CAR_Public/180104.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Thursday, January 4, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 4



                            Headlines

1220 MANAGEMENT: Perez Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages, OT under FLSA
AARP INC: "Levay" Suit Moved to Central District of California
ACTION TOWING: "Wu" Suit Alleges Unlawful Towing of Vehicles
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Malware Class Action Suit Remanded
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: 9th Cir. Affirms Judgment in "Rodman" Case

AM RETAIL: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & OT under Labor Code
AMAZON.COM INC: Workers Sue Over Denied Rest Breaks, Overtime Pay
AMAZON.COM INC: "Mckee" Suit v. Audible et al. Moved to S.D.N.Y.
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Amended Suit in "Houssain" Action Tossed
ATHENAHEALTH INC: High Court Appeal in Bais Yaakov Case Pending

BANK OF MARIN: Parshall Drops Class Action
BIOGEN INC: Massachusetts Shareholder Class Action Underway
BRISTOL FARMS: Fails to Provide Seats to Employees, Suit Says
BURBERRY LTD: Averts Class Action Over Outlet-Pricing Scheme
CELLOS SOFTWARE: Shareholders Sue Over Lost Investment

CENTENE CORP: Missouri Securities Class Action Still Ongoing
CERADYNE INC: May 4 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
CHICK-FIL-A INC: Greenberg Sues over Sweetened Beverage Tax
CI SECURITY: Fails to Pay for All Hours Worked, Johnson Says
COCO PAVING: Court Denies Certification in OT Wage Class Action

CONSOLIDATED CLEANING: Tiller Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
DEL TACO: Calif. Wage and Meal Break Class Action Underway
DEL TACO: Discovery in California Class Action Underway
EMC RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Saunders Says
ESTATE INFORMATION: Srachta Sues over Debt Collection Practices

EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Sanctions & Dismissal of "Beeman" Action Sought
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Anthem Securities Class Suit Still Ongoing
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Insulin Pricing Class Action Suit Underway
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Bid to Transfer "Prescott" Suit Still Pending
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Bid to Transfer "Bewley" Suit Still Pending

EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Epinephrine Class Action Suit Still Ongoing
FEDEX GROUND: "Dahy" Suit Moved to Western Dist. of Pennsylvania
FEE BROTHERS: "Wardlow" Suit Says Bitters Not Alcohol-Free
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Pension Plan Sues over Share Price Drop
GENERAL MOTORS: Appeal in Michigan Class Suit Deal Still Pending

GENERAL MOTORS: Takata and Related Suits Stayed
GENOCEA BIOSCENCES: Faces "Walker" Suit over Stock Price Plunge
GO WITH THE FLOW: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & OT, Haug Says
HOME SWEET: Student Files Class Action Over Unsafe Apartments
INC RESEARCH: Jan. 30 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set

INTUITIVE SURGICAL: October Jury Trial in Securities Suit
KINDER MORGAN: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Drop Unit Holders Suit
KINDER MORGAN: 9th Cir. to Hear Appeal on Class Cert. Ruling
KINDER MORGAN: 9th Cir. Declines to Hear Landowners' Appeal
LEAP ACADEMY: Violates Conscientious Employee Protection Act

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Agrees to Settle MDL Claims for $36-Mil.
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Class Cert. Bid in "Gold" Suit Underway
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Mason" Class Action Still Pending
MARTINIQUE RESTAURANT: Ahmed Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law
MDL 2437: Drywall Makers Agree to $125 Million Settlement

MDL 2785: Express Scripts Awaits Court OK to Transfer "Branon"
MDL 2800: "VonWiller" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Cooper" Suit vs. Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia Court
MDL 2800: "Daughtery" Suit vs. Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Dremak" Suit vs. Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia

MDL 2800: "Gersten" Suit vs. Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Gulley" Suit vs. Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Seymore" Suit vs. Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Tanks" Suit vs. Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Partridge" Suit vs. Equifax Goes to N.D. Georgia

MDL 2800: "Stanfield" Suit vs. Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Gray" Suit vs Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2804: "Lewis" Suit vs Purdue Pharma Consolidated in N.D. Ohio
MDL 2807: Hughes-Hillman Sues Sonic over Consumer Data Theft
MDL 2807: "MacKay" Suit vs Sonic Moved to N.D. Ohio

MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Faces "N.F." Suit over Healthcare Programs
MIDLAND FUNDING: Faces "Koch" Suit over Debt Collection Practices
MONAKER GROUP: Awaits Court OK to Drop "Mcleod" Class Suit
MURPHY USA: Faces "Holt" Suit over Full Sales Taxes
NANE JAN: "MacDermott" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages, OT under FLSA

NASPERS: Pomerantz Law Firm Mulls Securities Class Action
NATIONAL PARK MOTORS: "Roark" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Faces Suit Over Risky Subprime Loans
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Fuel Surcharge Class Suit Denied Certification
NRT LLC: "Smith" Suit Moved to Southern District of California

NUVASIVE INC: Trial in California Securities Suit Underway
OHIO MULCH: "Smyers" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
PANERA BREAD: Former Employees Sue Over Unpaid OT Wages
PAX ASSIST: "Adonis" Suit Seeks OT & Unpaid Wages under Labor Law
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: "Cho" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed

PENEKA INC: Fails to Pay Wages & Overtime, "Torres" Suit Says
PRESENCE HEALTH: Faces "Holm" Suit over Use of Biometric Info
QUDIAN INC: Zolotukhin Sues over American Depository Shares
RELIABLE REPORTS: "Maclin" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
REWALK ROBOTICS: Massachusetts Class Suits Still Ongoing

REXNORD CORP: "Aguilar" Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
RTK MANAGEMENT: Mercuriali Seeks OT & Minimum Wages under FLSA
SIX FLAGS: Illinois Appellate Court to Review Privacy Suit
SIX FLAGS: Continues to Defend Suits over Credit Card Info
SMCP USA: Castaneda Seeks Overtime Underpayment under Labor Code

SOUTH AFRICA: Students Sue Over Delayed Graduation Certificates
SOUTH COAST BEVERAGE: Fails to Pay Wages & Overtime, Moreno Says
STATE SECURITY: Faces "Lipscomb" Suit over Minimum Wages
SUGAR FACTORY: "Leon" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
TEECOR GROUP: "Castillo" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code

TIME INC: "Rosenfeld" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Meredith Corp. Merger
UBS COMMERCIAL: Discovery Still Ongoing in New York Class Suit
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Quebec Appeals Court Okays Class Action
VIAND COFFEE: "Rosas" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage & Overtime Pay
VIKING RIVER: Fails to Pay All Wages & Overtime under Labor Code

WEST VIRGINIA AMERICAN: 38,000 Claims in Water Crisis Settlement
WOLVERINE WORLDWIDE: Faces Class Action Over Toxic Waste


                            *********


1220 MANAGEMENT: Perez Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages, OT under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
JONATAN CAYETANO CARTAGENA PEREZ, and all others similarly
situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), the Plaintiff, v. 1220
MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC d/b/a BODEGA TAQUERIA Y TEQUILA, TC
HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT LLC., HERNAN D. RODRIGUEZ, JUSTIN LEVINE;
and KEITH MENIN, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-24539-KMW (S.D.
Fla., Dec. 15, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and/or
minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly
from the filing of this complaint back three years, pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Defendants willfully and
intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff's overtime wages as
required by the FLSA as Defendants knew of the overtime
requirements of the FLSA and recklessly failed to investigate
whether Defendants' payroll practices were in accordance with the
FLSA.

