual capacity.

The case is captioned Hauptman et al v. Interactive Brokers, LLC
(1:17-cv-09382). [GN]


JAMES HARDIE: New Hope for Leaky Home Owners
--------------------------------------------
SunLive reports that leaky home owners on the Tauranga City
Council's leaky homes register are offered new hope with the
Court of Appeal decision opening the door to a class action
against cladding manufacturer James Hardie.

There are 223 claims on the Tauranga city council register of
leaky homes claims and the total paid out on them by the Tauranga
City Council so far is $6.85m

The register includes potential claims or closed claims that the
city council has been notified of under the Weathertight Homes
Resolution Services Act 2006.

Tauranga City Council has also been served with proceedings
outside of the WHRS and has currently four active claims.

The update on the register comes as leaky home owners are offered
another opportunity to re-coup losses, a class action lawsuit
against cladding manufacturer James Hardie.

Leaky home owners who have received no satisfaction through the
council process have until January 30 to join the class action.

A judgement released declined James Hardie's leave to appeal to
the Supreme Court meaning the Court of Appeal decision stands,
allowing the claim to proceed as a class action, with a final
opt-in date of January 30, 2018.

They claim inherent defects in cladding systems manufactured by
James Hardie, and that James Hardie made misleading statements in
its technical literature.  Because of the allegation that a large
number of homes are affected, the leaky home owners sough and
were granted orders to be able to bring the class action.

All owners or previous owners of properties using the relevant
cladding systems who are already represented or who in future
elect to opt in can be included.

Leaky building owners represented by Wellington law firm Parker &
Associates are encouraging people to move quickly.

"We are dealing with a large number of enquiries, many from
people who have seen and are responding to the claim for the
first time," says the group's lawyer, Dan Parker, Esq. --
dan.parker@parkerandassociates.co.nz

"A number of owners have approached us unaware of any problems
with their properties until expert investigations identify
issues. They have subsequently joined the claim.

"We will be pushing forward now to deal with owner enquiries and
to get as many owners signed on as possible. As it is a self-
funded action, the bigger the group is, the lower the costs per
owner.

"The opt-in period will be the last chance for most affected
owners to pursue any legal action for recovery of their losses.
If they join during the opt-in period they will not be affected
by a 15-year limitation longstop that will probably otherwise bar
claims after the opt-in period expires.

"Also the Supreme Court confirmed in the leaky schools litigation
that the 10 year Building Act limitation longstop does not apply
to a product liability claim like this," says Dan.

The group first brought a product liability claim against James
Hardie New Zealand Limited and James Hardie company, Studorp
Limited, in negligence and for breach in the Fair Trading Act in
2015.

Owners allege that leaks in their homes are attributable to
inherent defects in cladding systems manufactured by James
Hardie. They also claim James Hardie made misleading statements
about its cladding systems in its technical literature. James
Hardie denies the allegations.

Thousands of properties were built using Harditex from 1987 until
the early 2000s. Titan Board was widely used from 1995.

Owners of monolithic clad buildings constructed since 1987 using
Harditex or Titan board are urged to get in touch to find out how
to opt in to join the claim. Experts can be arranged to
investigate whether the materials in question have been used and
whether damage has resulted. [GN]


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Welfare Suit Over Remicade Price-Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Welfare Fund of Plumbers Local Union No. 200, on its own
behalf and on behalf of all persons or entities similarly
situated v. Johnson & Johnson and Janssen Biotech, Inc., Case No.
2:17-cv-05481-JCJ (E.D. Pa., December 7, 2017), arises out of the
Defendants' extensive, anti-competitive scheme, through a web of
exclusionary contracts with both health insurers and healthcare
providers, in an effort to maintain and extend its monopoly in
the market for Remicade and to suppress competition and maintain
prices to Remicade purchasers above the competitive level that
would have prevailed with the advent of effective competition by
biosimilar providers.

The Defendants operate an international pharmaceutical company
with its principal place of business in the United States at One
Johnson & Johnson Plaza, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08933. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq.
      James C. Shah, Esq.
      Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq.
      35 E. State Street
      Media, PA 19063
      Telephone: (610) 891-9880
      Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
      E-mail: nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com
              jshah@sfmslaw.com
              jgoldstein@sfmslaw.com

         - and -

      Joseph Goldberg, Esq.
      Vincent J. Ward, Esq.
      Frank T. Davis, Esq.
      Nicholas T. Hart, Esq.
      Jeremy D. Farris, Esq.
      FREEDMAN BOYD HOLLANDER GOLDBERG URIAS & WARD P.A.
      20 First Plaza, Suite 700
      Albuquerque, NM 87102
      Telephone: (505) 842-9960
      Facsimile: (505-842-0761
      E-mail: jg@fbdlaw.com
              vjw@fbdlaw.com
              ftd@fbdlaw.com
              NickH@fbdlaw.com
              jdf@fbdlaw.com

         - and -

      Charles R. Peifer, Esq.
      PEIFER, HANSON & MULLINS, P.A.
      20 First Plaza, Suite 725
      Albuquerque, NM 87102
      Telephone: (505) 247-4800
      Facsimile: (505) 243-6458
      E-mail: cpeifer@peiferlaw.com


KAMALIKULTURE LLC: Faces "Lopez" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kamalikulture LLC.
The case is styled Victor Lopez and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v Kamalikulture LLC and
Norma Kamali, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-10079 (S.D.N.Y.,
December 26, 2017).

Kamalikulture LLC is engaged in fashion through style fitness
health and beauty.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


KEMPHARM INC: Iowa Class Action Suit Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------
Kempharm, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017, that the company continues to defend itself
in a class action suit filed a stockholder, in the Iowa District
Court in Johnson County.

In December 2016, Kempharm, Inc. received notice of a class
action suit filed against it in the Iowa District Court in
Johnson County by a stockholder alleging that the company,
certain of its senior executives and directors who signed the
registration statement in connection with its initial public
offering, and each of the investment banks that acted as
underwriters for the offering negligently issued untrue
statements of material facts and omitted to state material facts
required to be stated in the registration statement and
incorporated offering materials that the company filed with the
SEC in support of the offering.

The plaintiff does not quantify any alleged damages in his
complaint but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, the
plaintiff seeks to recover damages and obtain other relief on
behalf of himself and all other persons who purchased the
company's common stock pursuant or traceable to the offering and
the registration statement and who were allegedly damaged
thereby.

In January 2017, the suit was removed to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa. The plaintiff subsequently
filed a motion to remand the case to the Iowa District Court, and
that motion was granted. The suit is still in a preliminary stage
and has not yet been set for trial.

Kempharm said "We cannot predict the timing or outcome of this
litigation and irrespective of its outcome, this litigation may
cause us to incur substantial costs in related legal fees and
divert management's attention and resources from our business."

Kempharm, Inc. is a clinical-stage specialty pharmaceutical
company engaged in the discovery and development of proprietary
prodrugs that the company believes will be improved versions of
widely prescribed, approved drugs. The company employs its Ligand
Activated Therapy, or LAT, platform technology to create its
prodrugs. The company is based in Coralville, California.


KIRSCHENBAUM PHILLIPS: Faces "Joseph" Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kirschenbaum
Phillips & Levy, P.C. The case is styled Johanne Joseph,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v Kirschenbaum Phillips & Levy, P.C., Defendant, Case
No. 1:17-cv-07533 (E.D.N.Y., December 27, 2017).

Kirschenbaum Phillips & Levy, P.C. is a law firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


LORD & TAYLOR: Faces "Lopez" Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lord & Taylor, LLC.
The case is styled Victor Lopez and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Lord & Taylor, LLC and
Lord & Taylor Holdings LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-10022
(S.D.N.Y., December 22, 2017).

Lord & Taylor is the oldest luxury department store in the United
States, headquartered in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
   The Law Offices of Bradly G. Marks
   280 Park Avenue South
   New York, NY 10010
   Tel: (646) 770-3775
   Fax: (212) 254-4202
   Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


MARKETSOURCE INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Sanford Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
YVONNE SANFORD, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. MARKETSOURCE, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05245-ELR (N.D. Ga., Dec. 19, 2017),
seeks to recover overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was classified by
Defendant as an exempt salaried employee, prior up until November
2016, when Defendant announced it was reclassifying all inside
sales representatives and business development and sales
development employees to hourly employees.

The Plaintiff's work duties and responsibilities dictate that she
should have been classified and compensated as a non-exempt
employee under the FLSA. Throughout the course of her employment
by Marketsource, Plaintiff was always denied overtime
compensation even though she routinely worked overtime hours with
the knowledge, encouragement and behest of Marketsource
management.

The Plaintiff routinely came in early, worked through some or all
of her lunch break, and stayed later than the required mandatory
shift ending time, and was not paid for all her overtime hours,
and not paid at time and one half her regular rate to include
commissions in the rates.

MarketSource provides outsourced sales solutions for
organizations. It offers retailer solutions, such as direct
sales, experiential demo days, consumer engagement, and
merchandising audit and enhancement; and manufacturer and
services solutions, including training and brand advocacy, direct
and assisted sales.[BN]

Attorneys for the Representative Plaintiff, and the Putative
Class:

          Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
          FELDMAN WILLIAMS PLLC
          1201 Peachtree Street, NE
          400 Colony Square, No. 200
          Atlanta, GA 30361
          Telephone: (877) 946 8293
          Facsimile: (813) 639 9376
          E-mail: mitch@feldmanwilliams.com


MARRIOTT VACATIONS: "Astrahan" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cheri Astrahan, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation
dba Marriott Vacation Club, and Does 1 through 10, Case No. 8:17-
cv-02139 (C.D. Calif., December 7, 2017), seeks damages and any
other available legal or equitable remedies under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiff Cheri Astrahan is a resident of Los Alamitos,
California.

Defendant Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation dba Marriott
Vacation Club is a business engaged in the sale of vacation
timeshares and other hospitality services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MDL 2741: "Beaudet" Class Suit vs. Monsanto Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on October 30, 2017 captioned
David Beaudet, Ramon And Norman Benacidez, Ronald And Andrea
Brook, Dean And Deborah Brooks, Marie Carlisle As Next Of Kin For
Amanda Conway, Rosalinda Castro, Richard Colasuonno, Dianne Cox,
Christopher Dannen, Michael Furnice, Jesus And Isabelle Gastelum,
Candy Glenn, Mark And Becky Golike, Michael Grasso, Derril Hayes,
Cecelia Hines, Sam And Martha Hoffman, Dena Jones, Erwin Klaas,
Kevin Kraner, Thomas And Carol Laguidice, Timm Larson, Leanne
Lathrop, Robydee Laumbach, Randy Luff, Jonathan Machtemes,
Richard Manegio, James And Susan Modisher, Jerry And Kaffle
Pitman, Denise Pitts As Next Of Kin For Kirk Pitts, Rhonda And
Jason Powell, Morris And Katheleen Price, Juan Rivera, Thomas And
Renae Sampson, Frederick Sands, Timothy Scully, Daniel Shaw,
Lewis Smith Iii, Irene Springer, Dave And Barbara Stephens,
Frederick Thornton, Fred Vanderlaan, Gary And Rhonda Walker,
Donald And Denise White, Ben And Laura Zupan, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case
No. 4:17-cv-02656 was transferred on December 5, 2017 from the
U.S. District Court Eastern District of Missouri to the U.S.
District Court California Northern District. The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-06902-VC to the proceeding.

The Case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation titled
In re: Roundup Products Liability MDL 2741. According to an order
entered by the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, it appears that the actions in the litigation involve
questions of fact that are common to the actions previously
transferred to the Eastern District of Missouri and assigned to
Judge Catherine D. Perry.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James T. Corrigan, Esq.
      ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C.
      110 East Lockwood
      St. Louis, MO 63119
      Telephone: (314) 963-9000
      E-mail: corrigan@onderlaw.com


MDL 2800: "Butler" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Kathryn France Butler, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Equifax Inc., a Georgia corporation, the Defendants, Case No.
3:17-cv-02158, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California, to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta), on Dec. 10, 2017.
The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-
05242-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]


MDL 2800: "Fried" Suit vs. Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Albert Louis Fried, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Equifax Inc., a Georgia corporation, and Does 1-100, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-01955, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
(Atlanta), on Dec. 10, 2017. The Northern District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05240-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 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: "Mead" Suit vs Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Terry Mead and Sean Knute Adcock,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. Equifax. Inc. and Equifax Information Services,
LLC., the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00208, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
(Atlanta) MDL 2800, on Dec. 10, 2017. The Northern District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05251-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:

          Edward Chapin, Esq.
          Kevin H. Sharp, Esq.
          SANDFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 577 4253
          Facsimile: (619) 577 4250
          E-mail: ksharp@sanfordheisler.com


MDL 2800: "Quagliani" Suit vs Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Natalie Quagliani and Cheryl
Tafas, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. Equifax, Inc., Equifax Health Services, and
Equifax Credit Information Services, Inc., the Defendants, Case
No. 3:17-cv-01668, was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the District of Connecticut, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta), on Dec. 10, 2017. The
Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05250-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]


MDL 2800: "Turner" Suit vs Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Nathan Turner, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
Equifax Inc., a Georgia corporation, the Defendants, Case No.
3:17-cv-02041, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Southern 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 Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:17-cv-05241-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 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


MERRIMAN RIVER: Faces "Santiago" Suit Over Prerecorded Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
Marissa Santiago, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Merriman River Associates, LLC, Case No.
3:17-cv-02054 (D. Conn., December 7, 2017), seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of using an artificial and prerecorded voice
to deliver a message without prior express consent of the called
party.

Merriman River Associates, LLC offers comprehensive polling
services to campaigns throughout the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan M. Shapiro, Esq.
      SHAPIRO LAW OFFICES, LLC
      32 Washington Street
      Middletown, CO 06457
      Telephone: (860) 347-3325
      Facsimile: (860) 347-3874
      E-mail: jshapiro@shapirolawofficesct.com

         - and -

      Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq.
      Kevin Abramowicz, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
      1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
      Pittsburgh, PA 15222
      Telephone: (412) 322-9243
      E-mail: bsweet@carlsonlynch.com
              kabramowicz@carlsonlynch.com

         - and -

      Michael K. Yarnoff, Esq.
      THE KEHOE LAW FIRM, P.C.
      Two Penn Center Plaza
      1500 JFK Boulevard, Suite 1020
      Philadelphia, PA 19102
      Telephone: (215) 792-6676
      E-mail: jkehoe@kehoelawfirm.com


METHOD HOSPITALITY: Faces "Godino" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Method Hospitality
LLC. The case is styled Michael Godino, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v Method Hospitality
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-05766-PD (E.D. Pa., December 26,
2017).

Method Hospitality LLC is engaged in the restaurant and hotel
industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   C.K. Lee, Esq.
   Lee Litigation Group, PLLC
   30 East 39th Street
   Second Floor
   New York, NY 10016
   Tel: (212) 465-1188
   Email: cklee@leelitigation.com


METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION: Faces "Sevin" Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Metropolitan
Transportation Authority. The case is styled Daniel Sevin, Peter
Delvecchio and The Association of Commuter Rail Employees,
individually and as representatives of a class of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff v. Metropolitan Transportation
Authority, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-10051-AKH (S.D.N.Y.,
December 22, 2017).

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) is a public
benefit corporation responsible for public transportation in the
U.S. state of New York, serving 12 counties in Downstate New
York, along with two counties in southwestern Connecticut under
contract to the Connecticut Department of Transportation,
carrying over 11 million passengers on an average weekday
systemwide, and over 800,000 vehicles on its seven toll bridges
and two tunnels per weekday. MTA is the largest public transit
authority in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Stephen John Fearon, Jr., Esq.
   Squitieri & Fearon LLP
   32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor
   New York, NY 10022
   Tel: (212) 575-2092
   Fax: (212) 575-2184
   Email: stephen@sfclasslaw.com


MISSONI USA: Faces "Lopez" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Missoni Usa Inc.
The case is styled Victor Lopez and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v Missoni Usa Inc. and YNAP
Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-10081 (S.D.N.Y.,
December 26, 2017).

Missoni is a high-end Italian fashion house based in Varese, and
known for its colorful knitwear designs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
   The Law Offices of Bradly G. Marks
   280 Park Avenue South
   New York, NY 10010
   Tel: (646) 770-3775
   Fax: (212) 254-4202
   Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


MOHAMMAD BASEL: Faces "Gutierrez" Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mohammad Basel
Eltell. The case is styled Araceli Mendez Gutierrez, individually
and in behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff
v Mohammad Basel Eltell, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-10088
(S.D.N.Y., December 26, 2017).

Mohammad Basel Eltell is working at a financial institution.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


MOPHIE INC: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in "Stotz" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Eric Stotz, the Plaintiff, v. Mophie Inc.,
the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-08898-GW-FFM (C.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge George H. Wu entered an order:

   1. granting Defendant's motion to exclude; and

   2. denying Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment and
      Plaintiff's Motion for class certification.

Plaintiffs Eric Stotz and Alan Charles sue Mophie alleging that
its "Juice Packs" products significantly damaged the internal
battery of the iPhones such that the iPhones were rendered almost
unusable without a Juice Pack attached.  They contend that if
Defendant revealed to consumers that a Juice Pack will degrade
and not increase an iPhone's battery life, consumers would not
purchase Juice Packs.

A copy of the Civil Minutes - General is available at no charge
at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=JcNtoxkt

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas Wheeler, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          FROST BROWN TODD
          201 North Illinois Street, Suite 1900
          Indianapolis, IN 46204-4236
          Telephone: (317) 237 3810
          Facsimile: (317) 237 3900

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jed H. Hansen, Esq.
          Mark M. Bettilyon, Esq.
          Peter M. De Jonge, Esq.
          Daniel S. Silverman, Esq.
          THORPE NORTH & WESTERN
          Sandy, UT 84070
          8180 South 700 East, Suite 350
          Telephone: (801) 566 6633
          Facsimile: (801) 566 0750
          E-mail: hansen@tnw.com
                  mark.bettilyon@tnw.com
                  dejonge@tnw.com


MORRISONS: Victory for Workers in Data Leak Compensation Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Telegraph reports that the High Court has allowed a
compensation claim by thousands of Morrisons staff whose personal
details were posted on the internet.

The case has potential implications for every individual and
business in the country.

It follows a security breach in 2014 when Andrew Skelton, a
senior internal auditor at the retailer's Bradford headquarters,
leaked the payroll data of nearly 100,000 employees -- including
their names, addresses, bank account details and salaries --
putting it online and sending it to newspapers

A group of 5,518 former and current Morrisons employees said this
exposed them to the risk of identity theft and potential
financial loss and that Morrisons was responsible for breaches of
privacy, confidence and data protection laws.

They are seeking compensation for the upset and distress caused.

Morrisons said it could not be held directly or vicariously
liable for Skelton's criminal misuse of the data and any other
conclusion would be grossly unjust.

Following Mr Justice Langstaff's decision on liability on
Decemebr 1, Nick McAleenan, of JMW Solicitors, said: "The High
Court has ruled that Morrisons was legally responsible for the
data leak.

"We welcome the judgment and believe that it is a landmark
decision, being the first data leak class action in the UK."

The judge ruled that vicarious liability, but not primary
liability, had been established.

He said: "I hold that the Data Protection Act (DPA) does not
impose primary liability upon Morrisons; that Morrisons have not
been proved to be at fault by breaking any of the data protection
principles, save in one respect which was not causative of any
loss; and that neither primary liability for misuse of private
information nor breach of confidentiality can be established.

"I reject, however, the arguments that the DPA upon a proper
interpretation is such that no vicarious liability can be
established, and that its terms are such as to exclude vicarious
liability even in respect of actions for misuse of private
information or breach of confidentiality."

He added: "The point which most troubled me in reaching these
conclusions was the submission that the wrongful acts of Skelton
were deliberately aimed at the party whom the claimants seek to
hold responsible, such that to reach the conclusion I have may
seem to render the court an accessory in furthering his criminal
aims.

"I grant leave to Morrisons to appeal my conclusion as to
vicarious liability, should they wish to do so, so that a higher
court may consider it, but would not, without further persuasion,
grant permission to cross-appeal my conclusions as to primary
liability."

Mr McAleenan said: "Every day, we entrust information about
ourselves to businesses and organisations. We expect them to take
responsibility when our information is not kept safe and secure.

"In the Morrisons case, almost 100,000 bank account details,
National Insurance numbers and other data was entrusted to a
fellow employee to look after. Instead, however, he uploaded the
information to the internet.

"This private information belonged to my clients. They are
Morrisons checkout staff, shelf stackers, factory workers -
ordinary people doing their jobs.

"The consequences of this data leak were serious. It created
significant worry, stress and inconvenience for my clients."

In July 2015 Skelton was found guilty at Bradford Crown Court of
fraud, securing unauthorised access to computer material and
disclosing personal data and jailed for eight years.

The trial heard that his motive appeared to have been a grudge
over a previous incident where he was accused of dealing in legal
highs at work. [GN]


MOVES LLC: Faces "Mendizabal" Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Moves LLC. The case
is styled Maria Mendizabal, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v Moves LLC doing business as:
Chelsea Mini Storage d/b/a CHELSEA MINI STORAGE, Defendant, Case
No. 1:17-cv-10071 (S.D.N.Y., December 24, 2017).

Moves LLC is an emerging New York City moving company that offers
commercial and residential moving, moving supplies, and
storage.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


MUJI USA: Faces "Lopez" Suit in Southern District of New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Muji U.S.A.
Limited. The case is styled Victor Lopez and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Muji U.S.A.
Limited, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-10018 (S.D.N.Y., December
22, 2017).

MUJI offers a wide variety of good quality items from stationery
to household items and apparel.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
   The Law Offices of Bradly G. Marks
   280 Park Avenue South
   New York, NY 10010
   Tel: (646) 770-3775
   Fax: (212) 254-4202
   Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


NANETTE LEPORE: Faces "Lopez" Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nanette Lepore
Consulting, LLC. The case is styled Victor Lopez and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v Nanette Lepore
Consulting, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-10080 (S.D.N.Y.,
December 26, 2017).

Nanette Lepore Consulting, LLC is provides fashion design and
consulting services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
   The Law Offices of Bradly G. Marks
   280 Park Avenue South
   New York, NY 10010
   Tel: (646) 770-3775
   Fax: (212) 254-4202
   Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


NFL: Separate Trial Sought in Lawsuit by Player's Daughter
----------------------------------------------------------
Laurel J. Sweet, writing for Boston Herald, reports that lawyers
for Aaron Hernandez's 5-year-old daughter are trying to prevent
her $20 million lawsuit against the National Football League from
being merged with a massive class-action dispute addressing
player concussions.

The NFL and co-defendants, including helmet manufacturer Riddell,
are asking U.S. District Court Judge George A. O'Toole Jr. to
temporarily stay all proceedings in the child's case.  They're
asking O'Toole to hold off until the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation rules whether issues raised over
Hernandez's advanced and posthumously diagnosed Chronic Traumatic
Encephalopathy are sufficiently common to remove the civil action
from Massachusetts and add it to dozens of other head-injury
claims against the NFL by former players and their families
pending in a federal court in Philadelphia.

The defendants say there's nothing unique about the Mr. Hernandez
daughter's case to warrant a separate trial, noting that "several
of the current plaintiffs in the MDL are children of former
players. . . ."

"Transfer of this case to the MDL Court is highly likely, if not
inevitable," the defendants told Judge O'Toole in their filing
late, citing a conditional transfer order already issued by the
JPML.  The legal might behind Hernandez's only known child and
heir are vigorously fighting the order.

The child's lawyers want her case tried separately in a state
court, arguing in their motion to remand to Norfolk Superior
Court that their sole claim is for loss of parental consortium,
and that the girl "obviously never played football at all, much
less professionally, and as an NFLPA (National Football League
Players' Association) union member."

The lawyers assert in their complaint that the disgraced former
New England Patriots tight end, who was convicted of one murder
and acquitted of two others before his jailhouse suicide April 19
at age 27, lived a "chaotic and horrendous existence" as a result
of being neurologically compromised by playing football for more
than two decades.  They allege the child was deprived of her
father's love, affection and companionship while he was alive
because his job made him sick. Hernandez's murder conviction was
vacated after his suicide because it was on appeal.

"Plaintiff claims that defendants knew football -- not NFL
football -- was deadly and/or injurious, and hid this information
from the world," states the child's suit, brought by Hernandez's
fiancee Shayanna Jenkins Hernandez.  "There is literally no way
to stop CTE beyond giving the world notice of the harms inherent
in football."

The Hernandez lawyers accuse the NFL and others of trying to bury
the girl's potentially heart-rending claims amid numerous other
claims, so her case will "remain paralyzed." [GN]


NICOLE MILLER LTD: Faces "Lopez" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nicole Miller Ltd.
Soho. The case is styled Victor Lopez and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Nicole Miller Ltd. Soho
and Kobra International, Ltd., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-10017
(S.D.N.Y., December 22, 2017).

Nicole Miller Ltd. Soho offers bridal gown, cocktail dress and
wedding gown.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
   The Law Offices of Bradly G. Marks
   280 Park Avenue South
   New York, NY 10010
   Tel: (646) 770-3775
   Fax: (212) 254-4202
   Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


NORTH ATLANTIC SECURITY: "Salughter" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
KENDRICK SALUGHTER, NADIA WALKER, ANTJUAN JETHROW, ALMA WREN,
MATTIE COLLINS, JINISHA SIMONDS, DAISY LANDRUM, CORTEZ LANDRUM
NANNETTE TANKSLEY, AND DEION SANDERS, on behalf of Themselves and
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. NORTH ATLANTIC
SECURITY COMPANY, AND JOHN DOES 1-20, Individually, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00210-GHD-DAS (N.D. Miss., Dec. 19,
2017), seeks to recover overtime wages under Fair Labor Standards
Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and the similarly
situated individuals regularly worked over 40 hours without
receiving proper compensation for their overtime hours
worked.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          W. HOWARD GUNN
          310 South Hickory Street
          Post Office Box 157
          Aberdeen, MS 39730
          Telephone: 662 369 8533


OLIPHANT FINANCIAL: Faces "Traina" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oliphant Financial,
LLC. The case is styled Joseph Traina and Jean M. Schwizer,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v Oliphant Financial, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-
cv-07473 (E.D.N.Y., December 22, 2017).

Oliphant Financial LLC is a debt purchasing organization.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


ONLINE INFORMATION: Faces "Antonov" Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Online Information
Services, Inc. The case is styled Fedor Antonov, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v Online
Information Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07496
(E.D.N.Y., December 26, 2017).

Online Information Services, Inc. is the nation's leading
developer of credit risk assessment and debt recovery solutions.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ONTARIO: EMDC Class Actions Gets National Primetime Coverage
------------------------------------------------------------
Two class actions concerning the conditions at London's Elgin
Middlesex Detention Centre ("EMDC") received national primetime
coverage on CBC's Fifth Estate. The episode aired December 1,
2017.  It aired again on the CBC Newsworld channel on December 2
and 3, 2017, and will also be available for viewing on CBC's
website.

The first EMDC class action, Johnson v Ontario, was certified by
the Honourable Justice Grace of the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice on August 23, 2016. It was the first class action in
Ontario with respect to conditions in a jail. The second EMDC
class action, Hayne v Ontario, was certified by the Honourable
Justice Grace on consent on May 18, 2017.

Together, the two EMDC class actions have over 13,000 class
members -- all persons incarcerated at EMDC between January 1,
2010 to May 18, 2017, including those in custody at EMDC while
awaiting trial or another court appearance. They allege that EMDC
is overcrowded and fraught with violence, and that the conditions
there violate sections 7 and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms.

Kevin Egan, Esq. -- egan@mckenzielake.com -- a partner with
McKenzie Lake Lawyers LLP, started the first EMDC class action in
December 2013. He is assisted by members of McKenzie Lake's
highly experienced class actions team: Mike Peerless, Esq. --
peerless@mckenzielake.com -- Matt Baer, Esq. --
baer@mckenzielake.com -- Bill Jenkins, Esq. --
jenkins@mckenzielake.com -- and Chelsea Smith, Esq. --
csmith@mckenzielake.com

The team of five lawyers, along with Koskie Minsky LLP and Champ
and Associates, was successful in certifying a third detention
centre class action, this time concerning staffing-related
lockdowns in Ontario provincial correctional institutions. That
class action, Lapple v Ontario, was certified by the Honourable
Justice Glustein of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on
November 27, 2017 on consent. It alleges that inmates in
Ontario's provincial correctional institutions suffered physical
and psychological harm as a result of extended and common
lockdowns resulting from province-wide understaffing.

Kevin Egan stated, "If we, as a society, intend our justice
system to achieve its stated goals of deterrence and
rehabilitation, we must ensure that our jails support those
objectives. Jails must not be mere human warehouses or schools of
crime where inmates learn to disdain the law. They must be places
where basic human dignity, respect and opportunities to improve
abound. The present system is a failure. We are hopeful that
these class actions will awaken the authorities and prompt
positive change, which, ultimately, will benefit us all." [GN]


OPORTUN FINANCIAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Karla Arballo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Oportun Financial Corporation, Case No. 3:17-cv-
02439-H-BLM (S.D. Cal., December 5, 2017), to stop its practice
of making unsolicited calls to cellular phones of consumers.

Oportun Financial Corporation provides loans and other financial
services to persons with limited or no credit history, providing
loans ranging from $300.00 to $8,000.00, primarily to low-to-
moderate income persons. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas J. Campion, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF DOUGLAS J. CAMPION, APC
      17150 Via Del Campo, Suite 100
      San Diego, CA 92127
      Telephone: (619) 299-2091
      Facsimile: (619) 858-0034
      E-mail: doug@djcampion.com


OSCAR DE LA: Faces "Lopez" Suit in Southern District of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oscar De la Renta
Fur Co. LLC. The case is styled Victor Lopez and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Oscar De la Renta
Fur Co. LLC and Oscar De La Renta, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-10024 (S.D.N.Y., December 22, 2017).

Oscar de la Renta is one of the world's leading luxury goods
firms. The company was established in 1965, and currently
produces a full line of women's accessories, bridal, home
products, childrenswear and beauty, in addition to its signature
women's ready to wear collection.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
   The Law Offices of Bradly G. Marks
   280 Park Avenue South
   New York, NY 10010
   Tel: (646) 770-3775
   Fax: (212) 254-4202
   Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


OSI SYSTEMS: "Longo" Suit Alleges Securities Law Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cory Longo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v.  OSI Systems, Inc., Deepak Chopra, and Alan Edrick,
Case No. 2:17-cv-08841 (C.D. Calif., December 7, 2017), seeks to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

This is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that
acquired OSI securities between August 21, 2013 and December 6,
2017 (the "Class Period").

Plaintiff Cory Longo, purchased OSI securities during the Class
Period, and suffered damages as a result of the federal
securities law violations and false and misleading statements and
material omissions alleged herein.

Defendant OSI Systems, Inc. purportedly designs and manufactures
specialized electronic systems and components.  The Company
claims that it sells its products and provides related services
in diversified markets, including homeland security, healthcare,
defense, and aerospace. Defendant is incorporated in Delaware and
its principal executive offices are in Hawthorne, California.
OSI's common stock trades on the NASDAQ Stock Market under the
symbol "OSIS."

Defendant Deepak Chopra was the Chief Executive Officer of OSI at
all relevant times.

Defendant Alan Edrick was the Chief Financial Officer of OSI at
all relevant times. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
      Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
      Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Tel: (310) 201-9150
      Fax: (310) 201-9160
      E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com


PACIFIC GAS: Lieff Cabraser Sues Over North Bay Fires
-----------------------------------------------------
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP disclosed that Sky
Vineyards, Skyla Olds, Nancy Hitchcock and Herman Bossano,
Rebecca Bailey and Charles Holmes, and Transitioning Families
have filed a class action lawsuit in San Francisco Superior Court
against Pacific Gas & Electric Corporation ("PG&E") and related
parties for personal and business losses from the 2017 Northern
California wildfires (the "North Bay Fires") that occurred as a
result of PG&E's failure to properly and safely maintain its
electrical infrastructure throughout the North Bay region.

                The October 2017 North Bay Fires

Beginning late in the evening on or about October 8, 2017, fires
broke out in several locations in Northern California and rapidly
spread through Butte, Calaveras, Lake, Mendocino, Napa, Nevada,
Solano, Sonoma, and Yuba counties. These North Bay Fires have
been the most destructive in California's modern history. The
conflagration was so massive that NASA satellites could see the
smoke from the Fires from space.

For those who witnessed the destruction firsthand, the Fires were
a horrifying and unfathomable sight. Bright orange flames forty,
fifty, and even one hundred feet high barreled down over the
hills. Sparks "thicker than any snowstorm" flew parallel to the
ground, and embers rained down like confetti. The region's
bucolic scenery was overwhelmed by the roaring of the Fires' loud
"freight train" sound.

The series of severe wildfires devastated nearly 250,000 acres
across nine Northern California counties, and more than 14,700
homes, 728 businesses and 3,600 vehicles have been damaged or
destroyed, along with similar damage to vineyards, other
agriculture, and livestock. One hundred thousand residents have
been displaced. Not all were able to escape. The deadliest fires
in California history the North Bay Fires have killed forty-three
people, and one hundred and eighty five have been injured. The
fires also resulted in 2,269 missing persons reports.

As the complaint alleges, these Fires had different points of
origin, but were all sparked by unsafe electrical infrastructure
owned, operated and (improperly) maintained by PG&E Corporation
and Pacific Gas & Electric Company.

"As our complaints allege, these fires shared common causes --
they were sparked by PG&E's unsafe electrical infrastructure,"
said Elizabeth Cabraser, one of plaintiffs' co-counsel. "These
preventable Fires have destroyed and disrupted Californians'
homes, businesses, livelihoods, and lives on an unprecedented
scale. All of those harmed have a stake in the swiftest possible
determination of liability, and in the fair and inclusive
allocation of damages and compensation."

                         The Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Sky Vineyards is a family-run vineyard and winery that
has been in operation for more than thirty years. Before the
fires, the property spanned two hundred acres and included Sky's
vineyards, winery building, and a home also used as an office.
The vast majority of the forested acreage and the vineyards were
burned in the Fires. The home office was completely destroyed
along with all of the personal property and business records
inside. The Fires also destroyed outbuildings and business
equipment on the property. A substantial portion of the vines
have been damaged or destroyed, as has wine that was aging or
stored.

Plaintiff Skyla Olds suffered economic and other damages because
of the Fires. Forced to evacuate her rental home in the middle of
the night, her escape was traumatic and greatly distressing to
Ms. Olds. The Fires destroyed the home and the majority of her
belongings, including original artwork and irreplaceable
sentimental items. Dealing with the aftermath of the fires has
forced her to stop working as a criminal defense attorney and
spend all her time addressing fire-caused issues, such as fire-
related erosion, and managing the recovery of Sky Vineyards.

Plaintiffs Nancy Hitchcock and Herman Bossano are a husband and
wife who lived in their home in Santa Rosa, California, for
twelve years. After losing power the night of the Fires, Ms.
Hitchcock called PG&E several times but never received any
response. After hearing what sounded like transformer explosions
on the street she and her husband evacuated, getting out only
minutes before their house exploded. That night the Fires
completely destroyed their home, two cars, and all of their
personal possessions. Both elderly Ms. Hitchcock and Mr. Bossano
are suffering from depression and anxiety because of the stresses
and total loss of their home caused by the Fires.

Plaintiffs Rebecca Bailey, Ph.D., and Charles Holmes were
longtime residents of Glen Ellen in Sonoma County, California,
occupying their home and ranch since 2002. The North Bay Fires
completely destroyed their home, two vehicles, and a horse
trailer. Their family was uprooted and lost everything: all of
their personal possessions, priceless memories, and many
antiques. Charles Holmes, a professional chef, lost thirty years
of recipes. They also lost several irreplaceable pieces of
original art.

Plaintiff Transitioning Families is a therapy practice run by
nationally recognized trauma therapist Rebecca Bailey, Ph.D.
Transitioning Families' clients specifically sought out the
peaceful and beautiful environment of wine country to help them
heal from trauma as well as to adjust to difficult changes in
their lives. After the Fires, Ms. Bailey's work from her clients
has diminished because the clients do not wish to travel to a
devastated area. Her business has also been affected by the
stress of losing her home and having to deal with the recovery
effort.

                  The Class Action Complaint

The class action complaint specifically alleges claims against
PG&E on behalf of plaintiffs for property damage, economic
losses, and disruption to their homes, businesses, lives, and
livelihoods grounded in negligence, inverse condemnation,
trespass, private and public nuisance, and premises liability, as
well as violations of the California Public Utilities Code and
the California Health & Safety Code, among other causes of
action. The case is brought as a class action because plaintiffs
strongly believe all those who suffered such damages and losses
should be fairly treated and included as beneficiaries of a
comprehensive and consistent adjudication or resolution of
liability and damages.

As noted in the complaint, PG&E had a duty to properly maintain
its electrical infrastructure and ensure surrounding trees and
vegetation were trimmed and kept at a safe distance. PG&E
violated that duty by knowingly operating aging, improperly
maintained infrastructure that it "ran to failure." In fact,
PG&E's violations had caused fires before, and PG&E had been
sanctioned numerous times for this. Yet PG&E's corporate culture
emphasized cutting corners. As a result of PG&E's corporate
policy of putting profits over public safety, plaintiffs and
others like them saw their homes, businesses, farms, and
vineyards damaged or destroyed, lost money and business, and will
spend years trying to rebuild their lives and livelihoods. Had
PG&E acted responsibly, these fires could have been prevented.

"It is heartbreaking to consider that the losses and deaths
suffered by the victims of the 2017 North Bay fires could have
been prevented had PG&E upheld its duties to its customers and
adequately and safely maintained its power lines and related
electrical infrastructure as mandated by law," notes plaintiffs'
co-counsel Lexi Hazam. "We hope our lawsuit will work to provide
justice to those devastated by the fires, and help raise
awareness of the serious fire dangers still present in thousands
of similar PG&E works and systems throughout Northern
California."

The complaint seeks compensation for plaintiffs' real and
personal property losses, loss of wages and earning capacity,
business profits, displacement expenses, and punitive damages,
among other claims. Fire victims and other interested parties can
learn more about the lawsuit at lieffcabraser.com/north-bay-
fires.

                   About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser has a long history of successfully championing the
rights of those injured or who have lost property and businesses
as a result of fires and other environmental disasters. Several
of Lieff Cabraser's attorneys live in the communities affected by
the North Bay Fires. Over the last 45 years, we have assisted our
clients in recovering over $118 billion in verdicts and
settlements. Our firm helped lead litigation against BP over the
2010 Gulf of Mexico Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion and oil
spill, successfully representing property owners, business
owners, wage earners, and other harmed parties. Lieff Cabraser
was also appointed by the court to lead litigation on behalf of
homeowners, businesses and employees who suffered economic
injuries relating to 2015 Plains pipeline oil spill in Santa
Barbara, and also helps lead two class action cases on behalf of
homeowners and businesses who suffered losses from the 2015-2016
Porter Ranch gas leak in Southern California.

Learn more about Lieff Cabraser online at www.lieffcabraser.com/.

         Lexi Hazam, Esq.
         Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein
         Tel. No.: 415-956-1000
         Email: lhazam@lchb.com [GN]


PAREXEL INTERNATIONAL: Shareholder Class Suits Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
Three shareholder class action lawsuits against Parexel
International Corporation have been dismissed, according to
notices of voluntary dismissal dated September 20, filed in each
case docket.

The Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June
30, 2017, that on July 24, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court of Massachusetts by
a shareholder of PAREXEL against the Company, members of the
Board of Directors, Pamplona, Parent and Merger Sub, captioned
Louis Scarantino v. PAREXEL International Corporation, et al.,
1:17-cv-11360.  On July 25, 2017, a second putative class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court of
Massachusetts by a shareholder of PAREXEL against the Company and
members of the Board of Directors, captioned Catherine Fischer v.
PAREXEL International Corporation, et al., 1:17-cv-11364.  On
July 27, 2017, a third putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court of Massachusetts by another
shareholder of PAREXEL against the Company and members of the
Board of Directors, captioned Peter Manning v. PAREXEL
International Corporation, et al., 1:17-cv-11376. All three
complaints allege that the preliminary proxy statement violates
Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act by
materially omitting material information related to the Company's
projections and the explanation of the analysis of the Company's
financial advisor, among other claims. All of the complaints
seek, among other things, equitable relief to enjoin the
consummation of the merger, rescission of the merger or
rescissory damages, compensatory damages, and attorneys' fees and
costs.