1220 Management Group is in the management services business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AARP INC: "Levay" Suit Moved to Central District of California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Simon Levay, Judith Miller, and
Lionel Brown, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiffs. v. AARP, Inc., AARP Services, Inc.,
UnitedHealth Group, Inc., Unitedhealthcare Insurance Company, and
Does 1 through 60, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC684061,
was removed from the California Superior Court, Los Angeles
County, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California (Western Division - Los Angeles) on Dec. 15, 2017. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-09041 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.

Attorneys for AARP, Inc. and AARP Services, Inc.:

          John W. Amberg, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LLP
          120 Broadway Suite 300
          Santa Monica, CA 90401-2386
          Telephone: (310) 576 2100
          Facsimile: (310) 576 2200
          E-mail: jwamberg@bryancave.com

Attorneys for UnitedHealth Group, Inc., Unitedhealthcare
Insurance Company, and Does 1 through 60, inclusive:

          Brian David Boyle, Esq.
          OMELVENY AND MYERS LLP
          1625 Eye Street NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 383 5300
          Facsimile: (202) 383 5414
          E-mail: bboyle@omm.com


ACTION TOWING: "Wu" Suit Alleges Unlawful Towing of Vehicles
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, CHIAHO WU, an individual, on behalf of those similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. OFFICER "A. WONG", a.k.a. "ID. No.
0027", individually and as a law enforcement officer in the San
Bruno Police Department; JOSE BENDOLA, an employee of ACTION
TOWING, a California corporation, d.b.a.; San Bruno Auto Center;
DENNIS PERRY, an employee of ACTION TOWING; "DRIVER 62", an
employee of COURTESY TOW, a California corporation; POLICE
CHIEFED BARBERINI, individually and as Chief of Police of the San
Bruno Police Department; SAN BRUNO POLICE DEPARTMENT, a public
entity; CITY OF SAN BRUNO, a municipal entity; and, DOES 1-25,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 17ClV05749 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Dec. 15, 2017), alleges that two Courtesy Tow drivers conducted
fraudulent, tortious, unlawful, and unfair business practices
while their employers Action Towing and Courtesy Tow as
Contractors were under agreement with the City to render official
towing services to the Police Department.

Plaintiff complains that his Airstream and Trailer was towed by
Courtesy Tow drivers.   The Plaintiff asked the Courtesy driver
where Plaintiff's Trailer went. The driver told Plaintiff to go
to the police station and ask the police. The driver did not
provide any record, citation, or any other documents to Plaintiff
and refused to identify himself.  The Plaintiff overheard the
conversation between the driver and his companion, discovering
that his Trailer has already been towed by Courtesy Tow.  The
Courtesy Tow driver and Action Towing driver were laughing and
joking between themselves about the size of their haul, and
exchanging information on where to store their tows.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James J. Huang, Esq.
          2310 Homestead Road, P.O. 120
          Los Altos, CA 94024
          Telephone: (408) 892 4525
          E-mail: james.j.huang.0328@gmail.com


ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Malware Class Action Suit Remanded
--------------------------------------------------------
Albertsons Companies, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 9, 2017, that the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals
reversed the District Court's dismissal of the case as to one of
the 16 named plaintiffs, affirmed the dismissal as to the
remaining 15 named plaintiffs and remanded the case to the
District Court for further proceedings.

On August 14, 2014, the Company announced that it had experienced
a criminal intrusion by installation of malware on a portion of
its computer network that processes payment card transactions for
its retail store locations, including the Company's Shaw's, Star
Market, Acme, Jewel-Osco and Albertsons retail banners. On
September 29, 2014, the Company announced that it had experienced
a second and separate criminal intrusion. The Company believes
these were attempts to collect payment card data. Relying on its
IT service provider, SuperValu, the Company took immediate steps
to secure the affected part of the network. The Company believes
that it has eradicated the malware used in each intrusion. The
Company notified federal law enforcement authorities, the major
payment card networks and its insurance carriers and is
cooperating in their efforts to investigate these intrusions.

As required by the payment card brands, the Company retained a
firm to conduct a forensic investigation into the intrusions. The
forensic firm has issued separate reports for each intrusion
(copies of which have been provided to the card networks).
Although the Company's network had previously been found to be
compliant with the Payment Card Industry (PCI) Data Security
Standard issued by the PCI Council, in both reports the forensic
firm found that not all of these standards had been met at the
time of the intrusions, and some of this non-compliance may have
contributed to or caused at least some portion of the compromise
that occurred during the intrusions.

On August 5, 2016, the Company was notified that MasterCard had
asserted its initial assessment for incremental counterfeit fraud
losses and non-ordinary course expenses (such as card reissuance
costs) as well as a case management assessment. The Company
believes it is probable that other payment card networks will
make claims against the Company. If other payment card networks
assert claims against the Company, the Company currently intends
to dispute those claims and assert available defenses. At the
present time, the Company believes that it is probable that the
Company will incur a loss in connection with the claims or
potential claims from the payment card networks. On December 5,
2016, the Company was further notified that MasterCard had
asserted its final assessment of approximately $6.0 million,
which the Company paid on December 9, 2016; however, the Company
disputes the MasterCard assessment and, on March 10, 2017, filed
a lawsuit against MasterCard seeking recovery of the assessment.

On May 5, 2017, MasterCard filed a motion to dismiss the
litigation. In a decision dated August 25, 2017, the court denied
MasterCard's motion. The Company has recorded an estimated
liability for probable losses that it expects to incur in
connection with the claims or potential claims to be made by the
payment card networks. The estimated liability is based on
information currently available to the Company and may change as
new information becomes available or if other payment card
networks assert claims against the Company. The Company will
continue to evaluate information as it becomes available and will
record an estimate of additional losses, if any, when it is both
probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss
is reasonably estimable. Currently, the potential range of any
loss above the Company's currently recorded amount cannot be
reasonably estimated given no claims have been asserted to date
by the payment card networks other than MasterCard and because
significant factual and legal issues remain unresolved. On
October 20, 2015, the Company agreed with one of its third party
payment administrators to provide a $15.0 million LOC to cover
any claims from the payment card networks and to maintain a
minimum level of card processing until the potential claims from
the payment card networks are resolved.