Parexel International said "The Company, the Board of Directors,
Pamplona, Parent and Merger Sub believe that the claims asserted
against them are without merit and intend to vigorously defend
against these lawsuits."

Parexel International Corporation is a biopharmaceutical services
outsourcing company, providing a broad range of expertise in
clinical research, clinical logistics, medical communications,
consulting, commercialization and advanced technology products
and services to the worldwide pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and
medical device industries. Its primary objective is to provide
quality solutions for managing the biopharmaceutical product
lifecycle with the goal of reducing the time, risk, and cost
associated with the development and commercialization of new
therapies.


PAUL STUART: Faces "Lopez" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Paul Stuart Inc.
The case is styled Victor Lopez and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Paul Stuart Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-10023 (S.D.N.Y., December 22, 2017).

Paul Stuart is a men's and women's clothing brand.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
   The Law Offices of Bradly G. Marks
   280 Park Avenue South
   New York, NY 10010
   Tel: (646) 770-3775
   Fax: (212) 254-4202
   Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


PAYPAL CANADA: Class Suit Alleges Hidden Currency Conversion Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News Toronto reports that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against PayPal Canada on behalf of an Ontario man alleging
that the online payments company charges Canadians hidden
currency conversion fees, violating its user agreement.

Court documents filed to the Ontario Superior Court on Nov. 24 on
behalf of Leonid Kaplan state that when PayPal Canada account
holders wish to withdraw foreign currency from their accounts,
the  company unilaterally and automatically converts those funds
to Canadian dollars.

The statement of claim says the conversions are not authorized by
contract or otherwise and that PayPal Canada charges account
holders an undisclosed fee to convert foreign currency on
withdrawal as well as a percentage fee added to the exchange rate
charged.

Toronto law firm Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP is
representing Kaplan, who will bring a motion to the court seeking
certification of the action as a class proceeding.

None of the allegations have been proven.

PayPal Canada did not immediately respond to requests for
comments. [GN]


PERRIGO COMPANY: Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Action Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Motions to dismiss a shareholder class action lawsuit against
Perrigo Company plc remains pending.

Perrigo said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2017, that on May 18, 2016, a shareholder filed a securities case
against the Company and its former CEO, Joseph Papa, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey (Roofers' Pension
Fund v. Papa, et al.). The plaintiff purported to represent a
class of shareholders for the period from April 21, 2015 through
May 11, 2016, inclusive. The original complaint alleged
violations of Securities Exchange Act sections 10(b) (and Rule
10b-5) and 14(e) against both defendants and 20(a) control person
liability against Mr. Papa. In general, the allegations concerned
the actions taken by the Company and the former executive to
defend against the unsolicited takeover bid by Mylan in the
period from April 21, 2015 through November 13, 2015.

The plaintiff also alleged that the defendants provided
inadequate disclosure concerning alleged integration problems
related to the Omega acquisition in the period from April 21,
2015 through May 11, 2016.  On July 19, 2016, a different
shareholder filed a securities class action against the Company
and its former CEO, Joseph Papa, also in the District of New
Jersey (Wilson v. Papa, et al.). The plaintiff purported to
represent a class of persons who sold put options on the Company
shares between April 21, 2015 and May 11, 2016. In general, the
allegations and the claims were the same as those made in the
original complaint filed in the Roofers' Pension Fund case. On
December 8, 2016, the court consolidated Roofers' Pension Fund
case and the Wilson case under the Roofers' Pension Fund case
number. In February 2017, the court selected the lead plaintiffs
for the consolidated case and the lead counsel to the putative
class. In March 2017, the court entered a scheduling order.

On June 21, 2017, the court-appointed lead plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint that superseded the original complaints in the
Roofers' Pension Fund case and the Wilson case. The lead
plaintiffs seek to represent a class of shareholders for the
period April 21, 2015 through May 3, 2017, and identifies three
subclasses -- shareholders who traded during the entire period on
the US exchanges; shareholders who traded during the entire
period on the Tel Aviv exchange; and shareholders who traded
during the period while the Mylan tender offer was pending (April
21, 2015 through November 13, 2015). The amended complaint names
as defendants the Company and 11 current or former directors and
officers of Perrigo (Mses. Judy Brown, Laurie Brlas, Jacqualyn
Fouse, Ellen Hoffing, and Messrs. Joe Papa, Marc Coucke, Gary
Cohen, Michael Jandernoa, Gerald Kunkle, Herman Morris, and Donal
O'Connor). The amended complaint alleges violations of Securities
Exchange Act sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5) and 14(e) against
all defendants and 20(a) control person liability against the 11
individuals.

In general, the allegations concern the actions taken by the
Company and the former executive to defend against the
unsolicited takeover bid by Mylan in the period from April 21,
2015 through November 13, 2015 and the allegedly inadequate
disclosure throughout the entire class period related to
purported integration problems related to the Omega acquisition,
alleges incorrect reporting of organic growth at the Company,
alleges price fixing activities with respect to six generic
prescription pharmaceuticals, and alleges improper accounting for
the Tysabri(R) royalty stream. The amended complaint does not
include an estimate of damages.

Perrigo said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period
ended September 30 that in August 2017, the defendants filed
motions to dismiss the amended complaint. The plaintiffs filed
their opposition in October 2017. The defendants filed replies in
support of the motions to dismiss in November 2017.

The court has not indicated whether there will be oral argument
of the motions or whether the court will decide the motions on
the papers.

Perrigo Company said that "We will defend the lawsuit
vigorously."

Perrigo Company plc a global healthcare company that delivers
value to their customers and consumers by providing Quality
Affordable Healthcare Products. Founded in 1887 as a packager of
home remedies, it had built a unique business model that is best
described as the convergence of a fast-moving consumer goods
company, a high-quality pharmaceutical manufacturing organization
and a world-class supply chain network. The company was
incorporated under the laws of Ireland on June 28, 2013 and
became the successor registrant of Perrigo Company, a Michigan
corporation, on December 18, 2013 in connection with the
acquisition of Elan Corporation, plc.


PHARMAVITE LLC: Court Grants Final OK of "Barrera" Class Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California issued an Order granting Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion
for Approval of Settlement in the case captioned LOREAN BARRERA,
On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. PHARMAVITE, LLC, a California limited liability
company, Defendant, Case No. 2:11-cv-04153-CAS (AGrx) (C.D.
Cal.).

For settlement purposes only, the Court certifies the following
Settlement Class:

     All residents of the United States who purchased for
personal use, and not resale or distribution, a Covered Product
between May 1, 2007 and June 6, 2017.

For settlement purposes, the Court appoints the following
attorneys to act as Lead Settlement Class Counsel:

     Elaine A. Ryan, Esq.
     BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
     2325 E Camelback Road, Suite 300
     Phoenix, AZ 85016
     Tel: 602-274-1100
     Fax: 602-274-1199
     Email: eryan@bffb.com

        -- and --

     Stewart M. Weltman, Esq.
     SIPRUT, PC
     Tel: 312.236.0000
     Email: sweltman@siprut.com

        -- and --

     Max A. Stein, Esq.
     BOODELL & DOMANSKIS, LLC
     Tel: (312) 300-5505
     Email: mstein@boodlaw.com

        -- and --

     Howard J. Sedran, Esq.
     LEVIN FISHBEIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
     Email: hsedran@lfsblaw.com

        -- and --

     Jeff S. Westerman, Esq.
     WESTERMAN LAW CORP.

The Court finds that settlement set forth in the Settlement
Agreement is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best
interests of the Settlement Class. The Settlement Agreement was
arrived at through good-faith bargaining at arm's-length, without
collusion, conducted by counsel with substantial experience in
prosecuting and resolving consumer class actions. The settlement
consideration provided under the Settlement Agreement constitutes
fair value given in exchange for the release of the Released
Claims against the Released Parties.

The Court makes the following awards to Plaintiff and Settlement
Class Counsel:

   -- $3,475,000.00 as attorneys' fees collectively to Bonnett,
Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, P.C., Siprut, PC, Boodell &
Domanskis, LLC, Levin Sedran & Berman, and Westerman Law Corp.;

   -- $ 600,000.00 as costs collectively to Bonnett, Fairbourn,
Friedman & Balint, P.C., Siprut, PC, Boodell & Domanskis, LLC,
Levin Sedran & Berman, and Westerman Law Corp.

   -- $ 10,000.00 as an incentive award to the Class
Representative.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 4, 2017 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9zwzrq5 from Leagle.com.

Lorean Barrera, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated and the General Public, Plaintiff, represented by David
A. Golanty -- dgolanty@boodlaw.com -- Boodell and Domanskis LLC,
pro hac vice.

Lorean Barrera, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated and the General Public, Plaintiff, represented by Elaine
A. Ryan -- eryan@bffb.com -- Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman and
Balint PC, pro hac vice, Jeff S. Westerman --
jwesterman@jswlegal.co -- Westerman Law Corp, Manfred Patrick
Muecke -- mmuecke@bffb.com -- Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman and
Balint PC, Max A. Stein -- mstein@boodlaw.com -- Boodell and
Domanskis LLC, pro hac vice, Nada Djordjevic --
ndjordjevic@boodlaw.com -- Boodell and Domanskis LLC, pro hac
vice, Patricia N. Syverson  -- psyverson@bffb.com -- Bonnett
Fairbourn Friedman and Balint PC & Stewart M. Weltman --
sweltman@siprut.com -- Siprut PC, pro hac vice.

Pharmavite LLC, a California limited Liability Company,
Defendant, represented by Steven R. Tekosky, Tatro Tekosky
Sadwick LLP, 333 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 4270. Los Angeles, CA
90071, Bridget M. Ahmann  -- bridget.ahmann@FaegreBD.com --
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, pro hac vice, Christin Eaton Garcia --
christin.eaton@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, pro hac
vice, Christine R.M. Kain -- christine.kain@FaegreBD.com --
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, pro hac vice, David B. Sadwick, Tatro
Tekosky Sadwick LLP, 333 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4270, Los
Angeles, California 90071, Joseph M. Price, Faegre Baker Daniels
LLP, pro hac vice, Rene P. Tatro, Tatro Tekosky Sadwick LLP, 333
South Grand Avenue, Suite 4270, Los Angeles, California 90071,
Shane A. Anderson -- shane.anderson@FaegreBD.com- Faegre Baker
Daniels LLP, pro hac vice & Juliet A. Markowitz, Tatro Tekosky
Sadwick LLP. 333 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4270, Los Angeles,
California 90071

Truth In Advertising, Inc., Amicus, represented by Andrea L.
Petray -- apetray@ftblaw.com -- Finch Thornton and Baird LLP.


PILOT FLYING J: Not Charged with Any Wrongdoing in Fraud Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Jimmy Haslam is not charged
with any wrongdoing in a fraud scheme at his family's truck stop
chain, Pilot Flying J, but the Cleveland Browns owner has loomed
large in the federal trial of former executives and sales
representatives.

With the trial moving into its second month, scrutiny of Haslam's
role at Pilot is only likely to intensify as the prosecutors look
to wrap up their case and the defense phase gets underway.

Pilot Flying J was founded by family patriarch Jim Haslam, a
former University of Tennessee football player, with a single gas
station in 1958.

His other son, Bill Haslam, was president of Pilot before being
elected Knoxville mayor in 2003 and later to his current position
as Tennessee governor.

The Haslams have denied any prior knowledge of the scheme.

Here's what we've learned so far:

Rebate fraud: The four defendants in the case maintain their
innocence -- former President Mark Hazelwood, former Vice
President Scott "Scooter" Wombold, and former sales
representatives Heather Jones and Karen Mann.

However, 14 other former members of the Pilot sales team have
pleaded guilty to participating in the scheme to shortchange
trucking customers on diesel rebates.  The company paid a $92
million penalty to the federal government and settled a class
action lawsuit for $85 million.

Prosecutors say the scheme ran from at least 2008 until agents
raided the company's headquarters in 2013.  One former executive
testified that the fraudulent practices at Pilot began small and
then spread.  "We kind of slid into it," former northeast
regional sales director Arnie Ralenkotter said.

Star witness to come? Prosecutors have been building their case
with testimony from an array of former Pilot employees from the
lower and middle ranks of the sales team.  They have detailed how
the company preyed on less sophisticated trucking customers
unlikely to be able to keep up with the complex discount system.

Former Vice President John "Stick" Freeman, whom the government
describes as the architect of the fraud scheme, has yet to take
the stand.  But he has been featured prominently in others'
testimony and in undercover recordings played for the jury,
including one in which he boasts that Mr.  Haslam "loved it" when
the sales team swindled customers.  "He knew -- absolutely,"
Mr.  Freeman said in the recording.  Mr. Freeman pleaded guilty
in July.

Defense strategy: Defense attorneys have signaled that
Mr.  Haslam will feature prominently in their efforts to persuade
the jury of reasonable doubt.  Hazelwood's lawyers have said that
that Mr.  Haslams' relationship with Mr. Freeman will be "highly
relevant" to the case.

"Make no mistake about it, Jimmy Haslam III and (his father) Jim
Haslam II were in charge of this company," attorney Anthony
Drumheller said. "This was a family company they owned and
strongly managed."

Mr. Wombold's lawyer, John Keller, said his client did not
participate in the scheme, and even saw his professional
prospects eclipsed by those like Freeman who were directly
involved in the fraud.

'Jimmy, we've been caught': Investigators were denied in an
effort to lure Mr.  Haslam into discussing the fraud scheme in a
recorded phone conversation before agents descended on the
company's Knoxville headquarters in 2013.

Former sales executive Brian Mosher testified that agents had him
call Mr.  Haslam to say, "Jimmy, we've been caught."  Mr.  Mosher
Mr. said Haslam replied: "I understand there are some folks at
your house," and then handed the phone to a lawyer in Pilot's
legal department.

Court filings submitted before the trial suggested that
investigators' plans may have been thwarted by Mr. Mosher's wife
passing along word that the FBI was at the house to Mr.  Wombold,
who in turn informed Mr. Hazelwood. [GN]


PURDUE PHARMA: Alabama Hospitals Join Class Suit Over Opioids
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Specker, writing for AL.com, reports that two south
Alabama hospitals are party to a Mississippi class-action suit
targeting drug makers and distributors for costs of the opioid
epidemic, spearheaded by an attorney involved in the 1998 tobacco
industry settlement.

The federal suit was filed November 30 in the Southern District
of Mississippi. About 20 companies are named as defendants,
including OxyContin creator Purdue Pharma (maker of OxyContin),
Johnson & Johnson, generic drug manufacturer Teva Pharmaceuticals
and drug wholesaler AmerisourceBergen.

The suit alleges that drug makers "aggressively pushed highly
addictive, dangerous opioids, falsely representing to doctors
that patients would only rarely succumb to drug addiction ...
[and] turned patients into drug addicts for their own corporate
profit." It charges that wholesale distributors, along with
manufacturers, "unlawfully breached their legal duties under
federal law to monitor, investigate, refuse and report suspicious
orders of prescription opiates."

The companies have not yet filed a response, and no dates for
court proceedings have been set. According to the Clarion-Ledger,
several have made statements denying any wrongdoing and stressing
their own interest in combating illicit prescription drug use.
These include Purdue Pharma, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries,
Janssen Pharmaceuticals and Endo Health Solutions.

"We are deeply troubled by the opioid crisis and we are dedicated
to being part of the solution," said a Purdue statement quoted by
the Clarion-Ledger. "We vigorously deny these allegations and
look forward to the opportunity to present our defense."

"We believe the allegations in lawsuits against our company are
both legally and factually unfounded," said a statement from
Janssen Pharmaceuticals, a division of Johnson & Johnson.
"Janssen has acted in the best interests of patients and
physicians ... Addressing opioid abuse will require collaboration
among many stakeholders and we will continue to work with
federal, state and local officials to support solutions."

Plaintiffs named in the complaint are the Southwest Mississippi
Regional Medical Center in McComb, Miss., about 75 miles south of
Jackson; Mobile-based Infirmary Health Hospitals Inc.; and
Alabama's Monroe County Healthcare Authority.

The hospitals are represented by John W. "Don" Barrett, Esq. --
dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com -- best known for his involvement in
suits against the tobacco industry in the late 1980s and
throughout the '90s. While Barrett is listed as the lead
attorney, a number of firms are involved, including Mobile-based
Taylor Martino.

Efforts to reach Taylor Martino and Infirmary Health for comment
were not immediately successful.

Barrett's tobacco-related work began with suits on behalf of some
individual smokers, but he also joined with attorney Dickie
Scruggs and Mississippi Attorney General Mike Moore in a strategy
by which the state sued cigarette makers for the Medicaid costs
related to treatment of smokers. It was the first such suit,
though more than 40 other states followed, and it led to the
Master Settlement Agreement with four tobacco companies in 1998.

The new suit is somewhat analogous in that it attempts to recoup
costs from companies that the hospitals occurred treating people
adversely affected by their products. Costs cited include
handling overdoses, treating babies born addicted, providing
psychiatric care for opioid users who require mental health care,
wasting time dealing with "pill seekers," and performing
surgeries "that are more complex and expensive than would
otherwise be the case if the patients were not opioid addicts."
The suit argues that the hospitals "incur partial monetary losses
for patients with health insurance, and total monetary losses for
uninsured patients, in the treatment of patients with opioid
conditions."

The suit also includes a claim that drug manufacturers and
distributors are guilty of racketeering as defined by the
government's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
(RICO) Act.

Mississippi's suit might be the first of its kind, but it's part
of a surge of suits fueled by the opioid epidemic. Multiple
states, for example, have sued Purdue Pharma, which has denied
wrongdoing.

Fortune reported in late September that "cases against
distributors like Cardinal and opioid manufacturers like Purdue
and Teva, which are accused of negligence and aggressive sales
tactics, have proliferated across the country in recent months.
All levels of government, hurting from the toll the public health
crisis has had on budgets, are taking action, from municipalities
(Kermit, WV; Chicago, Il, Everett, WA) to counties (Mingo in WV;
Nassau in NY; Orange in California) to states (Mississippi, Ohio,
New Mexico). And that's just a sampling. There's also the multi-
state investigation into various opioid manufacturers that a
bipartisan coalition of 35 state attorney generals launched in
June, and Congressional and Senate investigations into the matter
underway." [GN]


QUDIAN INC: Faces "Perez" Suit over October IPO
-----------------------------------------------
BENEDICT PEREZ, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. QUDIAN INC., MIN LUO, CHAO
ZHU, LI DU, SHILEI LI, YI CAO, LIANZHU LV, CARL YEUNG, and DIANA
ARIAS, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-09903 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 19,
2017), seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations
of the Securities Act of 1933

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who
purchased or otherwise acquired Qudian's American Depositary
Receipts pursuant and/or traceable to Qudian's false and
misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus, issued in
connection with the Company's initial public offering on or about
October 18, 2017.

Qudian Inc. is a provider of online micro-lending credit
products. The Company offers cash credit products, including
funds in digital form and merchandise credit products.
Qudian serves customers in China. Founded in 2014, the Company is
headquartered in Beijing, China and its ADRs trade on the New
York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "QD."

The Defendants made materially false and misleading statements in
the IPO's Registration Statement regarding the Company's
business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (i) the Company was engaged in predatory
lending practices that saddled subprime borrowers and/or those
with poor or limited credit histories with high interest rate
debt that they could not repay; (ii) many of the Company's
customers were using Qudian-provided loans to repay their
existing loans, thereby inflating the Company's revenues and
active borrower numbers and increasing the likelihood of
defaults; (iii) the Company was providing online loans to college
students despite a governmental ban on the practice; (iv) the
Company was engaged overly aggressive and improper collection
practices; (v) the Company had understated the number of its
non-performing loans in the Registration Statement and
Prospectus; (vi) because of the Company's improper lending,
underwriting and collection practices it was subject to a
heightened risk of adverse actions by Chinese regulators; (vii)
the Company's largest sales platform and strategic partner,
Alipay and Ant Financial, could unilaterally cap the APR for
loans provided by Qudian; (viii) the Company had failed to
implement necessary safeguards to protect customer data; (ix)
data for nearly one million Company customers had been leaked for
sale to the black market, including names, addresses, phone
numbers, loan information, accounts and, in some cases, passwords
to CHIS, the state-backed higher-education qualification
verification institution in China, subjecting the Company to
undisclosed risks of penalties and financial and reputational
harm; and (x) as a result of the foregoing, Qudian's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. On December 12, 2017, Qudian's ADR price closed at $13.19,
approximately 45% lower than the $24.00 IPO price.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


QUDIAN INC: Violates Securities Laws, "Zolotukhin" Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Kirill Zolotukhin, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Qudian Inc., Min Luo, Carl
Yeung, Chao Zhu, Li Du, Shilei Li, Yi Cao, Lianzhu Lv, Morgan
Stanley & Co. International Plc, Credit Suisse Securities (USA)
LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., China International Capital
Corporation Hong Kong Securities Limited, UBS Securities LLC,
Stifel, Nicolaus And Company, Incorporated, Needham &
Company, LLC, Nomura Securities International, Inc., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-09894 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 19, 2017),
seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Qudian's American
Depository Shares: (1) pursuant to or traceable to the Company's
initial public offering commenced on or about October 17, 2017;
and/or (2) on the open market between October 18 and November 20,
both dates inclusive.