As a result of the criminal intrusions, two class action
complaints were filed against the Company by consumers and are
currently pending, Mertz v. SuperValu Inc. et al, filed in
federal court in the state of Minnesota and Rocke v. SuperValu
Inc. et al, filed in federal court in the state of Idaho,
alleging deceptive trade practices, negligence and invasion of
privacy. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages. The Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has consolidated the class
actions and transferred the cases to the District of Minnesota.
On August 10, 2015, the Company and SuperValu filed a motion to
dismiss the class actions, which was granted without prejudice on
January 7, 2016. The plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend
the court's judgment, which was denied on April 20, 2016. The
court also denied leave to amend the complaint. On May 18, 2016,
the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Eighth Circuit
Court of Appeals and defendants filed a cross-appeal. In a
decision dated August 30, 2017, the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals reversed the District Court's dismissal of the case as to
one of the 16 named plaintiffs, affirmed the dismissal as to the
remaining 15 named plaintiffs and remanded the case to the
District Court for further proceedings.

Albertsons provides customers with a service-oriented shopping
experience, including convenient and personalized value-added
services, through 1,784 pharmacies, 393 adjacent fuel centers,
and home delivery via online and mobile applications. The company
is based in Boise, Idaho.


ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: 9th Cir. Affirms Judgment in "Rodman" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Albertsons Companies, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 9, 2017, that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
affirmed the judgment for the plaintiff in the case entitled
Rodman v. Safeway Inc.

On June 17, 2011, a customer of Safeway's home delivery business
(safeway.com) filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California entitled
Rodman v. Safeway Inc., alleging that Safeway had inaccurately
represented on its home delivery website that the prices paid
there were the same as the prices in the brick-and-mortar retail
store. Rodman asserted claims for breach of contract and unfair
business practices under California law. The court certified a
class for the breach of contract claim, but denied class
treatment for the California business practices claims. On
December 10, 2014, the court ruled that the terms and conditions
on Safeway's website should be construed as creating a
contractual promise that prices on the website would be the same
as in the stores and that Safeway had breached the contract by
charging more on the website. On August 31, 2015, the court
denied Safeway's affirmative defenses and arguments for limiting
liability, and determined that website registrants since 2006 are
entitled to approximately $31.0 million in damages (which amount
was reduced to $23.2 million to correct an error in the court's
calculation), plus prejudgment interest. The court then set a
trial date of December 7, 2015 to determine whether pre-2006
registrants were entitled to any recovery.

The parties thereafter stipulated to facts regarding the pre-2006
registration process, whereupon the court vacated the December
trial date and extended its prior liability and damages rulings
to class members who registered before 2006. Consequently, on
November 30, 2015, the court entered a final judgment in favor of
the plaintiff class in the amount of $41.9 million (comprised of
$31.0 million in damages and $10.9 million in prejudgment
interest). Safeway filed a Notice of Appeal from that judgment to
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on December 4, 2015,
contesting both liability and damages. On April 6, 2016, the
plaintiff moved for discovery sanctions against Safeway in the
district court, seeking an additional $2.0 million. A hearing on
the sanctions motion was held on August 25, 2016, and the court
awarded sanctions against the Company in an amount under $1.0
million. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments
on the appeal on June 12, 2017 and, on August 4, 2017, affirmed
the judgment for the plaintiff. The Company has established an
estimated liability for these claims.

Albertsons provides customers with a service-oriented shopping
experience, including convenient and personalized value-added
services, through 1,784 pharmacies, 393 adjacent fuel centers,
and home delivery via online and mobile applications. The company
is based in Boise, Idaho.


AM RETAIL: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & OT under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------
LUCIO SANCHEZ, an individual, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AM RETAIL GROUP, INC., a
Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, the Defendants, Case
No. RG17896123 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 15, 2017), seeks to recover
minimum wages and overtime pay under California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, Defendants required Plaintiff and the
Employees in the Class and collective to work off the clock and
failed to record accurate time worked by these employees, failed
to pay them at the appropriate rates for all hours worked,
including by failing to include non-discretionary and
performance-based bonuses in the regular rate used to calculate
and pay overtime, and provided Plaintiff and the Class members
with inaccurate wage statements that prevented Plaintiff and the
Class from learning of these unlawful pay practices. The
Defendants also failed to provide Plaintiff and the Class with
lawful meal and rest periods; as employees were not provided with
the opportunity to take uninterrupted and duty-free rest periods
and meal breaks as required by the California Labor Code.

AM Retail operates retail stores in the United States. Its stores
offer men and women outerwear, as well as fashion accessories,
such as handbags, briefcases, and travel items; handcrafted shoe;
and women's athletic and performance wear. The company was
incorporated in 2008 and is based in Brooklyn Park.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Yeremian, Esq.
          Alvin B. Lindsay, Esq.
          DAVID YEREMTAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
          535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 230 8380
          Facsimile: (818) 230 0308
          E-mail: david@yeremianlaw.com
                  alvin@yeremianlaw.com

               - and -

          Emil Davtyan, Esq.
          DAVTYAN PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
          21900 Burbank Blvd, Suite 300
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (818) 992 2935
          Facsimile: (818) 975 5525
          E-mail: emil@davtyanlaw.com


AMAZON.COM INC: Workers Sue Over Denied Rest Breaks, Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer McKevitt, writing for SupplyChainDIVE, reports that a
class-action suit filed by workers at Amazon.com's California
distribution centers contend they have been denied rest breaks,
overtime pay and appropriate payment of wages, the Sacramento Bee
reported.  The suit was initiated at the new Sacramento
fulfillment center at Metro Air Park.

The complaint states that plaintiff Romeo Palma and other Amazon
employees throughout California routinely work more than 10 hours
per shift, "without (Amazon) providing or compensating for a
third rest break at the overtime rate, as required by California
law."

Two specific dates of violations are mentioned, as well as
Amazon's alleged practice of demanding workers use a time clock
far from their work area within the cavernous fulfillment
centers, thus creating still more uncompensated minutes to
already long shifts.

Dive Insight:
The risk of worker dissatisfaction grows as a company rapidly
adds staff and expands.  And as HR Dive reports, the "Fair Labor
Standard Act (FLSA) requires employers to pay nonexempt workers
one and a half times their base wage for every hour worked beyond
40 in a workweek -- and California has rules requiring overtime
when an employee works more than eight hours in a single day, not
to mention the break rules."

Amazon has previously faced litigation in a number of areas,
including misclassification by drivers for Amazon Flex, a
potential loss of pilots suing for overwork at one its contracted
air freight shippers, and contract breaches and the bullying of
an LTL carrier out of Waco, Texas.

It isn't surprising that employment policies and worker
regulations should fall out of whack during the holiday season,
when countless new staff members come aboard and efforts to meet
customer demand mean that important issues including overtime and
fair breaks can fall through the cracks.

Companies can protect themselves by confirming and reiterating
fair employment rules with managers on a regular basis, so that
lawsuits brought on by overlooked rules are avoided.  Otherwise,
a company that forfeits its workers' rights risks spending its
added profits on an expensive state-wide payout serving as
reimbursement. [GN]


AMAZON.COM INC: "Mckee" Suit v. Audible et al. Moved to S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled GRANT MCKEE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
AUDIBLE, INC. and AMAZON.COM, INC., the Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-01941, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square) on Dec. 15,
2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-09838-
AJN to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Alison J. Nathan.

The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit on behalf of a proposed Class
of consumers who find themselves trapped in a shell game created
by the online audiobook seller Audible, and its parent company
Amazon. When he and other consumers signed up for an audiobook
purchasing plan with Audible, styled a "membership," Mr. McKee
and other consumers relied on Defendants' representations and
believed that, on a monthly or annual basis, they would purchase
a certain number of prepaid "credits" that could be redeemed with
Audible for an equivalent number of audiobooks. Plaintiff and
these consumers also believed Defendants' representations that
"one credit equals one audiobook," that audiobook credits would
"never expire," and that a member can cancel any time with "no
strings attached." But Defendants' advertisements represent
almost the exact opposite of how Audible membership plans really
work.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Amended Suit in "Houssain" Action Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company 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 granted defendants'
motion to dismiss the amended complaint in a putative class
action, captioned Houssain v. American Express Company, et al.,
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The complaint is under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 (ERISA) relating to disclosures of the Costco cobrand
relationship. On May 10, 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended
complaint naming certain officers of the Company as defendants
and alleging that the defendants violated certain ERISA fiduciary
obligations by, among other things, allowing the investment of
American Express Retirement Savings Plan (Plan) assets in
American Express common stock when American Express common stock
was not a prudent investment and misrepresenting and failing to
disclose material facts to Plan participants in connection with
the administration of the Plan. The amended complaint sought,
among other remedies, an unspecified amount of damages. On
September 28, 2017, the Court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss the amended complaint.

American Express Company, also known as Amex, is an American
multinational financial services corporation headquartered in
Three World Financial Center in New York City. The company is a
bank holding company under the Bank Holding Company and known for
its credit card, charge card, and traveler's cheque businesses.


ATHENAHEALTH INC: High Court Appeal in Bais Yaakov Case Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Athenahealth, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017, that a petition for a writ of certiorari as
to the D.C. Circuit's decision in Bais Yaakov was filed with the
United State Supreme Court, which remains pending.

On May 21, 2015, a class action petition was filed by St. Louis
Heart Center, Inc. in the State Circuit Court of St. Louis
County, Missouri, against athenahealth. The petition alleges the
company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Following service, the company removed the case to federal court
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, Case No. 4:15-cv-01215. After filing the company's
answer in the case on March 8, 2016, the company moved for and
obtained a stay of the action pending a decision by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Bais Yaakov of Spring
Valley v. FCC, No. 14-1234, regarding the validity of a
regulation promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission,
or FCC, relating to the claims asserted in the petition.

On March 31, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
issued its decision, invalidating the FCC regulation in question.
On April 7, 2017, the company notified the federal court of the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit's decision in Bais
Yaakov. On joint motion of the parties, the federal court on May
9, 2017 reinstated the stay, pending any further appellate review
of the D.C. Circuit's decision in Bais Yaakov. On September 5,
2017, a petition for a writ of certiorari as to the D.C.
Circuit's decision in Bais Yaakov was filed with the United State
Supreme Court, which remains pending.

Athenahealth, Inc. partners with hospital and ambulatory clients
to drive clinical and financial results. The company offers
network-based medical record, revenue cycle, patient engagement,
care coordination, and population health services, as well as
Epocrates(R) and other point-of-care mobile applications. The
company is based in Watertown, Massachusetts.


BANK OF MARIN: Parshall Drops Class Action
------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the case, Parshall v. Bank of Napa, N.A., Case
No. 3:17-cv-05773-RS, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, has been dismissed.

A Notice of Voluntary Dismissal was filed by Parshall on Oct. 20.

Bank of Marin Bancorp said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission that on October 6, 2017, a
purported shareholder of Bank of Napa, N.A. (the "Bank"), Paul
Parshall, filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
entitled Parshall v. Bank of Napa, N.A., Case No. 3:17-cv-05773-
RS (N.D. Cal. filed Oct. 6, 2017), alleging that the Bank and its
directors violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), 15 U.S.C. Section 78n(a), and
Securities & Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 14a-9, 17 C.F.R.
Section 240.14a-9, promulgated thereunder, in connection with a
Form S-4 Registration Statement filed by Bank of Marin Bancorp
("Marin") with the SEC on September 15, 2017 ("Registration
Statement"), addressing a proposed merger of the Bank with
Marin's wholly owned subsidiary, Bank of Marin, previously
announced on July 31, 2017.  Marin and its wholly owned
subsidiary, Bank of Marin, are named as defendants in the suit.

Plaintiff alleges that the Bank and its directors failed to
disclose in the Registration Statement (1) "information regarding
the [Bank]'s financial projections, Marin's financial
projections, and the analyses performed by the [Bank]'s financial
advisor, Sandler O'Neill & Partners, L.P. ('Sandler')," (2)
"potential conflicts of interest of Sandler" and (3) "potential
conflicts of interest of the [Bank]"s officers and directors."
Plaintiff also alleges that the Bank's directors and Marin are
subject to "controlling person" liability under Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78t(a).  Plaintiff purports
to seek to enjoin consummation of the proposed merger or
rescission thereof, an unidentified amount of rescissory damages,
declaratory relief, additional disclosures, and costs and
attorneys' fees.  However, plaintiff has not yet served process
on any of the defendants, complied with the notice requirements
of 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i), or filed any motion for
injunctive or any other relief.  The stay of discovery and other
proceedings imposed automatically by the PSLRA, 15 U.S.C. Section
78u-4(b)(3)(B), is in place.

Bank of Marin said "Defendants believe that plaintiff's
allegations lack merit and that all necessary disclosures were
made, and they intend to defend against this action vigorously,
including by filing, at an appropriate point in the proceedings,
a motion to dismiss the action in its entirety for (among other
things) failure to comply with the heightened pleading
requirements of the PSLRA."

Bank of Marin Bancorp is the smart option for Bay Area
businesses. The company's financing solutions are backed by
personal attention and expert advice. The company is based in
Novato, California.


BIOGEN INC: Massachusetts Shareholder Class Action Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Biogen 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 is facing a shareholder
class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts.

The company and certain current and former officers are
defendants in an action filed by a shareholder on October 20,
2016 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
alleging violations of federal securities laws under 15 U.S.C
Section 78j(b) and Section 78t(a) and 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5
and seeking a declaration of the action as a class action and an
award of damages, interest and attorneys' fees. An estimate of
the possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time.

Biogen Inc. is a global biopharmaceutical company focused on
discovering, developing, manufacturing and delivering therapies
to people living with serious neurological and neurodegenerative
diseases. The company is based in Cambridge, Massachusetts.