Qudian provides online credit products using data-enabled
technologies. The Company aims at using artificial intelligence
and machine learning to target hundreds of millions of young
consumers in China who need access to small credit. Through its
online platform, Qudian offers cash credit products in digital
form and merchandise credit products. On September 18, 2017, the
Company filed a registration statement for foreign issuers on
Form F-1 with the SEC.  The statement was subsequently amended,
with the final amended registration statement on Form F-1/A filed
October 13. The Registration Statement was declared effective by
the SEC on October 17. Qudian filed its prospectus on Form 424B4
with the SEC on October 18.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RAMOS FURNITURE: Court Grants Judgment on Default in FLSA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued an Order granting Plaintiff's Motion for
Default Judgment in the case captioned MARISOL TOPETE and ROSALBA
MALDONADO, Plaintiffs, v. RAMOS FURNITURE; FURNITURE DEALS, INC.;
DIMAS MANUEL, INC.; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendant, Case
No. 1:16-cv-00271-EPG (E.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint against Ramos
Furniture, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
California Labor Code, California Industrial Welfare Commission
Work Order, and California Business and Professions Code.

It has been almost three years since Marisol Topete and Rosalba
Maldonado (Plaintiffs) filed this case, and Plaintiffs have still
been unable to obtain even basic discovery.  The Court has held
multiple conferences and extended the schedule in the hopes that
Defendant would participate in discovery and the case could
proceed on the merits. Defendant's counsel has withdrawn from
representation based in part on the understanding that Defendant
was no longer participating in litigation. Plaintiffs have
obtained an order compelling discovery and Defendant has not
responded.

Rule 37(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in
relevant part, that if a party, after being properly served with
interrogatories under Rule 33 or a request for inspection under
Rule 34, fails to serve its answers, objections, or written
response, the court where the action is pending may, on motion,
order sanctions. The allowable sanctions include, among others,
rendering a default judgment against the disobedient party.

There have been multiple motions, conferences, and hearings to
compel Defendant's participation in discovery. The Court has
modified the scheduling order to accommodate the parties. The
Court has issued two orders compelling Defendant's participation
in the discovery process. The Court has also warned Defendant
that a default judgment could be issued if it failed to defend
this action. Defendant, however, has intentionally and blatantly
disregarded the Court's orders. Under these circumstances, the
court finds no alternative lesser sanction is appropriate.  Thus,
the fifth factor also weighs in favor of rendering a default
judgment against Defendant.

Therefore, the Court finds that four of the five factors favor
entry of default. Defendant's representative has chosen to
attempt to escape the reality of this lawsuit by ignoring it.
But, the Court cannot allow him to do so at the expensive of
justice for the Plaintiffs.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 4, 2017 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y72r6w5o from Leagle.com.

Marisol Topete, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Butler Jones -
ajones@wagnerjones.com --  Esq., Wagner & Jones.

Marisol Topete, Plaintiff, represented by Angela Elizabeth
Martinez, Wagner, Jones, Kopfman & Artenian LLP, Daniel Myers
Kopfman -- dkopfman@wagnerjones.com -- Law Offices of Wagner
Jones, Nicholas John Paul Wagner -- kschemen@wagnerjones.com --
Law Offices of Wagner & Jones & Andrew Butler Jones, Esq., Wagner
& Jones, 1111 E. Hemdon, Ste. 317. Fresno, CA 93720

Rosalba Maldonado, Plaintiff, represented by Angela Elizabeth
Martinez, Wagner, Jones, Kopfman & Artenian LLP, Daniel Myers
Kopfman, Law Offices of Wagner Jones, Nicholas John Paul Wagner,
Law Offices of Wagner & Jones & Andrew Butler Jones, Esq., Wagner
& Jones.

Ramos Furniture, Defendant, Pro Se.

Furniture Deals, Inc., Defendant, Pro Se.


REBECCA TAYLOR: Faces "Lopez" Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rebecca Taylor,
Inc. The case is styled Victor Lopez and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v Rebecca Taylor, Inc. and
Rebecca Taylor Retail Stores, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
10082 (S.D.N.Y., December 26, 2017).

Rebecca Taylor, Inc., designs and sells apparel, accessories, and
shoes for women. It offers clothing products, such as dresses and
jumpsuits, blouses, tops and tees, jackets, coats and outerwear,
sweaters, pants, and shorts and skirts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
   The Law Offices of Bradly G. Marks
   280 Park Avenue South
   New York, NY 10010
   Tel: (646) 770-3775
   Fax: (212) 254-4202
   Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


REDLINE MOVING: Faces "Mendizabal" Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Redline Moving,
Inc. The case is styled Maria Mendizabal, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Redline Moving,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-10045 (S.D.N.Y., December 22,
2017).

Redline Movers is a moving company located in New York City,
providing professional relocation services to the greater tri-
state area, New York City, Manhattan, Brooklyn and Long
Island.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ROSELAND RESIDENTIAL: Sued over Submetered Gas & Heater Charges
---------------------------------------------------------------
IOANA CONLEY and ALEXANDER CONLEY on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ROSELAND
RESIDENTIAL TRUST, the Defendant, Case No. 17-3719 (Mass. Super.
Ct., Dec. 19, 2017), seeks to recover damages and to enjoin the
unfair, deceptive and unlawful practices of Defendant in
violation of Massachusetts laws and regulations.

The Conleys allege that Roseland purposefully and knowingly
violates the provisions of M.G.L. c. 186, section 22, 105 CMR
410.354(c) and 105 CMR 410.354(d) by charging for and collecting
impermissible amounts of monies for submetered gas, heat, water
and sewer service. The Conleys also claim Roseland has committed
numerous violations of M. G.L. c. 186, section l 5B stemming from
Roseland's failure to pay interest on its tenant's security
deposits as required by Massachusetts law.

Finally, the Conleys assert that Roseland further violates M.G.L.
c. 186, section 15B by making unlawful demands for tenants to pay
move-in fees by cashier's check prior to tenancy. The Conleys
contend that Roseland has treated numerous similarly situated
individuals in the unlawful manner described above, and further
that such unlawful practices were committed willfully, knowingly
and/or in bad faith.

On or about June 10, 2014, Ioana Conley entered into a
residential rental agreement/lease for an apartment at the Chase
at Overlook Ridge. On or about June 10, 2014, Ioana Conley
entered into a residential rental agreement/lease for an
apartment at 16 Quarry Lane, Apt. 4409, Malden, MA 02148
("Tenants' Residence"). The terms and conditions of the 2014
Rental Agreement made clear that the rights and remedies of the
parties thereto were/are to be controlled by M.G.L. c. 186 and
M.G.L. c. 239. 10. The 2014 Rental Agreement's provisions are
controlled by M.G.L. c. 186 and M.G.L. c. 239. 11. On or about
September 27, 2016, Ioana Conley and Alexander Conley entered
into a residential rental agreement/lease for an apartment at the
Chase at Overlook Ridge.  On or about September 27, 2016, Ioana
Conley and Alexander Conley renewed the residential rental
agreement/lease for Tenants' Residence.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert E. Mazow, Esq.
          Michael C. Forrest, Esq.
          David J. Relethford, Esq.
          FARREST, LAMOTHE, MAZOW,
          MCCULLOUGH, YASI & YASI, P.C.
          2 Salem Green, Suite 2
          Salem, MA 01970
          Telephone: (617) 231 7829
          Facsimile: (877) 599 8890
          E-mail: rmazow@forrestlamothe.com
                  mforrest@forrestlamothe.com
                  drelethford@forrestlamothe.com


S.C.G.C. INC: "Ortega" Suit Seeks OT Compensation under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR ORTEGA, Individually and On Behalf of All Similarly
Situated Persons, the Plaintiff, v. S.C.G.C., INC. and UMER F.
KHAN, the Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-03803 (S.D. Tex., Dec. 19,
2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, and attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed by the
Defendants from February 1, 2017 until October 25, 2017 as a
framer, and was paid on an hourly basis. Ortega's duties
included, but were not limited to, hanging sheetrock, painting,
installing chairs, and putting down plywood flooring. During his
employment with Defendants, Ortega regularly worked in excess of
40 hours in a workweek. In fact, Plaintiff regularly worked 60
hours or more per week. He was paid the same hourly rate for all
hours worked ("straight time") and was not paid an overtime
premium for hours worked over 40 in the workweek.

During his tenure with the Defendants, Plaintiff regularly worked
in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff is and was paid on
an hourly basis and is and was not paid an overtime premium for
hours worked over 40 hours per workweek. The Defendants knew of,
approved of, and benefited from Plaintiff's regular and overtime
work.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
          Vijay Pattisapu, Esq.
          THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
          2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
          Houston, Texas 77018
          Telephone: 713-868-3388
          Facsimile: 713-683-9940
          E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
                  vijay@buenkerlaw.com


SANDFORD OIL: "Hearon" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------
Shaylon Hearon, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Sandford Oil Company, Inc., and Western
Transportation, Inc., Case No. 4:17-cv-00977 (N.D. Tex., December
7, 2017), seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties and
costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiff Shaylon Hearon is a resident and citizen of Tarrant
County. He was employed by Defendants a Frack Fuel Technician
from September 2014 until December 2016.

Defendants are distillate fuel distributors in the Southern
United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: PETA Issues Statement in Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
PETA Executive Vice President Tracy Reiman issued a statement
regarding a U.S. District Court judge's decision to grant class-
action status to a lawsuit alleging that SeaWorld misled
shareholders about the impact of the hard-hitting documentary
Blackfish:

"As a SeaWorld stockholder and class member in this lawsuit
against the company, PETA looks forward to the day when the
effect forces SeaWorld to release the long-suffering marine
mammals it currently holds captive into coastal sanctuaries.
Plummeting stock prices and ticket sales, scandal, and lost
profits confirm that the company can no longer ignore or delude
an outraged public that now knows that orcas swim listlessly and
die prematurely in its dismal concrete tanks.

"PETA -- whose motto reads, in part, that "animals are not ours
to use for entertainment" -- became a SeaWorld shareholder in
2013 in order to put pressure on the company to transfer the
animals at its facilities to seaside sanctuaries."


SEQWATER: Class Action Over 2011 Queensland Floods Begins
---------------------------------------------------------
Josh Robertson, writing for ABC, reports that dam engineers "bet
against" the Bureau of Meteorology's (BOM) rain forecasts and
were fixated on avoiding minor damage in Queensland's 2011 floods
-- but a class action court case has heard their inaction caused
catastrophic inundations and destruction.

The class action by more than 6,000 Brisbane and Ipswich flood
victims against the state of Queensland and dam operators
Seqwater and Sunwater got underway in the New South Wales Supreme
Court on Dec. 4.

It is one of the largest damage law suits in Australia, and comes
with a legal twist -- it is being run in NSW because Queensland
courts did not hear class actions when it was filed.

The laws were changed this year.

The court case is being held almost seven years after the floods
disaster, by law firm Maurice Blackburn.

Barrister Julian Sexton QC, for the plaintiffs, said operators of
Wivenhoe dam, which was largely built to protect Brisbane from
flooding, failed to free up space for huge downpours in early
January 2011 because they were "unreasonably concerned" with
maintaining water supply after years of drought.

Their early focus was also misplaced on keeping rural bridges
open and avoiding "minor" urban flood damage, ignoring the risk
of a major flood when the dam overflowed just as river levels
were peaking in Brisbane and Ipswich, Mr Sexton said.

"Waiting for certainty is not the language of reasonable care,
which focuses on probabilities, even possibilities, not on being
certain that harm will occur before taking reasonable
precautions," he said.

"[Dam engineers] in effect bet that the rain which had already
fallen would be all the rain that would fall and bet against the
four and eight-day forecast.

"The consequence was that they failed to create sufficient
storage ahead of peaking flows that came on 10 and 11 January and
thus had to make a very large release on 11 January which
corresponded with peak flows downstream thus causing . . .
greater flooding."

Mr Sexton said by January 11, when the dam's fuse plugs risked
bursting and causing uncontrolled torrents of water flowing into
the Brisbane River, the dam engineers were forced to take
"drastic action", dumping about 7,400 cubic metres of water a
second, worsening floodwaters already peaking downstream.

He said smaller releases on January 7 were "too late and too
little".

Dam operators justified their actions by arguing that four to
eight-day forecasts were too unreliable and water should only be
released from dams "when rainfall has actually occurred so the
effect of flood mitigation . . . is known with certainty," he
said.

Mr Sexton said this "mindset" ultimately left them with no time
to clear space for adequate storage of flooding rains upstream of
Queensland's capital -- and defied both "common sense" and the
flood manual under which the dams operated.

The plaintiffs argued that the belated increase in water releases
in the half day up to 7:00pm on January 11 caused greater
flooding than if engineers had started releases earlier.

Many property owners were left high and dry by insurers in what
was the worst flood to hit the southeast since 1974.

Mr Sexton said he would call dam experts who would underline the
importance of "pre-empting" rainfall to clear up storage space
and halting releases altogether in flood peaks.

The misplaced "mindset" of the engineers was epitomised in an
Seqwater flood summary report for January 9 to 10 that noted a "a
full awareness of rainfall forecasts and associated potential
flood impacts".

In a statement, Seqwater acting chief executive Donna Gregory
said the operator was "confident" the court would find it had in
fact "significantly reduced the impact of the flood".

"The magnitude of the rainfall meant it was inevitable that
Brisbane would flood," she said.

The class action case will hear opening submissions for two
weeks, before adjourning when witnesses will be called. [GN]


SEQWATER: Attorney Says Queensland Flood Devastation Avoidable
--------------------------------------------------------------
Clare Hunter, writing for 9News, reports that the devastation
caused by the flooding across South East Queensland in 2010 and
2011 could have been avoided if operators of the Wivenhoe and
Somerset Dams had properly followed their own manual, a court
will hear.

Lawyers for 6000 Queensland flood victims will argue that the dam
operators ignored critical aspects of their manual which lead to
errors that worsened catastrophic flooding throughout Brisbane
and the southeast of the state.

Rebecca Gilsenan, from Maurice Blackburn, the firm leading the
class action, said operators failed to take notice of weather
predictions in the lead up to the massive rainfall over the
summer of 2010-2011.

"Astoundingly, they did not take into account the weather
forecasts in making decisions about how to operate the dam during
the flood event, only taking notice of rainfall once it had on
fact fallen on the ground," Ms Gilsenan said.

"This was too late."

On her way into the Supreme Court in Sydney, which is where the
matter is being heard, Ms Gilsenan said the trial will be
emotional for the 6000 flood victims.

"It will be emotional, yes, but it will also bring relief that
these people are finally having their questions and concerns
aired in court" she said.

Lawyers for the plaintiff, and lawyers for the Queensland
Government subsidiary SEQ Water will give their opening addresses
over the next fortnight.

It's expected that expert witnesses, and the flood victims
themselves will be called to Gove evidence in February 2018.
[GN]


SEQWATER: Plaintiffs' Lawyer Begins Opening in Flood Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Michael Madigan, writing for The Courier-Mail, reports that
Queenslanders were repeatedly warned they were in for a severe
wet season in the lead up to the January 2011 floods but dam
engineers adopted a 'do nothing' strategy in relation to water
releases, a court has heard.

Julian Sexton, QC, has told the New South Wales Supreme Court
that by early January 2011 the ground in Queensland was already
sodden and almost all the rain falling was running into dams
rather than being absorbed into the earth.

"A monsoon wet season goes until March and it was a particularly
strong one," Mr Sexton said.

"That they (dam engineers) did nothing between January 2 and
January 7 was not reasonable."

Mr Sexton is continuing his opening in one of Australia's largest
class actions now under way in a Sydney court room before Justice
Robert Beech-Joneson.

Mr Sexton is outlining the case for the plaintiff, incorporating,
over 6000 individuals and businesses, alleging the State
Government and Seqwater were negligent in operating Wivenhoe and
Somerset dams during the flooding which peaked in Brisbane on
January 13 2011.

The plaintiff's case rests largely on the proposition that had
water been released from dams well before the flood peak, some of
the flood damage could have been avoided.

Dam engineers did release water starting on January 7 but
Mr Sexton is arguing the releases were too little, and too late
to prevent wide spread flooding.

Forecasts were predicting heavy rainfalls in a range of beyond
300mm and specifically in the Brisbane River Basin, he said.

"By the then 8th and 9th (of January) the forecast was not only
for a lot of rain but for rain which would be principally
received in the next four days."

The heavy falls that did occur on January 10 and 11 were
unexpected, but not unprecedented, he said.

"(Falls of) 130mm of rain until 9am on January 11 is certainly
not unprecedented."

The failure to release the water resulted in a lack of storage
capacity in the dams by January 9 through to 11, Mr Sexton said.

It was specifically the releases of January 11 which caused the
maximum amount of damage, he said.

There was no doubt flooding in Brisbane would have occurred
without the releases, he said.

But the question was how much less damage would have resulted had
the releases not occurred.

The civil action represents more than 6000 Queensland individuals
and businesses and is supported by litigation funder IMF Bentham.

Earlier on Dec. 4, the hearing heard that dam engineers were more
focused on keeping rural bridges open rather than protecting
Brisbane.

Mr Sexton said the engineers also failed to take into account
rainfall forecasts when deciding when to release water, according
to Julian Sexton, QC.

"That was not only contrary to the manual, but contrary to common
sense," Mr Sexton told the New South Wales Supreme Court.

Nearly seven years since the devastating deluge which caused
billions of dollars of damage began, one Australia's largest
class action has got underway as more than one dozen barristers
congregate before Justice Robert Beech-Joneson on the ninth floor
of the Sydney Supreme Court.

Mr Sexton, in his opening, has focused on the core of the
plaintiff's case -- that the Wivenhoe and Somerset dams were
allowed to fill with water which then required that the flood
gates be open at the height of the flood -- January 11 to January
13 2011.

Mr Sexton told the court it was a simple proposition that if
there was a long delay in releasing water, more water would have
to be released if rain kept falling.

That rainfall forecasts were uncertain was not necessarily the
issue, Mr Sexton told the court.

"The issue is how to deal with the uncertainty."

Mr Sexton said the focus of the dam engineers, in the early part
of January, was on keeping rural bridges downstream from the dams
open, leading them to make the decision not to release water.

Later the explanation given for not releasing water was that
water should only be released after the rain had actually fallen.

"Waiting for certainty is not the language of reasonable care,"
Mr Sexton told the court.

Mr Sexton said the hearing, expected to extend well into next
year, would involve a great number of witnesses and a large
volume of scientific evidence.

But he said the plaintiff need only prove the case on "the
balance of probabilities."

The civil action represents more than 6000 Queensland individuals
and businesses and is supported by litigation funder IMF Bentham.

The hearing continues. [GN]


SHILOH INDUSTRIES: New York Securities Class Action Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shiloh Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended July 31,, 2017, that the company continues to defend
against a securities class action lawsuit in New York.

The Company said, "A securities class action lawsuit was filed on
September 21, 2015 in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of
our officers (the President and Chief Executive Officer and Vice
President of Finance and Treasurer). As amended, the lawsuit
claims in part that we issued inaccurate information to investors
about, among other things, our earnings and income and our
internal controls over financial reporting for fiscal 2014 and
the first and second fiscal quarters of 2015 in violation of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The amended complaint seeks an
award of damages in an unspecified amount on behalf of a putative
class consisting of persons who purchased our common stock
between January 12, 2015 and September 14, 2015, inclusive."