BRISTOL FARMS: Fails to Provide Seats to Employees, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
DEBRA RENEE MARTINEZ PIERNANDEZ, individually, and as a
representative of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. BRISTOL FARMS and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, the Defendant,
Case No. BC686810 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 15, 2017), alleges that,
within the past year, plaintiff has worked as a checker and/or
cashier at Bristol Farms in the Westwood, California store. The
cubicle area is sufficiently spacious to provide adequate room to
provide a seat for a checker and/or cashier.  However, Bristol
Farms has failed to provide seats to their employees in violation
of section 14(a) of Wage Order 7-2001.

Bristol Farms is an upscale grocery store chain in California,
United States. Founded in Los Angeles County, Bristol Farms
operates fifteen stores, 12 in Southern California, and one in
San Francisco.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andre E. Jardini, Esq.
          K.L. Myles, Esq.
          KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE
          550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500
          Glendale, CA 91203-1922
          Telephone: (818) 547 5000
          Facsimile: (818) 547 5329
          E-mail: aej@kpclegal.com
                  klm@kpclegal.com

               - and -

          Michael V. Jehdian, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL V. JEHDIAN
          550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 2150
          Glendale, CA 1203
          Telephone: (818) 247 9111
          Facsimile: (818) 247 9222
          E-mail: jehdian@lawyer.com


BURBERRY LTD: Averts Class Action Over Outlet-Pricing Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------
RJ Vogt, writing for Law360, reports that Burberry on Dec. 1 won
out of a suit brought by a proposed class of shoppers who claim
the luxury retailer's outlet stores misled them into believing
they were purchasing goods at a bargain, as a New York federal
judge ruled the consumers did not suffer an actual injury.

In February 2016, Thomas Belcastro had accused Burberry Limited
of an outlet-pricing scheme in which goods were marked at a high
"compare at" or "was" price, even though they were manufactured
specifically for sale in outlets. [GN]


CELLOS SOFTWARE: Shareholders Sue Over Lost Investment
------------------------------------------------------
Shayne Heffernan, writing for Live Trading News, reports that
Singapore Society is about to be rocked by a class action that
may well take down some big names in the City.  The class action
may also call in to question just how well regulated such
dealings are in Australia and Singapore, given all the
protections that are in place, how this disaster unfolds is truly
mind-boggling.

CellOS shareholders allege that they have lost their investment
because of the sabotage, theft and destruction of Cellos Software
Ltd.  CellOS Shareholders are engaging a prominent Australian Law
Firm, Holding Redlich in Melbourne Australia to recover the lost
value of their investment in CellOS as it was at 3 September 2015
just before the company was illegitimately taken over by the
Conspirators.

Here is the Case the Shareholders Allege

The clandestine operation was so well planned it even had a
business plan written called "Project D" (for decapitation).
According to the Witness statement Constance Peck paid a former
director Phil Chynoweth $6000 to write the plan who was supported
by former directors Kamlesh Patel, Adrian Calleja and David Toh
in writing the plan.  The purpose was to clandestinely sabotage
and take over the company, issue shares to themselves and their
friends at a few cents and then IPO or trade sale the company
within six months at $5per share or more.  Thereby reaping huge
profits for the Conspirators and their friends.

In around April 2015 Constance Peck paid for Adrian Calleja and
company secretary Sharon Tapner to Fly to Singapore and conspire
with her in the planning and execution of the takeover of CellOS.
Constance also recruited the help and support of legal head
Samantha Chia and Kevin Luke Kan and Andrew Ng who eventually
opened the office to allow the paid thugs to trespass the office
with chains breaking and replacing the office lock, terrorizing
the staff and stealing all the files.

The Conspirators succeeded in every aspect of their plan except
for one miscalculation.  The whole plan was based on the false
representations made by Kamlesh Patel who had convinced Constance
that he was the real founder of CellOS IP and promised quick huge
sales.  Within 12 months Constance Peck Discovered that she was
fooled by Kamlesh and tried to remove him from the company but it
was too late.  Kamlesh had already easily won the support of
Janifer Yeo Tan who's only work experience is Casino Junket
running.

Had Kamlesh been successful with his promised sales, enabling
these people to cash out as planned in PROJECT D business plan,
then they planned to IPO the company at $5 per share reaping a
profit of about USD3Billion in addition to their illicit profits
from Share Trading.

Shareholders allege that The Conspirators illegally sabotaged and
took control over CellOS and illegally issued 600 million shares
(valued at $25 per share) to themselves and their friends at 5c
in contravention of Australian Corporations Law and the other
securities laws in Australia and in Singapore.  According to the
published Financial Statements for 2015/2016 their professional
advisors received over $7 million in advisory fees in Singapore
and Australia to assist the Conspirators in their actions and to
prevent the company founder and Chairman Jason Huber from
recovering the company. [GN]


CENTENE CORP: Missouri Securities Class Action Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Centene Corporation 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 filed a motion to
dismiss on a putative federal securities class action suit filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

That request is underway.

In November 2016, a putative federal securities class action was
filed against the Company and certain of its executives in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. In
March 2017, the court entered an order transferring the matter to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The
plaintiffs in the lawsuit allege that the Company's accounting
and related disclosures for certain liabilities acquired in the
acquisition of Health Net violated federal securities laws. In
July 2017, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Class Action
Complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss this complaint
in September 2017.

The Company denies any wrongdoing and is vigorously defending
itself against these claims. Nevertheless, this matter is subject
to many uncertainties and the Company cannot predict how long
this litigation will last or what the ultimate outcome will be,
and an adverse outcome in this matter could potentially have a
materially adverse impact on our financial position and results
of operations.

Centene Corporation is a diversified, multi-national healthcare
enterprise that provides services to government sponsored and
commercial healthcare programs, focusing on under-insured and
uninsured individuals. We provide member-focused services through
locally based staff by assisting in accessing care, coordinating
referrals to related health and social services and addressing
member concerns and questions. The company is based in St. Louis,
Missouri.


CERADYNE INC: May 4 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP regarding the Ceradyne Shareholder Litigation:

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE

In re CERADYNE, INC. SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION
This Document Relates To:

CLASS ACTION

Lead Case No. 30-2012-00604001-CU-BT-CXC
Consolidated with Case No. 30-2012-00604931-CU-SL-CXC)

ALL ACTIONS.

Assigned to: Judge Thierry P. Colaw
DEPT: CX105
DATE ACTION FILED: 10/09/12

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

IF YOU HELD SHARES OF COMMON STOCK IN CERADYNE, INC. ("CERADYNE")
AND RECEIVED CONSIDERATION FOR YOUR SHARES IN THE SALE OF
CERADYNE TO 3M COMPANY AT THE PRICE OF $35.00 PER SHARE, YOUR
RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF A CLASS ACTION.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Orange, that a
hearing will be held on May 4, 2018, at 10:30 a.m., in Department
CX105 of the Complex Civil Division, 751 West Santa Ana Blvd.,
Santa Ana, California 92701, for the purpose of determining: (1)
whether the proposed settlement of the claims in the Action for
the sum of $11,300,000.00 in cash plus interest on the terms set
forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated June 14, 2017 and
the Notice of Amendments to the Stipulation of Settlement dated
June 14, 2017 (together, "Stipulation" or "Settlement") should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate;1 (2)
whether the plan of distribution is fair, reasonable, and
adequate and therefore should be approved; and (3) whether the
application of Class Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses and service awards to Plaintiffs should be approved.

If you received consideration for your Ceradyne common stock
shares in the sale of Ceradyne to the 3M Company at the price of
$35.00 per share, your rights may be affected by the Settlement
of this Action.  If you have not received a more detailed Notice
of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice")
and a copy of the Proof of Claim, you may obtain copies by
writing to Ceradyne Shareholder Litigation, Claims Administrator,
c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, PO Box 404041, Louisville, KY 40233-4041,
or you can download a copy at
www.ceradyneshareholdersettlement.com

If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the Settlement
proceeds, you must submit a Proof of Claim by mail postmarked no
later than March 1, 2018, or submitted electronically no later
than March 1, 2018, establishing that you are entitled to
recovery. You will be bound by any judgment rendered in the
Action whether or not you make a claim.

Any written objection to the Settlement, the plan of
distribution, or Class Counsel's request for an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses and/or the service awards to
Plaintiffs must be filed with the Court at the address below and
sent to Class Counsel listed below such that it is received no
later than March 1, 2018:

The Court:

Clerk of the Court
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE
Civil Complex Center
751 West Santa Ana Blvd.
Santa Ana, CA 92701

Class Counsel:

Jeffrey D. Light
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101

A Class Member may also appear at the Settlement Hearing to
object.

If you desire to be excluded from the Class, you must submit a
request for exclusion such that it is postmarked no later than
March 1, 2018, in the manner and form explained in the Notice.
Pursuant to a Supplemental Agreement entered into between the
parties, Defendants have the option, that they do not have to
exercise, to terminate the Settlement set forth in the
Stipulation in the event that the number of shares of Ceradyne
common stock held by persons or entities who would otherwise be
eligible to participate as Class Members but who timely and
validly request exclusion from the Class or Settlement exceeds a
certain number of shares of Ceradyne common stock agreed to by
the parties.  All members of the Class who have not requested
exclusion from the Class will be bound by the Settlement of the
Action even if they do not file a timely Proof of Claim.

Inquiries regarding the Settlement or the Action may be made to a
representative of Class Counsel or the Claims Administrator:

ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP

Shareholder Relations
Rick Nelson
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
1-800-449-4900

Ceradyne Shareholder Litigation
Claims Administrator
c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
PO Box 404041
Louisville, KY 40233-4041
1-844-510-5941
www.ceradyneshareholdersettlement.com

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT DEFENDANTS, THE COURT, OR THE CLERK OF THE
COURT ABOUT THE SETTLEMENT.

DATED: November 17, 2017

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE

1 All capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have
the same meanings as set forth in the Stipulation. [GN]


CHICK-FIL-A INC: Greenberg Sues over Sweetened Beverage Tax
-----------------------------------------------------------
LESLIE GREENBERG, individually and on behalf) of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CHICK-FIL-A, INC., the
Defendant, Case No.2017CH16547 (Cal. Super. Ct. Dec. 15, 2017),
alleges that Defendant charged Sweetened Beverage Tax to
Plaintiff and other consumers who purchased sweetened beverages,
such as soda and lemonade, at Chick-Fil-A restaurants in Cook
County, before the Beverage Tax went into effect.

On November 10, 2016, Cook County, Illinois passed the Cook
County Sweetened Beverage Tax Ordinance. The Cook County
Sweetened Beverage Tax Ordinance, Cook County Ordinance 16-5931
instituted a beverage tax on sweetened beverages, such as soda,
whereby a tax of one penny would be levied for each ounce of
sweetened beverage sold.  The Ordinance requires distributors
and/or sellers of sweetened beverages to collect the Beverage Tax
from purchasers of sweetened beverages and remit the tax to Cook
County.  The Ordinance set forth that the Beverage Tax was to go
into effect on July 1, 2017. However, due to legal challenges to
the Beverage Tax, and resulting injunctions, the Beverage Tax did
not actually go into effect until August 2, 2017.

Chick-fil-A is an American fast food restaurant chain
headquartered in the Atlanta district of College Park, Georgia,
specializing in chicken sandwiches. Founded in May 1946, it
operates more than 2,200 restaurants, primarily in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ilan Chorowsky, Esq.
          Mark Bulgarelli, Esq.
          PROGRESSIVE LAW GROUP, LLC
          1570 Oak A venue, Suite 103
          Evanston, IL 60201
          Telephone: (312) 787 2717


CI SECURITY: Fails to Pay for All Hours Worked, Johnson Says
------------------------------------------------------------
HEATHER JOHNSON, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. CI SECURITY SPECIALISTS. INC., a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case
No. BC687454 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 18, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid wages for all hours worked under California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are liable to her and other
similarly situated current and former employees for unpaid wages
and other related relief. These claims are based on Defendants'
alleged failures to (1) provide all meal and rest periods, (2)
pay all wages earned, (3) indemnify for business expenses, (4)
fairly compete, (5) provide accurate written wage statements, and
(5) timely pay final wages upon termination of employment.
Accordingly, Plaintiff now seeks to recover unpaid wages and
related relief through this class action.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David G. Spivak, Esq.
          Caroline Tahmassian, Esq.
          THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
          16530 Vcnuim Blvd., Ste 312
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone (818) 582 3086
          Facsimile (818) 582 2561
          E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com
                  caroline@spivaklaw.com

               - and -

          Walter Haines, Esq.
          UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP
          5500 Bolsa Ave, Suite 201
          Huntington Beach, CA 92649
          Telephone: (562) 256 1047
          Facsimile: (562) 256 1006
          E-mail: whaines@uelglaw.com


COCO PAVING: Court Denies Certification in OT Wage Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl M. Woodin, Esq. -- woodinc@bennettjones.com -- Christiaan
A. Jordaan, Esq. -- jordaanc@bennettjones.com -- and Joseph N.
Blinick, Esq. -- blinickj@bennettjones.com -- of Bennett Jones
LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that in the latest
instalment in a growing wave of employment class actions, the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice denied certification of a claim
for unpaid overtime wages due to fatal flaws in the plaintiff's
certification material. Nevertheless, as Bennett Jones set out in
Looking Forward: Canadian Class Actions in 2018 and discuss
below, it still expects to see unpaid overtime and other
employment issues being raised in class actions litigation going
forward.

The Freeman Decision

In Freeman Bartholomew v Coco Paving Inc. and Lafarge Canada
Inc., 2017 ONSC 6014, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants
had not paid employees overtime until 55 hours had been worked in
a week.  Instead, the defendants allegedly misclassified certain
employees as "road building workers" who were exempt from the
requirement to pay overtime hours worked between 45 and 55 hours.