"The Company and such officers filed a Motion to Dismiss this
lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on April 18, 2016. The District Court
rendered an opinion and order granting our motion to dismiss the
lawsuit on March 23, 2017. On April 6, 2017, the plaintiffs filed
a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal order. We, in
opposition to the plaintiff's motion, filed a motion for
consideration of the dismissal on April 20, 2017 and the
plaintiffs filed a reply motion in opposition for reconsideration
on April 27, 2017. On July 7, 2017, the District Court denied the
Plaintiffs' request to vacate the District Court's March 23, 2017
order of dismissal and granted the Plaintiff's request to further
amend their complaint. The Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended
Complaint on August 4, 2017."

Shiloh Industries, Inc. is a global innovative solutions provider
to the automotive, commercial vehicle and other industrial
markets with a strategic focus on designing, engineering and
manufacturing lightweight technologies that improve performance
and benefit the environment. The company is based in Valley City,
Ohio.


SIERRA ONCOLOGY: NY Securities Class Action Suit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Sierra Oncology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Reports filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly periods
ended June 30, 2017, and September 30, 2017, that the company
continues to defend a securities class action suit in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On November 9, 2016, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company and certain of its
executive officers. The lawsuit was brought by purported
stockholders of the Company seeking to represent a class
consisting of stockholders who purchased stock between July 15,
2015 and June 6, 2016. The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seeks
unspecified damages and other relief.

Sierra Oncology said "The Company believes that the claims are
without merit and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. It is
possible that additional similar lawsuits could be filed. Due to
the early stage of the litigation, the Company is unable to
predict the outcome of this matter and is unable to make a
meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss, if any, that
could result from an unfavorable outcome."

Sierra Oncology is a clinical stage drug development company
advancing targeted therapeutics for the treatment of patients
with cancer. The company is based in British Columbia, Canada.


SIERRA ONCOLOGY: Calif. Securities Class Action Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
Sierra Oncology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Reports filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly periods
ended June 30, 2017, and September 30, 2017, that the company
continues to defend a securities class action suit in California.

On November 18, 2016, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of San Mateo against the Company, certain of its
executive officers and directors, and the underwriters for the
Company's initial public offering of its common stock. On
February 9, 2017, a substantially identical putative class action
suit was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of San Mateo asserting the same claims on behalf
of the same putative class. The lawsuits were brought by
purported stockholders of the Company seeking to represent a
class consisting of stockholders who purchased stock pursuant to
and/or traceable to the Company's Registration Statement on Form
S-1. The lawsuits assert claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seek unspecified damages and
other relief.

Sierra Oncology said "the Company believes that the claims are
without merit and intends to defend the lawsuits vigorously. It
is possible that additional similar lawsuits could be filed. Due
to the early stage of the litigation, the Company is unable to
predict the outcome of these cases and is unable to make a
meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss, if any, that
could result from an unfavorable outcome."

Sierra Oncology is a clinical stage drug development company
advancing targeted therapeutics for the treatment of patients
with cancer. The company is based in British Columbia, Canada.


SIGNET JEWELERS: Expects Arbitration to Begin in April
------------------------------------------------------
Signet Jewelers Limited expects trial in the arbitration related
to a class action lawsuit to begin the week of April 16, 2018, or
as soon thereafter as the Arbitrator's schedule permits.

Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended July 29, 2017, that in March 2008, a group of private
plaintiffs (the "Claimants") filed a class action lawsuit for an
unspecified amount against SJI, a subsidiary of Signet, in the US
District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging
that US store-level employment practices are discriminatory as to
compensation and promotional activities with respect to gender.
In June 2008, the District Court referred the matter to private
arbitration where the Claimants sought to proceed on a class-wide
basis. The Claimants filed a motion for class certification and
SJI opposed the motion. A hearing on the class certification
motion was held in late February 2014. On February 2, 2015, the
arbitrator issued a Class Determination Award in which she
certified for a class-wide hearing Claimants' disparate impact
declaratory and injunctive relief class claim under Title VII,
with a class period of July 22, 2004 through date of trial for
the Claimants' compensation claims and December 7, 2004 through
date of trial for Claimants' promotion claims. The arbitrator
otherwise denied Claimants' motion to certify a disparate
treatment class alleged under Title VII, denied a disparate
impact monetary damages class alleged under Title VII, and denied
an opt-out monetary damages class under the Equal Pay Act.

On February 9, 2015, Claimants filed an Emergency Motion To
Restrict Communications With The Certified Class And For
Corrective Notice. SJI filed its opposition to Claimants'
emergency motion on February 17, 2015, and a hearing was held on
February 18, 2015. Claimants' motion was granted in part and
denied in part in an order issued on March 16, 2015. Claimants
filed a Motion for Reconsideration Regarding Title VII Claims for
Disparate Treatment in Compensation on February 11, 2015. SJI
filed its opposition to Claimants' Motion for Reconsideration on
March 4, 2015. Claimants' reply was filed on March 16, 2015.
Claimants' Motion was denied in an order issued April 27, 2015.
SJI filed with the US District Court for the Southern District of
New York a Motion to Vacate the Arbitrator's Class Certification
Award on March 3, 2015. Claimants' opposition was filed on March
23, 2015 and SJI's reply was filed on April 3, 2015. SJI's motion
was heard on May 4, 2015. On November 16, 2015, the US District
Court for the Southern District of New York granted SJI's Motion
to Vacate the Arbitrator's Class Certification Award in part and
denied it in part. On November 25, 2015, SJI filed a Motion to
Stay the AAA Proceedings while SJI appeals the decision of the US
District Court for the Southern District of New York to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Claimants
filed their opposition on December 2, 2015. On December 3, 2015,
SJI filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit SJI's Notice of Appeal of the Southern District's
November 16, 2015 Opinion and Order. The arbitrator issued an
order denying SJI's Motion to Stay on February 22, 2016. SJI
filed its Brief and Special Appendix with the Second Circuit on
March 16, 2016. The matter was fully briefed and oral argument
was heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on
November 2, 2016. On April 6, 2015, Claimants filed in the AAA
Claimants' Motion for Clarification or in the Alternative Motion
for Stay of the Effect of the Class Certification Award as to the
Individual Intentional Discrimination Claims. SJI filed its
opposition on May 12, 2015. Claimants' reply was filed on May 22,
2015. Claimants' motion was granted on June 15, 2015. Claimants
filed Claimants' Motion for Conditional Certification of
Claimants' Equal Pay Act Claims and Authorization of Notice on
March 6, 2015. SJI's opposition was filed on May 1, 2015.

Claimants filed their reply on June 5, 2015. The arbitrator heard
oral argument on Claimants' Motion on December 18, 2015 and, on
February 29, 2016, issued an Equal Pay Act Collective Action
Conditional Certification Award and Order Re Claimants' Motion
For Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period, conditionally certifying
Claimants' Equal Pay Act claims as a collective action, and
tolling the statute of limitations on EPA claims to October 16,
2003 to ninety days after notice issues to the putative members
of the collective action. SJI filed in the AAA a Motion To Stay
Arbitration Pending The District Court's Consideration Of
Respondent's Motion To Vacate Arbitrator's Equal Pay Act
Collective Action Conditional Certification Award And Order Re
Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period on March
10, 2016. SJI filed in the AAA a Renewed Motion To Stay
Arbitration Pending The District Court's Resolution Of Sterling's
Motion To Vacate Arbitrator's Equal Pay Act Collective Action
Conditional Certification Award And Order Re Claimants' Motion
For Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period on March 31, 2016.

Claimants filed their opposition on April 4, 2016. The arbitrator
denied SJI's Motion on April 5, 2016. On March 23, 2016 SJI filed
with the US District Court for the Southern District of New York
a Motion To Vacate The Arbitrator's Equal Pay Act Collective
Action Conditional Certification Award And Order Re Claimants'
Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period. Claimants filed
their opposition brief on April 11, 2016, SJI filed its reply on
April 20, 2016, and oral argument was heard on SJI's Motion on
May 11, 2016. SJI's Motion was denied on May 22, 2016. On May 31,
2016, SJI filed a Notice Of Appeal of Judge Rakoff's opinion and
order to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. SJI's brief was
filed September 13, 2016, and Claimants' brief was filed on
December 13, 2016, SJI filed its reply brief on January 10, 2017,
and oral argument was heard on May 9, 2017.

On June 1, 2017 the Second Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed
SJI's appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Claimants filed
a Motion For Amended Class Determination Award on November 18,
2015, and on March 31, 2016 the arbitrator entered an order
amending the Title VII class certification award to preclude
class members from requesting exclusion from the injunctive and
declaratory relief class certified in the arbitration. The
arbitrator issued a Bifurcated Case Management Plan on April 5,
2016, and ordered into effect the parties' Stipulation Regarding
Notice Of Equal Pay Act Collective Action And Related Notice
Administrative Procedures on April 7, 2016. SJI filed in the AAA
a Motion For Protective Order on May 2, 2016. Claimants'
opposition was filed on June 3, 2016. The matter was fully
briefed and oral argument was heard on July 22, 2016. The motion
was granted in part on January 27, 2017. Notice to EPA collective
action members was issued on May 3, 2016, and the opt-in period
for these notice recipients closed on August 1, 2016. At this
time, 10,314 current and former employees have submitted consent
forms to opt in to the collective action. On July 24, 2017, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its
unanimous Summary Order that held that the absent class members
"never consented" to the Arbitrator determining the
permissibility of class arbitration under the agreements, and
remanded the matter to the District Court to determine whether
the Arbitrator exceeded her authority by certifying the Title VII
class that contained absent class members who had not opted in
the litigation.

On August 7, 2017, SJI filed its Renewed Motion to Vacate the
Class Determination Award relative to absent class members with
the District Court. The Claimants' opposition was due on August
28, 2017, with SJI's reply due September 11, 2017.

The Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended October 28, 2017, that the matter was fully briefed
and an oral argument was heard on October 16, 2017. The parties
await a ruling.

On November 9, 2017, Claimants filed in the arbitration
disclosures identifying witnesses, exhibits and deposition
designations to be used at trial. SJI's disclosures were due
December 7, 2017.

On November 10, 2017 SJI filed in the arbitration motions for
summary judgment, and for decertification, of Claimants' Equal
Pay Act and Title VII promotions claims. Claimants' opposition
briefs to these motions were due December 8, 2017.

"We anticipate trial in the arbitration to begin the week of
April 16, 2018, or as soon thereafter as the Arbitrator's
schedule permits," the Company said.

Signet Jewelers said "SJI denies the allegations of the Claimants
and has been defending the case vigorously. At this point, no
outcome or possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from
the litigation is able to be estimated."

Signet Jewelers Limited is the world's largest retailer of
diamond jewelry. The company is domiciled in Bermuda and
headquartered in Akron, Ohio, and is listed on the New York Stock
Exchange. The group operates in the middle market jewelry segment
and has number one positions in the U.S., Canada and UK
speciality jewelry markets.


SIGNET JEWELERS: Settlement Funds in Zale Suit Disbursed
--------------------------------------------------------
Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended October 28, 2017, that the settlement funds in the class
action related to the Zale Corp. acquisition have been disbursed.

Prior to the acquisition of Zale Corporation, Zale was a
defendant in three class action lawsuits: Tessa Hodge v. Zale
Delaware, Inc., d/b/a Piercing Pagoda which was filed on April
23, 2013 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of San Bernardino; Naomi Tapia v. Zale Corporation which was
filed on July 3, 2013 in the US District Court, Southern District
of California; and Melissa Roberts v. Zale Delaware, Inc. which
was filed on October 7, 2013 in the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Los Angeles. All three cases include
allegations that Zale Corporation violated various wage and hour
labor laws. Relief was sought on behalf of current and former
Piercing Pagoda and Zale Corporation's employees. The lawsuits
sought to recover damages, penalties and attorneys' fees as a
result of the alleged violations. Without admitting or conceding
any liability, the Company reached an agreement to settle the
Hodge and Roberts matters for an immaterial amount. Final
approval of the settlement was granted on March 9, 2015 and the
settlement was implemented.

On December 28, 2016, the Company participated in a mediation of
the Tapia class action. The mediation resulted in a settlement
agreement. The settlement resolved various California wage and
hour claims involving all current and former employees of Zale
Delaware Inc. d/b/a Zale Corporation who were designated as
nonexempt and worked in California at any time from July 3, 2010
to present. The Court granted final approval of the settlement on
July 14, 2017. In August 2017, the settlement was funded and the
settlement funds were disbursed.


SIGNET JEWELERS: Discovery Underway in "Masten" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended October 28, 2017, that the parties in the Veronica Masten
class action are engaged in discovery.

On May 13, 2017, the Company received notice that a Class Action
Complaint against Sterling Jewelers Inc. and Signet Jewelers Ltd.
was filed by Veronica Masten in the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles, alleging violations of various wage and
hour labor laws. In Masten, Plaintiff seeks to certify two
separate classes comprising all current and former hourly-paid
employees employed by in jewelry stores in California, and all
current and former California employees that received a wage
statement "during the applicable liability period."

The Company was served with the Class Acton Complaint on May 16,
2017. The Company filed its Answer to the Complaint on June 13,
2017. On June 14, 2017, the Company removed this matter to the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California. A joint scheduling conference was held on September
18, 2017, during which the Court scheduled pretrial dates and
trial for May 2019. The parties are currently engaged in
discovery.


SKYLINE HIGHLAND: "Green" Remains in Arkansas District Court
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Arkansas, Western Division, issued an Order denying Plaintiff's
Motion To Remand the case captioned JAMES GREEN, as Special
Administrator of the Estate of Felix Williams, deceased; et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. SKYLINE HIGHLAND HOLDINGS LLC; et al., Defendants,
Case No. 4:17-CV-00534 BSM (E.D. Ark.).

Plaintiffs bring this class action lawsuit on behalf of all
residents or estates of residents who stayed at four defendant
nursing homes. Plaintiffs allege that defendants breached
contractual and statutory duties owed to the plaintiffs by
failing to adequately staff the nursing homes.

Defendants removed the case from the Pulaski County Circuit
Court, alleging that jurisdiction was proper under the Class
Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), diversity jurisdiction; and
federal question jurisdiction.

Under CAFA, a federal district court has original subject matter
jurisdiction where at least $5,000,000 is in controversy, the
proposed class consists of over 100 members, and minimal
diversity is satisfied.

Once the threshold requirements for CAFA jurisdiction have been
satisfied, the party seeking remand has the burden of
establishing that an exception applies.

The Court held that local controversy exception does not apply
because plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that there is one
Arkansas defendant, common to all class members, whose conduct
formed a significant basis for plaintiffs' claims and from whom
significant relief is sought.

Plaintiffs mistakenly argue, however, that simply because twenty-
one of the twenty-two defendants are Arkansas residents from whom
the class seeks collective relief, there must be at least one
local defendant whose conduct forms a significant basis for the
claims asserted by all or even a majority of class members. The
proposed class is effectively an aggregation of four subclasses,
each having allegedly suffered harm at the hands of four separate
defendant nursing homes and their respective administrative and
nursing directors.

Although alleging that all defendants, in part, engaged in a
common civil conspiracy, plaintiffs have not met their burden of
showing how any one of these separate nursing homes and its
respective administrative or nursing director was a significant
basis of harm and resulting claims of class members residing at
the other nursing homes. These defendants, therefore, are not
common and significant to the class as a whole, but instead
specific to the respective subclass of residents who stayed at
that particular nursing home.

Moreover, the complaint seeks no individualized relief against a
single defendant. It seeks to hold all defendants jointly and
severally liable for collective misconduct. For this reason, the
class has not identified any particular defendant from whom
significant relief is sought.

To qualify for remand under the home state exception, no primary
defendant can be a citizen of a state other than where the case
was filed.  This exception does not apply because Schwartz, a New
York resident, is a primary defendant.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 4, 2017 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7n9undu from Leagle.com.

James Green, As Special Administrator of the Estate of Felix
Williams, Deceased; on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated other Felix Williams, Plaintiff, represented by Brent
Lee Moss -- brent@reddickmoss.com -- Reddick Moss PLLC.

James Green, As Special Administrator of the Estate of Felix
Williams, Deceased; on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated other Felix Williams, Plaintiff, represented by Brian
David Reddick, Reddick Moss PLLC, Daniel K. Yim, Reddick Moss
PLLC, 3801 East Florida Ave Suite 260. Denver, CO 80210, Howard
Gregory Campbell, Campbell Law Firm P.A., Box 101. Little Rock,
AR 72202 & Robert William Francis, Reddick Moss PLLC, 3801 East
Florida Ave Suite 260. Denver, CO 80210.

Mercedes Anderson, As Attorney-in-Fact of Kesha McBrayer; on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated other Kesha
McBrayer, Plaintiff, represented by Brent Lee Moss, Reddick Moss
PLLC, Brian David Reddick, Reddick Moss PLLC, Daniel K. Yim,
Reddick Moss PLLC, Howard Gregory Campbell, Campbell Law Firm
P.A. & Robert William Francis, Reddick Moss PLLC.

Brenda Woodard, As Attorney-in-Fact of Abraham Woodard; on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated other Abraham
Woodard, Plaintiff, represented by Brent Lee Moss, Reddick Moss
PLLC, Brian David Reddick, Reddick Moss PLLC, Daniel K. Yim,
Reddick Moss PLLC,Howard Gregory Campbell, Campbell Law Firm P.A.
& Robert William Francis, Reddick Moss PLLC.

Skyline Highland Holdings LLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew
King -- Andrew.King@KutakRock.com -- Kutak Rock LLP, Dale W.
Brown -- Dale.Brown@KutakRock.com -- Kutak Rock LLP, Jeffrey M.
Fletcher -- Jeffrey.Fletcher@KutakRock.com -- Kutak Rock LLP,
Mark Winfield Dossett  -- Mark.Dossett@KutakRock.com -- Kutak
Rock LLP & Samantha Leflar -- Samanthe.Leflar@KutakRock.com --
Kutak Rock LLP.

JS Highland Holdings LLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew King,
Kutak Rock LLP, Dale W. Brown, Kutak Rock LLP, Jeffrey M.
Fletcher, Kutak Rock LLP, Mark Winfield Dossett, Kutak Rock LLP &
Samantha Leflar, Kutak Rock LLP.

Joseph Schwartz, Defendant, represented by Andrew King, Kutak
Rock LLP, Dale W. Brown, Kutak Rock LLP, Jeffrey M. Fletcher,
Kutak Rock LLP, Mark Winfield Dossett, Kutak Rock LLP &Samantha
Leflar, Kutak Rock LLP.

Highlands of Little Rock Riley Holdings LLC, doing business as
Hillview Post-Acute and Rehabilitation Center, Defendant,
represented by Andrew King, Kutak Rock LLP, Dale W. Brown, Kutak
Rock LLP, Jeffrey M. Fletcher, Kutak Rock LLP, Mark Winfield
Dossett, Kutak Rock LLP & Samantha Leflar, Kutak Rock LLP.

Highlands of Little Rock West Markahm Holdings LLC, doing
business as Little Rock Post-Acute and Rehabilitation, Defendant,
represented by Andrew King, Kutak Rock LLP, Dale W. Brown, Kutak
Rock LLP, Jeffrey M. Fletcher, Kutak Rock LLP, Mark Winfield
Dossett, Kutak Rock LLP &Samantha Leflar, Kutak Rock LLP.

Highlands of North Little Rock John Ashley Holdings LLC, doing
business as North Little Rock Health and Rehabilitation Center,
Defendant, represented by Andrew King, Kutak Rock LLP,Dale W.
Brown, Kutak Rock LLP, Jeffrey M. Fletcher, Kutak Rock LLP, Mark
Winfield Dossett, Kutak Rock LLP & Samantha Leflar, Kutak Rock
LLP.

Highlands of Little Rock South Cumberland Holdings LLC, doing
business as Capital Health and Rehabilitation Center, Defendant,
represented by Andrew King, Kutak Rock LLP, Dale W. Brown, Kutak
Rock LLP, Jeffrey M. Fletcher, Kutak Rock LLP, Mark Winfield
Dossett, Kutak Rock LLP & Samantha Leflar, Kutak Rock LLP.

Mishana Jackson, In her Capacity as Administrator of Hillview
Post-Acute and Rehabilitation Center, Defendant, represented by
Andrew King, Kutak Rock LLP, Dale W. Brown, Kutak Rock LLP,
Jeffrey M. Fletcher, Kutak Rock LLP, Mark Winfield Dossett, Kutak
Rock LLP & Samantha Leflar, Kutak Rock LLP.