Although those allegations might seem ripe for a class action,
certification was denied because of several deficiencies in the
plaintiff's materials:

The plaintiff failed to establish the existence of an
identifiable class, since there was no evidence that anyone other
than the plaintiff himself had been treated the same way.  The
Court found that the plaintiff's evidence amounted to a bald
assertion, or pure speculation, that such a class existed.
Even if an identifiable class existed, there was insufficient
evidence of common issues.  The Court held that the proposed
common issues would require an individual analysis of each
employee's terms of employment, day-to-day tasks, supervisory
functions and potential status as a union member.  On the
authority of McCracken v Canadian National Railway Company, 2012
ONCA 445, the Court suggested that the matter would likely
require individual trials for virtually each class member and, in
such a case, "certification should never be granted."

The Court also found that a class action was not the preferable
procedure given the availability of alternative avenues of
redress, such as individual litigation (through the Small Claims
Court or Simplified Procedure) or complaints to the Ministry of
Labour.

Finally, the Court found that the litigation plan put forward by
the plaintiff was not a litigation plan at all but, rather, a
plan that presumed a settlement and did not contemplate the
liability or damages phases.
Implications

The Court's decision to deny certification is responsive to the
circumstances of the case, driven in part by the relatively small
size of the putative class (approximately 100 individuals) and
the availability of alternative means of redress for the putative
class members (although the latter would presumably be available
for any overtime case).

While it remains to be seen whether the decision will be
appealed, defendants can take comfort in the fact that the court
will strictly examine the proposed class definition and common
issues to ensure a class proceeding is truly the preferable
procedure for dealing with overtime claims.  Still, Bennett Jones
LLP expects employment class actions to be vigorously pursued
against an otherwise employee-friendly backdrop of recent
appellate decisions and legislative changes. [GN]


CONSOLIDATED CLEANING: Tiller Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER TILLER and MARIA VELASCO-GOMEZ, individually and
on behalf of all other similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
CONSOLIDATED CLEANING SYSTEMS, LLC, f/k/a EXCEL MANAGEMENT
SERVICES, LLC, a limited liability company, GREG AUGUSTYN, an
individual, jointly and severally, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-
cv-02526-BEN-MDD (S.D. Cal., Dec. 18, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid wages, liquidated damages, injunctive and declaratory
relief, attendant penalties, attorneys' fees and costs for
Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

The Defendants allegedly failed to provide meal periods and rest
breaks, failed to provide premium wages for unprovided meal
and/or rest periods, failed to pay at least the minimum wage for
all hours worked, failed to pay overtime wages as required by
law, failed to provide accurate written wage statements, and
failed to pay wages within the time periods required by law.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiffs and Putative Class:

          Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Esq.
          Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK LLP
          550 West C St., Suite 1760
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 238 1333
          Facsimile: (619) 238 5425
          E-mail: jrk@classactionlaw.com
                  trk@classactionlaw.com

               - and -

          Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
          Jesse L. Young, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, Suite 1700
          Southfield, Michigan 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355 0300
          Facsimile: (248) 436 8453
          E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
                  jyoung@sommerspc.com


DEL TACO: Calif. Wage and Meal Break Class Action Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
Del Taco Restaurants, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 12, 2017, that the parties in an employee
class action are in the process of stipulating to decertification
of the class and expect the Court to approve the stipulation.

In July 2013, a former Del Taco employee filed a purported class
action complaint alleging that Del Taco has failed to pay
overtime wages and has not appropriately provided meal breaks and
wage statement to its California general managers. On March 4,
2016, the Court denied class certification on the overtime and
meal period claims. At that time, the Court granted class
certification on the wage statement issue only. On June 23, 2017,
the Court filed a tentative ruling granting Del Taco's motion to
decertify the sole remaining class. The parties are in the
process of stipulating to decertification of the class and expect
the Court to approve the stipulation.

Del Taco said "Legal proceedings are inherently unpredictable,
and the Company is not able to predict the ultimate outcome or
cost of the unresolved matter. However, based on management's
current understanding of the relevant facts and circumstances,
the Company does not believe that these proceedings give rise to
a probable or estimable loss and should not have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial position, operations or
cash flows. Therefore, Del Taco has not recorded any amount for
the claim as of September 12, 2017."

Del Taco Restaurants, Inc. is a nationwide operator and
franchisor of restaurants featuring fresh and fast cuisine,
including both Mexican inspired and American classic dishes. The
Company is based in Lake Forest, California.


DEL TACO: Discovery in California Class Action Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
Del Taco Restaurants, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 12, 2017, that discovery is in process in
a class action lawsuit by a former employee.

In March 2014, a former Del Taco employee filed a purported class
action complaint alleging that Del Taco has not appropriately
provided meal breaks and failed to pay wages to its California
hourly employees. Discovery is in process and Del Taco intends to
assert all of its defenses to this threatened class action and
the individual claims. Del Taco has several defenses to the
action that it believes could prevent the certification of the
class, as well as the potential assessment of any damages on a
class basis.

Del Taco said "Legal proceedings are inherently unpredictable,
and the Company is not able to predict the ultimate outcome or
cost of the unresolved matter. However, based on management's
current understanding of the relevant facts and circumstances,
the Company does not believe that these proceedings give rise to
a probable or estimable loss and should not have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial position, operations or
cash flows. Therefore, Del Taco has not recorded any amount for
the claim as of September 12, 2017."

Del Taco Restaurants, Inc. is a nationwide operator and
franchisor of restaurants featuring fresh and fast cuisine,
including both Mexican inspired and American classic dishes. The
Company is based in Lake Forest, California.


EMC RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Saunders Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
CLAIRE SAUNDERS, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. EMC RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC,
a California Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-09059 (C.D. Cal.,
Dec. 18, 2017), seeks to recover minimum and straight time Wages
and overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants for FLSA
violations, California Labor Code violations, and unfair business
practices stemming from Defendants' unlawful tip pooling policy,
failure to pay for all hours worked (including minimum wages,
straight time wages, and overtime wages), failure to provide meal
periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to
maintain accurate records of hours worked and meal periods,
failure to timely pay all wages to terminated employees, and
failure to furnish accurate wage statements.

The Defendants own and operate seafood restaurants within the
State of California, including Los Angeles County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ESTATE INFORMATION: Srachta Sues over Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA SRACHTA, as appointed administrator of the Estate of
Guadalupe M. Spindola, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ESTATE INFORMATION
SERVICES, LLC, doing business as EIS Collections, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-09059 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 15, 2017), seeks to
recover damages, costs of suit, and other suitable relief from
Defendant, for its violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

According to the complaint, Guadalupe M. Spindola, decedent, died
on February 26, 2011.  On August 15, 2016, Srachta filed in the
Circuit for the Twelfth Judicial Circuit for Will County, State
of Illinois, a petition captioned as Estate of Guadalupe M.
Spindola Case Number 2016 P 612, to open a probate case.