SPOTIFY: Two Rightsholders Object to Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Youredm reports that back in early August, Spotify settled a
major class action lawsuit to the tune of $43.5 million.  The
lawsuit was filed by Melissa Ferrick and David Lowery on behalf
of songwriters and publishers everywhere alleging that the music
streaming site had made thousands of songs available to stream
without the proper license.

On Dec. 1, the final hearing was held and unfortunately for
Spotify who pushed for final approval of the settlement amount,
two other rightsholders filed objections that the damages for
each composition streamed was insufficient.  Under current
settlement terms, the writers of compositions that have been
streamed between zero and 100 times would receive a minimum
payment, while the rest of the money would be divided on a pro
rata basis.

Another complication involving the company's lawsuit is the
simple fact that nobody seems to know just how many copyrights
Spotify had infringed, which in turn make estimating payout for
each rightsholder extremely difficult.  Andrew Pincus on the
Spotify defense team suggested a "ballpark" estimate of
approximately 300,000 which would come out to approximately $100
for each rightsholder even though the actual numbers are sure to
vary.

The two opposing rightsholders argue that the settlement amount
is far too low.  Especially when you realize that statutory
damages for willful copyright infringement ranges anywhere from
$750 to $150,000.

In any case, presiding judge Alison J. Nathan announced that she
would need further time to deliberate.  With Spotify set to
launch an IPO fairly shortly this lawsuit remains a potential
roadblock to accomplishing that goal. [GN]


STARBUCKS CORPORATION: Not Compelled to Reply to Discovery Bids
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, issued an Order denying Plaintiff's Motion
to Compel Responses to Written Discovery and denying Defendant's
Motion to Strike in the case captioned JONATHAN SANTIAGO ROSARIO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION, Defendant, No. 2:16-cv-01951
RAJ (W.D. Wash.).

Plaintiff Jonathan Santiago Rosario brings a putative class
action alleging that Defendant Starbucks Corporation violated the
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) in relation to its use of pre-
employment background checks. The parties submitted a stipulation
and proposed order to extend all discovery deadlines for a period
of 45 days. Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Responses to
Written Discovery and Deposition.

Defendant produced several documents, agreed to present a Rule
30(b)(6) witness to testify to most of Plaintiff's deposition
topics, and agreed to answer several of Plaintiff's
interrogatories. As of the date of Plaintiff's Response to
Defendant's Motion to Strike, Plaintiff maintains that Defendant
has not responded to one of Plaintiff's interrogatories, several
of Plaintiff's requests for production, and has not provided a
witness to testify regarding several of the topics in its Rule
30(b)(6) Notice of Deposition.

Plaintiff's Requests for Production 16, 17, 21, 35 are similarly
overbroad and unduly burdensome. Requests 16, 17 and 21 are not
limited in time, and contain no other language that limits their
scope. For example, Plaintiff's Request for Production 21 states:
All emails, including but not limited to drafts and "deleted"
files, that were sent, received or created by any current or
former employee containing the terms FCRA or Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

This request is not confined to a time period or a location.
Starbucks has reportedly more than 24,000 retail stores in 70
countries  The language of this request uses overly general
terms, and is again, clearly unduly burdensome. The Court finds
the term problem to be particularly troublesome, as it can
encompass any number of issues. While Request 35 has a time
limitation of ten years, the Court has concerns that this
limitation might also be overbroad.

Plaintiff also moves to compel Defendant to provide a Rule
30(b)(6) witness to testify to Topics 11 (to the extent it
incorporates Interrogatory 5), 12, and 13 of its Deposition
Notice. Topic 11 (to the extent it incorporates Interrogatory 5),
concerns Defendant's response to Plaintiff's Interrogatory 5,
Topic 12 concerns all complaints received by Defendant regarding
its use of background reports in connection with decisions
regarding employment at Starbucks, and Topic 13 all complaints
received by Defendant regarding its use of consumer reports in
connection with decisions regarding employment at Starbucks.
These topics contain no other limitations that limit the scope of
inquiry, e.g. time, location or type of complaint. Plaintiff is
reminded that Defendant must respond to any relevant discovery
request that is not privileged and that is reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Discovery
requests that are overly broad and encompass documents or
information not relevant to this matter undermine the discovery
process and are counterproductive to the progress of this
litigation.

Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is denied.  The Court
clarifies that this denial is not to be construed as permission
for Defendant to refuse to respond to discovery requests from
Plaintiff that meet the requirements of the Rules and relevant
case law. The Court also expects that the parties adhere to the
agreements made after Plaintiff filed his Motion to Compel and
prior to the issuance of this Order.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 4, 2017 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ydc2kedt from Leagle.com.

Jonathan Santiago Rosario, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by James A.
Francis -- jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com -- FRANCIS & MAILMAN PC,
pro hac vice.

Jonathan Santiago Rosario, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by John
Soumilas -- jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com -- FRANCIS & MAILMAN
PC, pro hac vice, Lauren K.W. Brennan --
lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com -- FRANCIS & MAILMAN PC, pro hac
vice, Erika L. Nusser -- enusser@tmdwlaw.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL
LAW GROUP PLLC & Beth E. Terrell -- bterrell@tmdwlaw.com --
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC.

Starbucks Corporation, Defendant, represented by James E. Howard
-- jimhoward@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE.


STATE FARM: Spine Care Suit Moved to Delaware Federal Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Spine Care Delaware, LLC, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and
State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, the Defendants, Case No.
K17C-11-00009 NEP, was removed from the Delaware Superior Court,
to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
(Wilmington. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-
01816-UNA to the proceeding.

State Farm is a large group of insurance and financial services
companies in the United States. The group's main business is
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, a mutual
insurance firm that also owns the other State Farm companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John S. Spadaro, Esq.
          JOHN SHEEHAN SPADARO, LLC
          54 Liborio Lane
          P.O. Box 627
          Smyrna, DE 19977
          Telephone: (302) 235 7745
          Facsimile: (302) 235 2536
          E-mail: jspadaro@johnsheehanspadaro.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Colin M. Shalk, Esq.
          CASARINO CHRISTMAN
          SHALK RANSOM & DOSS, P.A.
          400 North King Street
          P.O. Box 1276
          Renaissance Centre
          Wilmington, DE 19899
          Telephone: (302) 594 4500
          E-mail: cshalk@casarino.com


STEADFAST INCOME: $103,360 Remains as Receivable as of Sept.
------------------------------------------------------------
Steadfast Income REIT, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that the company had recorded
$103,360 and $350,851 as reimbursement for funds spent by the
Company in excess of its proportionate share, of which $103,360
remained as a receivable from other Steadfast Parties as of
September 30, 2017.

Steadfast said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2017, that the Company had recorded $247,491 as
reimbursement for funds spent by the Company in excess of its
proportionate share, of which $103,652 remained as a receivable
from other Steadfast Parties as of June 30, 2017.

Certain of the Company's subsidiaries and the Property Manager
were named as defendants in two Texas class action lawsuits
alleging violations of the Texas Water Code (collectively, the
"Actions"). The Company's subsidiaries and the Property Manager
disputed plaintiffs' claims in the Actions; however, to avoid the
time and expense associated with defending the Actions, the
Company's subsidiaries and other affiliated Steadfast entities
(collectively, the "Steadfast Parties") entered into Settlement
Agreements with the plaintiffs that provided for a settlement
payment to the class members and a release of claims by
plaintiffs and class members against the Steadfast Parties.

In connection with the settlement agreements, on April 17, 2017,
the Steadfast Parties entered into a contribution, settlement and
release agreement whereby all agreed to an allocation of all
costs related to the actions and their settlements and a release
of all claims a Steadfast Party may have against any other
Steadfast Party. The Company's proportionate share of the
settlements was $378,405, which consisted of funds used to pay a
portion of (1) the settlement payments to the plaintiffs and
class members in the actions and (2) legal costs, less insurance
proceeds. During the three and nine months ended September 30,
2017, the Company had recorded $103,360 and $350,851 as
reimbursement for funds spent by the Company in excess of its
proportionate share, of which $103,360 remained as a receivable
from other Steadfast Parties as of September 30, 2017.

Steadfast Income REIT, Inc. was formed on May 4, 2009, as a
Maryland corporation that elected to be treated as, and currently
qualifies as, a REIT.


STEPHEN EINSTEIN: Faces "Somerset" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stephen Einstein &
Associates, P.C. The case is styled Steven Julie Somerset,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v Stephen Einstein & Associates, P.C. and Stephen
Einstein, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-07539-ADS-ARL (E.D.N.Y.,
December 27, 2017).

The Law Firm of Stephen Einstein & Associates, P.C. was
established in 1989 as a law firm focused on a creditor rights,
collections, litigation and real estate practice. Its clients
include property management companies/landlords, major banks,
credit unions, finance companies, professional practices, supply
houses, distributors, contractors and builders.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph Mauro, Esq.
   The Law Office of Joseph Mauro, LLC
   306 McCall Avenue
   West Islip, NY 11795
   Tel: (631) 669-0921
   Fax: (631) 669-5071
   Email: JoeMauroesq@hotmail.com


STRAUB DISTRIBUTING: Faces "Garcia" Suit in C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Straub Distributing
Company, Ltd. The case is styled Juan Garcia, Fernando Gomez and
Marco Veltri, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v Straub Distributing Company, Ltd., a
California Company and DOES 1 through 50 inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 8:17-cv-02249 (C.D. Cal., December 27, 2017).

Straub Distributing Company, Ltd., distributes products from the
Breckenridge Brewery in Breckenridge, Colorado.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE.


SUPPLEMENTAL INCOME: Union Retirement Plan Hit with ERISA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
David J. Pryzbylski, writing for The National Law Review, reports
that on Nov. 30, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
trustees of the Supplemental Income 401(k) Plan, a union
retirement plan that covers more than 27,000 Teamsters as well as
other union-represented employees. The lawsuit was filed in
federal court in California -- where the $921 million retirement
fund is based.

The 26-page complaint alleges that the retirement plan failed to
offer "lower priced alternative classes of mutual funds" that
were available on the market as compared to the funds provided
for by the plan. The complaint further asserts that the union
retirement plan paid excessive administrative fees to record
keepers.

This will be an interesting case to watch, as lawsuits against
union retirement plans related to administrative fees are
relatively rare. Stay tuned. [GN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

     Andrew D. Stolper, Esq.
     Jason M. Frank, Esq.
     Scott H. Sims, Esq.
     19800 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 855
     Irvine, CA 92612
     Tel: (949) 201-2400
     Fax: (949) 201-2405
     FRANK SIMS & STOLPER LLP
     Email: astolper@lawfss.com
            jfrank@lawfss.com
            ssims@lawfss.com

        -- and --

     Jonathan Parrott, Esq.
     FRANKLIN D. AZAR & ASSOCIATES
     14426 East Evans Avenue
     Aurora, CO 80014
     Tel: (303) 757-3300
     Fax: (303) 759-5203
     Email: parrottj@fdazar.com


T-MOBILE USA: Aug. 10 Deadline to File Class Cert Motion
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued a Scheduling Order in the case captioned JESSE
BLACK, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. T-MOBILE USA,
INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-04151 (N.D. Cal.).

The Court approves the Joint Stipulation on Parties' Proposed
Case Schedule and orders as follows:

   Deadline to participate in
   private mediation                     June 30, 2018

   Completion of precertification
   fact discovery                       August 1, 2018

   Precertification expert
   disclosure deadline                  August 1, 2018

   Deadline to file Class
   Certification Motion                August 10, 2018

   Deadline to file Opposition
   to Class                         September 24, 2018

   Certification Motion Completion
   of precertification expert
   discovery                          October 12, 2018

   Deadline to file Reply to
   Class Certification                October 19, 2018

   Motion Hearing on Class
   Certification Motion              November 15, 2018

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 4, 2017 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y92rvl49 from Leagle.com.

Jesse Black, Plaintiff, represented by Arnab Banerjee --
Arnab.Banerjee@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC.

T-Mobile USA, Inc, Defendant, represented by Gregory G. Iskander
-- giskander@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Keith Adam
Jacoby -- kjacoby@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, Sophia Behnia
-- sbehnia@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Perry Kim
Miska, Jr. --  pmiska@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C..


TEZOS: Swiss Foundation to Cover ICO Suit Legal Costs
-----------------------------------------------------
Jon Southurst, writing for Bitsonline, reports that buyers in the
blockbuster Tezos ICO last July are now regretting their
enthusiasm.  In the latest update to the saga, the projects two
founders and their company are trying to get the Swiss Tezos
Foundation to cover their legal costs -- against a lawsuit by
frustrated token buyers.

Foundation Holds the ICO Funds
The not-for-profit Tezos Foundation was created to play a
governance role in the project, and holds the keys to the $232
million USD in ICO-raised funds.  Reuters reported that if the
Foundation were to cover legal costs, it would be using funds
contributed by the very people suing the company.

Development delays, and an ongoing dispute between founders
Arthur and Kathleen Breitman and Tezos Foundation president
Johann Gevers, mean token buyers have received nothing so far.

The platform itself -- a multi-purpose blockchain-based network
ironically aimed at crowdfunding -- has still not gone live.  No
platform means no tokens ("Tezzies") which means no trading.  ICO
buyers looking to make a quick 100x profit are sorely
disappointed at the missed opportunity, given the competition.
Even keeping the BTC or ETH they used to buy Tezzies would have
provided a handsome return since July.

The Breitmans, their Delaware-registered company Dynamic Ledger
Solutions (DLS) and the Swiss Tezos Foundation are all defendants
in at least two class-action lawsuits.

Token Buyers Unhappy at Not Knowing Full Details
At issue now are the Swiss Foundation's legal obligations under
what Reuters called "arcane" local laws governing nonprofit
foundation structures.

Tezos ICOUnder a contract between DLS and the Tezos Foundation,
two things were supposed to happen before the fundraiser: the
Swiss regulator for foundations approving the deal, and Tezos'
software code being put in the public domain.

Neither of those has happened, despite the ICO being long over.
The Swiss regulator said it does not review private legal
contracts.  The Foundation has the code, but is not releasing it
for some reason.

Token buyers did not know about either of those two conditions,
which their lawyers say were important pieces of information as
they could have (and have) caused the project to stall.  But was
Tezos legally obligated to reveal this, if ICO buyers are not
"investors"?

The plaintiffs in the lawsuits say token buyers were investors,
and the tokens unlicensed securities. However the buyers'
agreement states their contributions were merely non-refundable
donations to the Foundation.

ICOs Are Totally Not Investments, OK?
ICO organizers usually state clearly that tokens are not
investments or securities, in the hope of skirting securities
laws in various countries. However experts and industry bodies in
countries like Japan have warned that may not be enough --
investment or even consumer laws may still apply.

Casual examination of ICO-related conversation online shows token
buyers are looking for some kind of financial return from their
outlay.

For outsiders, it's a fascinating example of what happens when
blockchain technology tries to merge with traditional financial
law in a place like Switzerland.

Reuters has followed the story closely, though none of the
warring parties will speak on the record at this stage.
Arthur Breitman last gave a public update at Money20/20 in Las
Vegas in October, telling stakeholders to "bear with me".

Unfortunately for Tezos ICO buyers, it now looks like the project
is more likely to spend time and energy getting bogged down in
legal disputes than producing software.  This is unlikely to
produce anything of value long-term.

By participating in the class action suits, token buyers may be
setting themselves up for another disappointment down the road.
[GN]


TIVITY HEALTH: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Tivity Health, Inc. (NASDAQ:TVTY) from February 24,
2017, through November 3, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Tivity Health investors
under the federal securities laws.

To join the Tivity Health class action, go to
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-1249.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq.
or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A
CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU
RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO
NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

According to the lawsuit, defendants during the Class Period made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Tivity Health was aware that its customer,
United Healthcare, Inc., planned to expand its fitness benefits
to seniors; (2) that expansion would represent direct competition
to Tivity Health's core program, SilverSneaker; and (3) as a
result, Tivity Health's financial statements, as well as
defendants' statements about Tivity Health's business,
operations, and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
January 19, 2018. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-1249.htmlor to discuss your rights
or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip
Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-
767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
kchan@rosenlegal.com.

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on
Twitter: https://twitter.com/rosen_firm.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Since 2014, Rosen Law Firm has
been ranked #2 in the nation by Institutional Shareholder
Services for the number of securities class action settlements
annually obtained for investors. [GN]


TKG-STORAGEMART: Sued over Illegal Premium Lease Plans
------------------------------------------------------
SKYLINE ELECTRIC LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. TKG-STORAGEMART PARTNERS
PORTFOLIO, LLC d/b/a STORAGEMART, and DOES 1-20, the Defendants,
Case No. 2017CH16652 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., Dec. 19, 2017),
seeks relief from StorageMart's illegal Premium Lease Plans or
like products.

StorageMart is a self-service storage facility chain that rents
physical storage units and requires its customers, if they do not
have insurance that covers the unit, to pay for its "Premium
Lease Plan" that provides coverage for damage to stored property
for the entire storage unit lease term. StorageMart operates its
Premium Lease Plans as insurance as defined by the State of
Illinois in the Illinois Insurance Code, yet it is not qualified,
pursuant to the Code, to market, sell, or otherwise provide
insurance and thus unlawfully pockets monies from its unlawful
marketing, sale, provision, and administration of insurance.

As a rider to the form lease agreements by which StorageMart
leases its Storage Units to consumers, StorageMart provides a
Premium Lease Plan by which StorageMart agrees, for an additional
monthly fee, to insure a lessee's stored property against certain
types of damage. The Premium Lease Plan is prepared by
StorageMart and is not negotiated. Despite the Premium Lease Plan
being insurance, StorageMart disclaims that it is insurance and
disclaims that it is an insurance company. As a condition of
leasing a Storage Unit, Defendants required Plaintiff and other
StorageMart customers to purchase the Premium Lease Plan
insurance product-and held out that product as providing coverage
for lost or damaged property-unless the customer provided proof
that the Unit is otherwise insured. Customers have no meaningful
choice to avoid paying for a Premium Lease Plan, because, among
other reasons, Defendants don't tell customers that they are
providing the Plan unlawfully, and Defendants require customers
without applicable insurance coverage to buy the Plan as a
condition of leasing the Storage Unit.

In contrast to StorageMart's attempt to provide non-licensed
insurance on its own, under the auspices of a lease plan or
coverage plan, other self-storage providers advertise the same
service as insurance provided by third-party insurers.  But,
Defendants at relevant times did not offer third-party insurance
to their Storage Unit customers. To protect insureds in Illinois,
the State of Illinois requires any provider of insurance, among
other obligations, to be properly licensed and registered with
the Illinois Department of Insurance (the "Department").
Insurance covering the "direct or consequential loss or damage to
property of every kind" is a line of authority regulated under
the Code.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ilan Chorowsky, Esq.
          Mark Bulgarelli, Esq.
          Adam Urbanczyk, Esq.
          PROGRESSIVE LAW GROUP LLC
          1570 Oak A venue, Suite 103
          Evanston, Illinois 60201
          Telephone: 312 787 2717


TRAILER BRIDGE: Faces "Terry" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bradley Terry, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. Trailer Bridge, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-01367-TJC-MCR (M.D.
Fla., December 7, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, declaratory relief, and other relief under Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Trailer Bridge, Inc. operates a freight service company
headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor
      Orlando, FL 32802-4979
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
      E-mail: RMorgan@forthepeople.com


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Faces "Bradford" Suit in S.D. Texas
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transworld Systems,
Inc. The case is styled Joyce Bradford a/k/a Joyce Butler,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v Transworld Systems, Inc. and John Does 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-03893 (S.D. Tex., December 27,
2017).

Transworld Systems provides accounts receivable, debt recovery,
and past due accounts services for businesses, medical companies,
and dental companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jonathan David Kandelshein, Esq.
   The Law Office of Jonathan Kandelshein
   6906 Rocky Top Circle
   Dallas, TX 75252
   Tel: (646) 753-0149
   Email: Jonathan.kandelshein@gmail.com


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Faces "Danyarov" Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transworld Systems
Inc. The case is styled Artem Danyarov, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v Transworld Systems
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07530 (E.D.N.Y., December 27,
2017).

Transworld Systems provides accounts receivable, debt recovery,
and past due accounts services for businesses, medical companies,
and dental companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TRIANGLE CAPITAL: Jan. 22 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a free shareholder information service, reminds
investors that they have until January 22, 2018 to file lead
plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit
against Triangle Capital Corporation (NYSE:TCAP), if they
purchased the Company's shares between May 7, 2014 and November
1, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period").  This action is pending
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

Get Help

Triangle Capital investors should visit us at
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-triangle-capital-
corporation-securities-litigation or call to speak to our claim
center toll-free at (844) 367-9658.

                        About the Lawsuit

Triangle Capital and certain of its executives are charged with
failing to disclose material information during the Class Period,
violating federal securities laws.

On November 1, 2017, Triangle revealed a decline in the fair
value of its investment portfolio of nearly 7%, $8.9 million in
net realized losses and $65.8 million in net unrealized
depreciation for the quarter.  Further, seven investments were
moved to full non-accrual status and investments on non-accrual
had ballooned to 13.4% and 4.7% of Triangle's total portfolio at
cost and fair value, respectively.

On this news, the price of Triangle shares plummeted nearly 21%,
or $2.57 per share.

About ClaimsFiler

ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions
of dollars from securities class action settlements.
ClaimsFiler's team of experts monitor the securities class action
landscape and cull information from a variety of sources to
ensure comprehensive coverage across a broad range of financial
instruments. [GN]


TRIANGLE CAPITAL: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Triangle Capital Corporation ("Triangle Capital")
(NYSE:TCAP) between May 7, 2014 and November 1, 2017. You are
hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been
commenced in the USDC for the Southern District of New York. To
get more information go to:

http://www.zlk.com/plsra-c/triangle-capital-corporation?wire=3

or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-
free: (877) 363-5972. There is no cost or obligation to you.

The complaint alleges that, among other allegations, throughout
the class period Defendants issued materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
Triangle's investment professionals had internally recommended
moving away from mezzanine loan deals due to changes in the
market that no longer made these investments attractive risk-
reward opportunities; (ii) the Company's former CEO, Garland S.
Tucker, III, had ignored the advice of Triangle's investment
professionals to chase higher short-term yields by causing
Triangle to invest in mezzanine debts; (iii) the Company's entire
vintage of 2014 and 2015 investments were at substantial risk of
non-accrual as a result of the poor quality of the investments
and deficient underwriting practices in place at the time of the
investments; and (iv) more than 13% of Triangle's investment
portfolio at cost was at risk of non-accrual and, thus, the fair
value of the Company's asset portfolio was artificially inflated.

If you suffered a loss in Triangle Capital you have until January
22, 2018 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.
Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York,
California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys
have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in
securities litigation, and have recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.[GN]


TRUBRIDGE INC: "Core" Suit Alleges FLSA and Ohio Law Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Core, individually and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. Trubridge, Inc., TZ
Insurance Solutions, LLC, and MG LLC dba Tranzact Case No. 5:17-
cv-02551 (N.D. Ohio, December 7, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay
Act.

Plaintiff Daniel Core is a resident of the State of Ohio living
in the Northern District of Ohio. Plaintiff was jointly employed
by the Defendants as an inside insurance agent from approximately
September 2016 until November 2017.

Defendant TruBridge Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of TRANZACT,
is a digital insurance agency working with some of the most
widely recognized and respected insurance brands in America.

Defendant TZ Insurance Solutions provides end-to-end customer
acquisition solutions to support our insurance clients. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

      Peter Contreras, Esq.
      CONTRERAS LAW, LLC
      P.O. Box 215
      Amlin, OH 43002
      Tel: (614) 787-4878
      Fax: (614) 923-7369
      E-mail: peter.contreras@contrerasfirm.com


TURTLE BEACH: Appeals Court Agrees to Case Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------
Turtle Beach Corporation disclosed in a regulatory filing that a
unanimous en banc panel of the Nevada Supreme Court granted
defendants' petition for writ of mandamus and ordered the trial
court to dismiss a class action complaint, but provided a limited
basis upon which plaintiffs could seek to amend their complaint.

Turtle Beach said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that on August 5, 2013, VTBH and the Company
(f/k/a Parametric) announced that they had entered into the
Merger Agreement pursuant to which VTBH would acquire an
approximately 80% ownership interest and existing shareholders
would maintain an approximately 20% ownership interest in the
combined company. Following the announcement, several
shareholders filed class action lawsuits in California and Nevada
seeking to enjoin the Merger. The plaintiffs in each case alleged
that members of the Company's Board of Directors breached their
fiduciary duties to the shareholders by agreeing to a Merger that
allegedly undervalued the Company. VTBH and the Company were
named as defendants in these lawsuits under the theory that they
had aided and abetted the Company's Board of Directors in
allegedly violating their fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs in
both cases sought a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin
closing of the Merger, which, by agreement, was heard by the
Nevada court with the California plaintiffs invited to
participate.

On December 26, 2013, the court in the Nevada cases denied the
plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. Following the
closing of the Merger, the Nevada plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint, which made essentially the same allegations
and sought monetary damages as well as an order rescinding the
Merger. The California plaintiffs dismissed their action without
prejudice, and sought to intervene in the Nevada action, which
was granted. Subsequent to the intervention, the plaintiffs filed
a third amended complaint, which made essentially the same
allegations as prior complaints and sought monetary damages.

On June 20, 2014, VTBH and the Company moved to dismiss the
action, but that motion was denied on August 28, 2014. That
denial is currently under review by the Nevada Supreme Court,
which held a hearing on the Company's petition for review on
September 1, 2015.  After the hearing, the Nevada Supreme Court
requested supplemental briefing, which the parties completed on
October 13, 2015. The Nevada Supreme Court also invited the
Business Law Section of the Nevada State Bar to submit an amicus
brief by December 3, 2015 and briefing was completed on that
date.

Turtle Beach said in its Form 10-Q Report for the September 30
quarter, that on September 14, 2017, a unanimous en banc panel of
the Nevada Supreme Court granted defendants' petition for writ of
mandamus and ordered the trial court to dismiss the complaint,
but did provide a limited basis upon which plaintiffs could seek
to amend their complaint. The schedule for such amendment, if
any, has not been set.

The Company believes that the plaintiffs' claims against it are
without merit.

Turtle Beach is a premier audio technology company with expertise
and experience in developing, commercializing and marketing
innovative products across a range of large addressable markets
operating under two reportable segments, Turtle Beach(R)
("Headset") and HyperSound(R). The company is headquartered in
San Diego California and incorporated in the state of Nevada in
2010.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Law Partner Hints Possibility of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Binoy Kampmark, writing for Global Research, reports that it
sent patrons and users into fits of puzzled anger.  It numbed a
good many more who had placed mistaken faith in its operations.
Rapacious, predatory Uber, a ride-hailing company famed for its
international ruthlessness, had behaved accordingly.  Recently,
the firm revealed that it had received a massive hack in 2016,
failing to notify customers and regulators that a breach of
security had taken place.

The scale of the hack was far from negligible.  Some 57 million
customers were affected, their data obtained and held to ransom.
This was not all.  Officials at Uber, having decided against
immediate revelation in favour of a deep freeze approach, went
for an eyebrow raising option: paying off the culprits to the
tune of $100,000.  A dark deal was done: pretend it had never
happened.  The hackers walked away delighted.

Given the nature of such information hacks, the hide and seek
option was never going to last.  In a blog post, the company
subsequently conceded that, "In October 2016, Uber experienced a
data security incident that resulted in a breach of information
related to rider and driver accounts."

The data compromised involved names, email addresses and mobile
phone numbers.  Certain "forensic experts" were cited as claiming
that no "trip location history, credit card numbers, bank account
numbers, Social Security numbers or dates of birth were
downloaded."

Incoming chief executive Dara Khosrowshahi apologised with
predictable insincerity -- when accepting the job in August, he
already had knowledge of the hack.  "None of this should have
happened, and I will not make excuses for it."

Having been exposed for being in the breach, Uber's next step was
to claim that the hacking was insipid.  There had been "no
evidence of fraud or misuse tied up to the incident."  Some
internal window dressing was in order.

The company has overseen the resignation of three senior managers
in the rattled security unit, one stacked with 500 employees.  On
the chopping block was Pooja Ashok, chief of staff for the now
sacked chief security officer Joe Sullivan; Prithvi Rai, senior
security engineer, and Jeff Jones, responsible for physical
security.

The security team has not covered itself in glory.  Tasked with
the onerous brief of keeping the company accounts secure, it has
also been accused of engaging in pilfering programming codes and
trade secrets from rivals.  That particular case involves a
$1.8bn litigation standoff between Uber and Alphabet's autonomous
vehicle unit Waymo.

This ongoing battle has been illuminating on several levels.
Uber's approach to regulation -- its evasion, that is -- has come
out for some testing.  Presiding Judge William Alsup was in a far
from affable mood to Uber's general counsel in failing to
disclose a 37-page letter suggesting the presence of a "shadow
system" designed to avoid paper trails on supposedly sensitive
information.

The question to preoccupy the legal fraternity now is whether the
hack should have tangible consequences for Uber.  In various
states, customers and Uber drivers are looking at legal options
over the data breach that may well be grounded in statutory form.
The UK law firm Leigh Day has revealed that it had fielded
inquiries from 10 disgruntled customers.

Law partner Sean Humber has certainly had his interest piqued by
the possibility of a class action.

"If private, confidential information has been mishandled, that
could be a breach of the Data Protection Act, and people could
have a claim under the act."

The line taken by Mr. Humber is eminently sensible: that Uber
could well have facilitated a misuse of private information or,
at the very least, a breach of confidence.

"If people have suffered distress or loss as a result of that
data breach, in principle they are entitled to compensation."

In Los Angeles, the Wilshire Law Firm was also keeping busy on
this new frontier of litigation, filing a class action in the
federal court claiming that the firm's drivers and passengers are
at risk of fraud and identity theft.

This would be fitting.  Uber is a company hell bent on global
reach, and is happy to undercut local regulations, not to mention
the taxi market, where possible.  In various locales, the company
is meeting forms of resistance.

In September, Transport for London refused the company's request
for a new license, citing its app was not "fit and proper".
TfL's reasons also included inadequate reporting procedures for
serious criminal offences, the obtaining of medical certificates
and the use of the Greyball software.

In other jurisdictions, the company has been banned on grounds
spanning unfair competition to sidestepping local tax meters.
But this is a conflict of monumental proportions waged in the
courts and jurisdictions of the globe.

Uber, so far, has shown an appetite for donning its armour and
going into battle.  Domination does come with its fair share of
bruising and flesh wounds.  Importantly, as far as class actions
are concerned, the company may well be able to shore up its
defences in shifting the onus back to riders and drivers.

According to the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in August
this year, the rider must agree to waive their entitlement to
litigate in signing for the ride-sharing app.  This also comes
with an arbitration agreement clause activated on signing, though
it does come with an option to opt-out.  That very attention to
detail eludes most users of the system, the cost of near instance
convenience.

Such deft trickery did not bother Judge Denny Chin, who wrote the
judgment assented to by Judges Reena Raggi and Susan Carney.

"While it may be the case that many users will not bother reading
the additional terms, that is the choice the user makes.  The
user is still on inquiry notice."

Whether such cases protect the company from cases of gross
negligence regarding the handling of user data is a point that
still requires a firm answer.  The firm's vast wings may well be,
over time, clipped.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College,
Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. [GN]


US BANK: "Guiette" TCPA Suit Transferred to Colorado Court
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Defendant's Motion
to Transfer Venue of the case captioned Virginia Guiette,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. U.S. Bank National Association, Defendant, Civil
No. 17-1859 (DWF/DTS) (D. Minn.).

This dispute arises from phone calls Plaintiff Virginia Guiette
alleges she received from U.S. Bank without consent or after she
revoked consent to receive these calls.  Guiette is a citizen and
resident of Colorado and resided in Colorado during this time
period.

Plaintiff alleges two violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA). First, Plaintiff alleges negligent
violations of the TCPA and requests $500 in statutory damages for
each violation and injunctive relief. Second, Plaintiff alleges
knowing and/or willful violations of the TCPA and requests $1,500
in statutory damages for each violation and injunctive relief.

For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of
justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any
other district or division where it might have been brought. When
deciding a motion to transfer pursuant to Section 1404(a), the
Court must consider three factors: (1) the convenience of the
parties, (2) the convenience of the witnesses, and (3) the
interests of justice.

Convenience of the Parties

Both parties would prefer to litigate the case on the other's
party home turf. Although Colorado would plainly be convenient
for Plaintiff, she has chosen to litigate in Minnesota.  Although
Minnesota is Defendant's principal place of business, this
district does not appear to be especially convenient for
Defendant, and Defendant has established why Colorado would in
fact be more convenient for it. Under the circumstances, the
Court determines that this factor mildly supports transfer.

Convenience of the Witnesses

The convenience of the witnesses is an important factor because
it determines the relative ease of access to sources of proof.
Defendant argues that multiple non-party witnesses residing in
Colorado would provide relevant testimony in this matter.
Specifically, Defendant identifies the following categories of
potential witnesses in the proposed forum: (1) witnesses to
Plaintiff's alleged receipt of the challenged calls, (2)
witnesses to any harm Plaintiff claims to have suffered, (3)
witnesses to any incidental damages Plaintiff incurred, and (4)
witnesses to the origination of the Mortgage Loan including those
respecting how the phone number at issue was provided and the
presence or absence of consent to call the number.

Plaintiff argues that Defendant has failed to state with
sufficient specificity why the potential Colorado witnesses are
material to this case. Plaintiff also points out that Defendant's
employee witnesses do not reside in Colorado. However, Plaintiff
does not identify any non-party witnesses whose convenience
should be evaluated. Moreover, Plaintiff fails to identify even a
single potential witness located in Minnesota.

Balancing the comparative convenience of the two possible forums,
it is apparent that Colorado would be a far more convenient forum
for material non-party witnesses in this case. At this early
stage, Defendant has sufficiently demonstrated this to be true
notwithstanding the absence of a specific list of individual
witnesses. Finally, the Court doubts that any material witnesses
in this matter reside in Minnesota. On balance, therefore, this
factor strongly favors transfer.

Accessibility to Records and Documents

Given modern advances in technology and when the parties have the
ability to bear the costs of copying the necessary documents, the
location of documents is no longer entitled to much weight in the
transfer of venue analysis. To the extent there are any relevant
documents in this matter, it is likely that they are outside of
Minnesota. However, in light of modern discovery capabilities,
the Court concludes this factor is neutral.

Location Where the Conduct Complained of Occurred

Although some courts appear to focus primarily on where the
offending calls originated, the Court finds it more persuasive
that both locations are relevant. While Defendant's alleged
offensive conduct took place in various locations and call
centers across the United States, Plaintiff's receipt of those
calls and her alleged harms were localized in Colorado. On the
other hand, Minnesota is neither where the calls originated nor
were received. Balancing these respective forums, the Court
determines that this factor also strongly favors transfer to the
District of Colorado.

Interests of Justice

In weighing the interests of justice, courts consider: (1)
judicial economy, (2) the plaintiff's choice of forum, (3) the
comparative costs to the parties of litigating in each forum, (4)
each party's ability to enforce a judgment, (5) obstacles to a
fair trial, (6) conflict of law issues, and (7) the advantages of
having a local court determine questions of local law.

Judicial Economy

The Minnesota Court concludes that judicial economy favors
transfer in this case. Defendant moved to transfer at a very
early stage, and Plaintiff has stipulated to extend Defendant's
time to answer the Complaint until the transfer inquiry is
concluded. Thus, transferring this case to the District of
Colorado would not result in a significant waste of judicial
resources or time for the parties.  Thus, this factor supports
transfer.

Plaintiff's Choice of Forum

Plaintiff does not reside in this forum, and the facts of her
claims took place outside of Minnesota, in Colorado, and various
other states. Plaintiff also chose to litigate her claims on
behalf of a putative nationwide class. Thus, Plaintiff's forum
choice is not entitled to significant weight, and this factor
weighs only mildly in favor of maintaining this case in the
District of Minnesota.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 4, 2017
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y8gnh33y from Leagle.com.

Virginia Guiette, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony P. Chester
-- tony@westcoastlitigation.com -- Hyde & Swigart.

Virginia Guiette, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Robert L. Hyde --
bob@westcoastlitigation.com -- Hyde & Swigart & Sarah T. McEahern
-- coloradodebtdefense.com -- Hyde & Swigart, pro hac vice.

U.S. Bank National Association, Defendant, represented by Bryan
C. Keane -- keane.bryan@dorsey.com -- Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Divya
Shenoy Gupta -- gupta.divya@dorsey.com -- Dorsey & Whitney LLP,
pro hac vice & Eric J. Troutman --  troutman.eric@dorsey.com --
Dorsey & Whitney LLP, pro hac vice.


VECTREN UTILITY: Settlement in Pension Plan Suit Has Final OK
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vectren Utility Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that the court has entered an
Order and Final Judgment approving the settlement of the
remaining claims in a class action lawsuit and entered a final
judgment of dismissal.

During the third quarter of 2014, the Company was notified of
claims by a group of current and former SIGECO employees
("claimants") who participated in the Pension Plan for Salaried
Employees of SIGECO ("SIGECO Salaried Plan"). That plan was
merged into the Vectren Corporation Combined Non-Bargaining
Retirement Plan ("Vectren Combined Plan") effective July 1, 2000.

The claims related to the claimants' election for benefits to be
calculated under the Vectren Combined Plan's cash-balance formula
rather than the SIGECO Salaried Plan formula. On March 12, 2015,
certain claimants filed a Class Action Complaint against the
Vectren Combined Plan (Plan) and the Company. The Company denied
the allegations set forth in the Complaint and moved to dismiss
the case. In April 2016, the court dismissed part of the
complaint but allowed the remaining claims to proceed. On
February 6, 2017, the parties reached a settlement in principle
to resolve the matter.

Vectren said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2017, that the Court preliminarily certified the
Class and approved the settlement, subject to: (1) providing
notification to the Class members, (2) providing Class members an
opportunity to object and/or opt out and (3) a full fairness
hearing. Notice was provided, the deadline for class members to
object to the settlement has passed with no objections. The
deadline for class members to opt out of the settlement has
passed and there were no opt outs.  The Court set the class
certification and final settlement approval hearing for August
15, 2017.

On August 16, 2017, the court entered an Order and Final Judgment
approving settlement of the remaining claims and entered a final
judgment of dismissal, according to Vectren's Form 10-Q Report
for the September 30 quarter.

The Company said the terms of the settlement in principle are not
expected to have a material impact on the Plan or the Company.

Vectren Utility Holdings, Inc., an Indiana corporation, was
formed on March 31, 2000 to serve as the intermediate holding
company for Vectren Corporation's (Vectren or the Company's
parent) three operating public utilities:  Indiana Gas Company,
Inc. (Indiana Gas or Vectren Energy Delivery of Indiana - North),
Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Company (SIGECO or Vectren
Energy Delivery of Indiana - South), and Vectren Energy Delivery
of Ohio, Inc. (VEDO).


VIRGINIA: Class Cert. Bid Filed in "Riggleman" Suit vs DOC
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled TERRY A. RIGGLEMAN, the Plaintiff, v.
HAROLD CLARKE, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00063-MFU
(W.D. Va.), Mr. Riggleman moves this Court for an order to
certify a class consisting of:

   "all persons who are currently incarcerated in a Virginia
   Department of Corrections facility who have at least 12 weeks
   or more remaining to serve on their sentences and whose
   Department of Corrections medical records demonstrate that
   they have Hepatitis C."

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mario B. Williams, Esq.
          NEXUS CARIDADES ATTORNEYS, INC.
          44 Broad Street, NW, Suite 200
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 654 0288
          Facsimile: (703) 935 2453
          E-mail: mwilliams@nexuscaridades.com


WELLS FARGO: Court Denies Appointment of Counsel in "Muniz"
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order denying Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint
Interim Class Counsel in the case captioned VICTOR MUNIZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 17-cv-04995-MMC (N.D. Cal.).

Ordinarily, where there are no competing lawsuits or firms,
courts in this district have denied requests for appointment of
interim class counsel.  Here, there are no such competing
lawsuits or firms, and Muniz's concern as to potentially related
cases "on the horizon" is too speculative to warrant the relief
sought.

To the extent Muniz argues interim class counsel is necessary to
protect putative class members from potentially misleading
communications initiated by defendants, such communications can
be called to the Court's attention and addressed, if and when
appropriate, irrespective of whether interim class counsel has
been appointed.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 4, 2017 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybvn3xle from Leagle.com.

Victor Muniz, Plaintiff, represented by Derek William Loeser --
dloeser@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback, LLP, pro hac vice.

Victor Muniz, Plaintiff, represented by Gretchen Freeman Cappio -
- gcappio@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback, LLP, pro hac
vice & Matthew J. Preusch -- mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com  --
Keller Rohrback, L.L.P..

Brian Brach, Plaintiff, represented by Eric H. Gibbs --
ehg@classlawgroup.com --  Gibbs Law Group LLP, Aaron Blumenthal -
ab@classlawgroup.com -- Gibbs Law Group LLP, Amy Marie Zeman --
amz@classlawgroup.com -- Girrard Gibbs LLP & Michael Lawrence
Schrag -- mls@classlawgroup.com -- Gibbs Law Group LLP.

Wells Fargo & Company, Defendant, represented by Amanda L. Groves
-- agroves@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP, Kobi Kennedy
Brinson -- kbrinson@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn, LLP, pro hac
vice & Stacie C. Knight -- sknight@winston.com -- Winston &
Strawn LLP, pro hac vice.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Amanda L.
Groves, Winston & Strawn LLP,Kobi Kennedy Brinson, Winston &
Strawn, LLP, pro hac vice & Stacie C. Knight, Winston & Strawn
LLP, pro hac vice.

Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Defendant, represented by Amanda L.
Groves, Winston & Strawn LLP, Kobi Kennedy Brinson, Winston &
Strawn, LLP, pro hac vice & Stacie C. Knight, Winston & Strawn
LLP, pro hac vice.


WHITEFORD & TAYLOR: "Osinaga" Suit Moved to Maryland Federal Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Edson G. Osinaga and Cumanda
Cisneros, On Their Own Behalf and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. Whiteford, Taylor & Preston, L.L.P.;
Andrews & Lawrence Law Group, LLC; Andrews & Lawrence
Professional Services, LLC; Andrews & Lawrence Prof. Svcs., LLC;
and Andrews & Lawrence, LLC, Case No. 439220-V, was removed from
the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland. The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 8:17-cv-03750-PWG to the proceeding.

Whiteford, Taylor & Preston is a firm in Baltimore, Maryland.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ashley A Wetzel, Esq.
          Richard S Gordon, Esq.
          Benjamin Howard Carney, Esq.
          GORDON, WOLF & CARNEY CHTD.
          100 W Pennsylvania Ave.
          Towson, MD 21204
          Telephone: (410) 825 2300
          E-mail: awetzel@GWCfirm.com
                  rgordon@GWCfirm.com
                  bcarney@GWCfirm.com

               - and -

          Joseph Mack, Esq.
          CIVIL JUSTICE, INC.
          520 W. Fayette St., Suite 410
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Telephone: (410) 706 7985
          Facsimile: (410) 779 9071
          E-mail: joseph@macklawonline.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brian L Moffet, Esq.
          Dwight W Stone, II, Esq.
          Megan Brianna Burnett, Esq.
          MILES & STOCKBRIDGE, P.C.
          100 Light Street
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 385 3656
          E-mail: bmoffet@milesstockbridge.com
                  dstone@milesstockbridge.com
                  mburnett@milesstockbridge.com

               - and -

          Timothy Guy Smith, Esq.
          TIMOTHY GUY SMITH PC
          2480 Route 97 Ste Seven
          Glenwood, MD 21738
          Telephone: (410) 489 2314
          Facsimile: (410) 489 2315
          E-mail: tsmith5021@juno.com


WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend "Shanklin" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wilhelmina International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that the company continues to
defend itself in a putative class action lawsuit brought by Alex
Shanklin in New York state court.

On October 24, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was brought
against the Company by former Wilhelmina model Alex Shanklin and
others (the "Shanklin Litigation"), in New York State Supreme
Court (New York County) by the same lead counsel who represented
plaintiffs in a prior, now-dismissed action brought by Louisa
Raske (the "Raske Litigation"). The claims in the Shanklin
Litigation initially included breach of contract and unjust
enrichment allegations arising out of matters similar to the
Raske Litigation, such as the handling and reporting of funds on
behalf of models and the use of model images. Other parties named
as defendants in the Shanklin Litigation include other model
management companies, advertising firms, and certain advertisers.

On January 6, 2014, the Company moved to dismiss the Amended
Complaint in the Shanklin Litigation for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted and other grounds, and other
defendants also filed motions to dismiss. On August 11, 2014, the
court denied the motion to dismiss as to Wilhelmina and other of
the model management defendants. Further, on March 3, 2014, the
judge assigned to the Shanklin Litigation wrote the Office of the
New York Attorney General bringing the case to its attention,
generally describing the claims asserted therein against the
model management defendants, and stating that the case "may
involve matters in the public interest." The judge's letter also
enclosed a copy of his decision in the Raske Litigation, which
dismissed that case.

Plaintiffs retained substitute counsel, who filed a Second and
then Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint
asserts causes of action for alleged breaches of the plaintiffs'
management contracts with the defendants, conversion, breach of
the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment.
The Third Amended Complaint also alleges that the plaintiff
models were at all relevant times employees, and not independent
contractors, of the model management defendants, and that
defendants violated the New York Labor Law in several respects,
including, among other things, by allegedly failing to pay the
models the minimum wages and overtime pay required thereunder,
not maintaining accurate payroll records, and not providing
plaintiffs with full explanations of how their wages and
deductions therefrom were computed. The Third Amended Complaint
seeks certification of the action as a class action, damages in
an amount to be determined at trial, plus interest, costs,
attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the court deems proper.

On October 6, 2015, Wilhelmina filed a motion to dismiss as to
most of the plaintiffs' claims, and oral argument on the motion
was heard by the Court in June 2016. The Court entered a decision
granting in part and denying in part Wilhelmina's motion to
dismiss on May 26, 2017. The Court (i) dismissed three of the
five New York Labor Law causes of action, along with the
conversion, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and
unjust enrichment causes of action, in their entirety, and (ii)
permitted only the breach of contract causes of action, and some
plaintiffs' remaining two New York Labor Law causes of action to
continue, within a limited time frame. The plaintiffs and
Wilhelmina have appealed the decision.

The parties appeared before the Court for a status conference on
July 18, 2017, and the Court directed the defendants to answer
the Third Amended Complaint by August 16, 2017. Wilhelmina filed
its Answer to the Third Amended Complaint on that date, and
discovery in this action is continuing.

The Company believes the claims asserted in the Third Amended
Complaint are without merit, and intends to continue to
vigorously defend the action.

Wilhelmina International, Inc.'s primary business is fashion
model management and complementary business activities. The
business of talent management firms, such as Wilhelmina, depends
heavily on the state of the advertising industry, as demand for
talent is driven by Internet, print and television advertising
campaigns for consumer goods and retail clients. The company is
based in Dallas, Texas.


WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Discovery Ongoing in "Pressley" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wilhelmina International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that discovery is proceeding in
the putative class action lawsuit filed by Shawn Pressley, in New
York State Supreme Court.

On June 6, 2016, another putative class action lawsuit was
brought against the Company by former Wilhelmina model Shawn
Pressley and others (the "Pressley Litigation"), in New York
State Supreme Court (New York County) by the same counsel
representing the plaintiffs in the Shanklin Litigation, and
asserting identical, although more recent, claims as those in the
Shanklin Litigation. On June 14, 2016, the Court stayed all
proceedings in the Pressley Litigation until a decision was
issued on the motion to dismiss in the Shanklin Litigation. At
the court conference on July 18, 2017, the judge directed the
plaintiffs to file an amended complaint in the Pressley
Litigation, if any, by August 16, 2017, and directed the
defendants to move against or answer such amended complaint by
September 29, 2017.

The Amended Complaint, asserting essentially the same types of
claims as in the Shanklin action was filed on August 16th, and
Wilhelmina filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on
September 29, 2017. Briefing on the motion to dismiss is
continuing, and the motion is scheduled to be submitted to the
Court on November 16, 2017. Discovery is proceeding in this case.

The Company believes the claims asserted in the Pressley
Litigation are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend
the action.

Wilhelmina International, Inc.'s primary business is fashion
model management and complementary business activities. The
business of talent management firms, such as Wilhelmina, depends
heavily on the state of the advertising industry, as demand for
talent is driven by Internet, print and television advertising
campaigns for consumer goods and retail clients. The company is
based in Dallas, Texas.


WOODLAKE RESORT: Taps Post Foushee as Counsel in Homeowners Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Baxley, writing for The Pilot, reports that a Sanford law
firm has agreed to represent the owners of the troubled Woodlake
Resort and Country Club in a class action lawsuit.

Norman Post Jr., Esq. an attorney with Post, Foushee and Patton,
filed a motion on behalf of Woodlake CC Corp., the company that
owns the gated subdivision. The motion, which was mailed to Moore
County Clerk of Court Susan Hicks on Nov. 17, automatically
extends the deadline for the firm to respond to the allegations
against Woodlake CC Corp.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are Woodlake homeowners who blame
the company for causing property values to plummet in the
subdivision, which is located off N.C. 690 east of Vass. They
also claim the company's continued collection of membership dues
is part of "a scheme to coerce members to continue paying fees
even though (Woodlake CC Corp.) was not providing the promised
amenities," according to the class action complaint filed Oct. 23
in Moore County Superior Court.

Hope Carmichael, an attorney with Jordan Price Law Offices in
Raleigh, is representing the homeowners. After the complaint was
filed, Carmichael said the plaintiffs would receive a default
judgment if Woodlake CC Corp. failed to respond within 30 days.

The response from Post means the case will now be delayed until
after Christmas.

Property values in Woodlake fell sharply after the state ordered
the controlled draining of Lake Surf, the subdivision's 1,200-
acre centerpiece, in October 2016. The lake was drained amid
concerns about the stability of its dam in the wake of Hurricane
Matthew.

Woodlake CC Corp. was later sued by the state Attorney General's
Office for repeatedly failing to follow through on promises to
repair the dam's deteriorated spillway.

An agreement to dismantle the spillway was reached in court
between the state and Julie Watson, vice president of Woodlake CC
Corp., but the state was forced to perform the breach itself
after the company failed to meet the court-ordered construction
deadlines.

In a recent interview with The Pilot, Attorney General Josh
Stein, Esq. said he will lead the effort to recoup the costs
associated with the project, which are projected to exceed $1.2
million, after a series of inspections have been completed and
the final invoice is sent to Woodlake CC Corp.

In addition to the forthcoming bill from the state, Woodlake CC
Corp. owes money to several businesses, including two engineering
firms that claim to be owed more than $367,000 for unpaid
services. A previous law firm and public relations company that
had represented Woodlake also ceased doing business with the
ownership group.

It is not known if Post, Foushee and Patton was paid a retainer
up front. It is also not clear how much experience the law firm
has with class action litigation, which is not listed among the
practice areas on the firm's website.

Carmichael was paid a $40,000 retainer by the Restore Woodlake
Committee, a group made up of residents who want to refill the
empty lake. David Watterson, chairman of the committee and one of
the lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit, says Carmichael has
experience with similar cases.

"Hope has more recently been involved with . . . property owners
associations dealing with failed golf courses and third parties
that did not do right by the property owners associations, which
I personally think is a direct parallel with what we're
experiencing here," Watterson said during a recent town hall-
style meeting at Vass-Lakeview Elementary School.

Two classes are being represented in the lawsuit. The first class
consists of Woodlake residents whose property values have been
adversely affected by the loss of the lake -- or, as Watterson
put it during the meeting, "virtually everyone who lives at
Woodlake."

The second class consists of residents who have paid membership
dues to use the lake, golf courses and other amenities at the
resort since May 29, 2015. In the civil summons, the plaintiffs
claim Woodlake CC Corp. "offered memberships to property owners
living within the Woodlake subdivision at levels ranging from
$1,944.21 to $2,955.48, depending on the level of amenity access
desired."

The company allegedly "did not allow members to reduce their
level of membership, even when the amenities for which they were
paying were unavailable," according to the summons. "Members were
unable to simply stop paying due to the threat that Woodlake CC
Corp. would terminate their club membership entirely, thus
requiring an additional $25,000 new member fee in the future
should they ever wish to rejoin."

Because of the company's debts, Carmichael says the lawsuit is
not likely to win payouts for Woodlake residents.

According to Carmichael, a judgment against Woodlake would
instead allow homeowners to take control of the dam and lake
through a foreclosure auction. Watterson and the other plaintiffs
hope to eventually refill the lake, which should restore value to
their property and bring back the amenity they say attracted them
to the subdivision in the first place.

Woodlake CC Corp. could attempt to negotiate a settlement or file
for bankruptcy, as the development's previous owners did in 2014,
at any time during the process. Watterson says Carmichael has
plans for dealing with both scenarios.

"We have a very solid case here," he said. [GN]


* More Travel Firms to Face Data Privacy Legal Challenges
---------------------------------------------------------
Eye for Travel reports that as Google faces legal action in the
UK, experts at EyeforTravel's Amsterdam conference believe more
companies may fall foul of the rules

Travel firms believe that more and more firms will face privacy
infringement fines, after the announcement that Google faces a
class action in the UK for allegedly snooping on iPhone users.

Richard Lloyd, a former director of consumer group Which?, is
leading a collective lawsuit alleging that Google illegally
bypassed default privacy settings on Apple phones and tracked the
behaviour of people using the Safari internet browser in 2011 and
2012.

According to the Financial Times, Google has already paid
millions of dollars in the US over a "Safari security bypass".

The news, which broke on Day 2 of EyeforTravel's Amsterdam
co-located data and digital strategies conferences, did not go
unnoticed.  In the Q&A session following the morning 'machine vs
humanity' keynote addresses, moderator Paul Richer, a senior
partner for Genesys Consulting, had this question: "Is that the
kind of thing that we might find becoming more common as more and
more technology rolls out with the humans behind the technology
trying to find an edge?"

In response, Joerg Esser, a senior partner for consultancy firm
Roland Berger and former Thomas Cook director, said: "I would
expect that this will be more common.  We will see some
discussion between, on the one hand privacy challenges, and the
on other the added value that data brings.  There seems to be a
rule of thumb that about half of people surveyed are willing to
sign up for automation, for chatbots and for releasing personal
data, if there's a clear added value. But there will be tension
between the privacy challenges and added benefits."

There will be tension between the privacy challenges and added
benefits

Earlier in the morning in his opening keynote presentation,
Jonathan Moore, chief product officer at Trainline, had outlined
how being relevant could make customers more likely to share
data.  He cited the example of Trainline's BusyBot, which asks
customers to report how busy trains are and uses the hundreds of
thousands of data points to make predictions for any service on
any route.

What Trainline discovered, was that customers were happy to do
the work for the firm in building a dataset if there was clear
benefit.  "We see 150,000 unique inputs every week into this
feature," he said.  "There's a real selflessness in this number
-- there's no reason to interact with this feature unless you
make someone else's life a bit better on another day."

In responding to Mr. Richer's question on the Google action,
however, Moore, pointed to how people's attitude towards the
sharing of data was changing: "Generationally there are going to
be extraordinary differences in how happy we are to share data --
I might be the last generation to have a strong negative personal
opinion.  The generation that follows feels fundamentally
different.  It will be interesting to see how legislation copes
with that."

It certainly will and in Europe, for sure, travel firms are going
to need to be more careful with customer data given the
introduction of the new European General Data Protection
Regulation rules next year.  As Eurail CEO Brenda van Leeuwen
pointed out on Day 1 customers absolutely have the right to be
protected. To this end, Eurail is reviewing its internal
processes to ensure that customers are given plenty of
opportunity to opt in or opt out. [GN]


* Taylor-Copeland Law Firm Investigates ICO-Related Misconduct
--------------------------------------------------------------
JD Alois, writing for Crowdfund Insider, reports that Taylor-
Copeland Law, the San Diego based law firm that filed the first
class action law suit that hammered the Tezos initial coin
offering (ICO) and everyone associated with it, is looking for
other ICOs to legally pursue.  According to a post on their site,
Taylor-Copeland is "currently investigating misconduct" in
several big names in the token crowdsale space.  The names listed
include: Bancor, Paragon, Cobinhood, Kin and Centra.

Bancor, a decentralized liquidity network, is one of the largest
ICOs of all time having raised $153 million.  Cobinhood raised a
far smaller amount for a zero fee crytpocurrency exchange that is
not yet operational (but founders are making progress).  Kin is a
token created by Kik that raised nearly $100 million with about
half of its money coming from established venture capitalists.
Centra is a multi-faceted Blockchain company that provides a
wallet, an exchange and more. It raised $26 million and actually
trades higher than its ICO.  Paragon is still figuring out
exactly how much its ICO raised but it wants to create a digital
currency that facilitates the emerging Cannabis industry.

So what do these ICOs all have in common? They successfully
raised a good amount of money and thus represent a juicy target
for attorneys seeking aggrieved investors with which to base a
legal action around.

It is not clear any of these offerings have committed any
malfeasant acts.  Tezos, on the other hand, has become a bit of a
crypto tragedy due to the embarrassing infighting between the
founders and Tezos Foundation.  That and the fact it attempted to
describe investors in Tezzies as donors and purchasing these
coins was little more than an act of charity.

"Unfortunately, Tezos is not alone.  Investors in numerous ICOs
have been harmed by misconduct.  Taylor-Copeland Law is currently
investigating misconduct in the Kin, Bancor, Stox, Paragon,
Cobinhood, and Centra ICOs.  If you invested in any of these ICOs
please contact Taylor-Copeland Law to discuss how we may be able
to help you recover those funds."

So far, beyond Tezos, it does not appear the law firm has had
much luck. But look out if any of these experience a Tezos like
moment and the wheels fall off. [GN]


* Vaginal Mesh to Be Removed from Therapeutic Goods Register
------------------------------------------------------------
Kahla Preston, writing for nine.com.au, reports that a Canadian
mother of two has died four years after receiving a pelvic mesh
implant that left her with painful complications.

Christina Lynn Brajcic, 42, had the mesh midurethral sling
inserted in 2013 to treat stress incontinence following the birth
of her second child, the Sydney Morning Herald reports.

Within hours of the procedure, Brajcic found herself in severe
pain that only intensified with time.

"The pain got worse . . . and finally it was like my insides were
ripping out, I couldn't pee hardly at all," she told Canadian
media outlet CTV W5.

Yet when she shared her complaints with a surgeon, they dismissed
the pain as a side-effect of the device "settling in".

While the interior designer found a surgeon skilled enough to
remove the mesh a year after its insertion, complications
persisted over the next four years.

Ms. Brajcic required a wheelchair and constant antibiotics,
painkillers and anti-nausea medications, and was in and out of
hospital with infections and pain from nerve damage.

"I can't walk, I can't take my kids to the park. Every little
thing I do is such a huge ordeal to even get myself out of the
house," she told CTV W5.

Her case received widespread attention in October when she was
rushed to hospital for sepsis resulting from a life-threatening
infection.

"This is insane, to almost be on your deathbed at only 42 because
of mesh," the 'mesh warrior' told her followers in a Facebook
video recorded from her hospital bed.

Ms. Brajcic died in hospital on Nov. 30, leaving behind her
husband and two sons.

According to the Herald, hers is not the first recorded death of
a woman suffering complications from a urogynaecological mesh.

The net-like devices are used to address issues that typically
result from childbirth, namely stress incontinence and pelvic
organ prolapse.

They are intended to provide permanent support for weakened
organs including the bladder, rectum or uterus, and repair tissue
damage.

However, numerous women have come forward to share the
debilitating injuries they've suffered after receiving mesh
implants.

In August, more than 700 women launched a class action against
manufacturer Johnson & Johnson, seeking compensation for
complications including organ damage, recurring infections and
inability to have sex.

Recently, the Therapeutic Goods Administration announced vaginal
mesh implants for use in pelvic organ prolapse, and single
incision mini-slings, will be removed from the Australian
Register of Therapeutic Goods.

"The TGA is of the belief that the benefits . . . do not outweigh
the risks these products pose to patients," a statement read.
[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, Jessenius Pulido, Noemi Irene A.
Adala, Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche
Maricon Castillon-Lopez, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G.
Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2018.  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  * * *