On October 20, 2016, Srachta was appointed by the Will County
Circuit Court as the independent administrator of the Estate in
the Probate Action.  On January 20, 2017, EIS mailed a form
collection letter to the Estate's address demanding payment of
$809.66.  Srachta had authority or permission to open and read
the Collection Letter as it was related to the Estate.

The alleged debt was from a Sears Charge Plus credit card and was
for decedent, Guadalupe M. Spindola's personal and family
purpose. The alleged debt that EIS was seeking to collection was
incurred sometime prior to February 16, 2011, the date Spindola
died.

According to the Federal Trade Commission's 2013 Report, "debt
buyers paid on average 3.1 cents per dollar of debt for debts
that were 3 to 6 years old and 2.2 cents per dollar of debt for
debts that were 6 to 15 years old compared to 7.9 cents per
dollar for debts less than 3 years old. Finally, debt buyers paid
effectively nothing for accounts that were older than fifteen
years."

Estate Information Services, LLC specializes in the collection of
deceased debt and specialty recovery functions for creditors in
the United States. It offers estate search services, probate
filing and collections, bankruptcy proof of claim filings,
bankruptcy adversary services, and other recovery solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth M. DucDuong, Esq.
          KMD LAW OFFICE, LTD.
          4001 West Devon Avenue, Suite 332
          Chicago, IL 60646
          Telephone: 312.997.5959
          E-Mail: kducduong@kmdlex.com


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Sanctions & Dismissal of "Beeman" Action Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts Holding Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that defendants moved
for sanctions against plaintiffs for destroying evidence and
requested dismissal, with prejudice, of the case styled, Jerry
Beeman, et al. v. Caremark, et al. (United States District Court
for the Central District of California, Case No.021327) (filed
December 2002).

A complaint was filed against Express Scripts, Inc. ("ESI"),
NextRX LLC f/k/a Anthem Prescription Management LLC, Medco Health
Solutions, Inc. ("Medco") and several other pharmacy benefit
management companies by several California pharmacies as a
putative class action, alleging rights to sue as a private
attorney general under California law. Plaintiffs allege ESI and
the other defendants failed to comply with statutory obligations
under California Civil Code Section 2527 to provide California
clients with the results of a bi-annual survey of retail drug
prices, and seek money damages. In July 2004, the case was
dismissed with prejudice due to lack of standing.

In June 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit reversed the district court's opinion on standing and
remanded the case. The defendants then filed a motion to dismiss
on first amendment constitutionality grounds and following the
district court's denial of the motion, defendants appealed to the
Ninth Circuit. In March 2014, following a determination by the
California Supreme Court that California Civil Code Section 2527
does not infringe upon state constitutional free speech
protections, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the district
court for further proceedings. Defendants' objections based on
plaintiffs' lack of standing and the unconstitutionality of the
California law due to defendants' first amendment rights were
rejected by the courts and appeals were exhausted. Plaintiffs
also filed a motion for class certification in 2007 that was not
fully briefed until August 2016.

On August 26, 2016, defendants filed a motion to deny class
certification. On November 14, 2016, the district court denied
plaintiffs' motion for class certification, holding that the
proposed class representatives and counsel were inadequate to
represent a class. Plaintiffs' request to substitute the proposed
class representatives was denied on June 9, 2017, ruling that the
action will proceed as to the individually named plaintiffs only.
On October 6, 2017, defendants moved for sanctions against
plaintiffs for destroying evidence and requested the case be
dismissed with prejudice.

Express Scripts Holding Company operates as a pharmacy benefit
management (PBM) company in the United States, Canada, and
Europe. It operates in two segments, PBM and Other Business
Operations. It was formerly known as Aristotle Holding, Inc. and
changed its name to Express Scripts Holding Company in April
2012.  The Company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in
Saint Louis, Missouri.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Anthem Securities Class Suit Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts Holding Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that the plaintiff in
the case, In re Express Scripts Holdings Company Securities
Litigation (United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York), filed an amended complaint.

Plaintiff filed this putative securities class action complaint
on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's publicly traded common stock between
February 24, 2015 and March 21, 2016 and alleges the Company and
named individuals violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 by carrying out a scheme to defraud
the investing public. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages in
favor of plaintiff and other class members, attorneys' fees and
costs, and equitable relief. Plaintiff adopts many of Anthem's
Allegations in support of their claim. On August 1, 2017, the
court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint in
its entirety. On August 30, 2017, plaintiff filed an amended
complaint alleging similar claims.

Express Scripts Holding Company operates as a pharmacy benefit
management (PBM) company in the United States, Canada, and
Europe. It operates in two segments, PBM and Other Business
Operations. It was formerly known as Aristotle Holding, Inc. and
changed its name to Express Scripts Holding Company in April
2012.  The Company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in
Saint Louis, Missouri.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Insulin Pricing Class Action Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts Holding Company continues to defend itself
against a putative class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Texas, entitled MSP
Recovery Claims, Series, LLC, et al. v. CVS Health Corporation,
et al., according to the Company's Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017.

Plaintiffs allege inter alia, that the defendants entered into
"exclusionary" agreements that granted exclusive formulary
placement for certain analog insulin products in return for
higher rebate payments and that these agreements had the effect
of driving up analog insulin costs for the putative class
members. Plaintiffs assert claims for purported RICO violations,
common law fraud and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs seek treble
damages, equitable relief and attorneys' fees and costs.

Express Scripts Holding Company operates as a pharmacy benefit
management (PBM) company in the United States, Canada, and
Europe. It operates in two segments, PBM and Other Business
Operations. It was formerly known as Aristotle Holding, Inc. and
changed its name to Express Scripts Holding Company in April
2012.  The Company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in
Saint Louis, Missouri.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Bid to Transfer "Prescott" Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts Holding Company 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 moved
to transfer the case, Jeanine Prescott, et al. v. CVS Health
Corporation, et al. filed in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Washington to the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey.

Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that the defendants entered into
"exclusionary" agreements that granted exclusive formulary
placement for certain blood glucose test strips in return for
higher rebate payments. The complaint alleges that these
agreements had the effect of driving up the costs of such test
strips for the putative class members and violated RICO, ERISA
and the competition and consumer protection laws of various
states. Plaintiffs seek treble damages, equitable relief and
attorneys' fees and costs.

On August 2, 2017, certain defendants, including the Company,
moved to transfer this action to the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey and that motion remains pending.

Express Scripts Holding Company operates as a pharmacy benefit
management (PBM) company in the United States, Canada, and
Europe. It operates in two segments, PBM and Other Business
Operations. It was formerly known as Aristotle Holding, Inc. and
changed its name to Express Scripts Holding Company in April
2012.  The Company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in
Saint Louis, Missouri.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Bid to Transfer "Bewley" Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts Holding Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that the defendants
moved to transfer the case, Michael Bewley, et al. v. CVS Health
Corporation, et al., filed in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington to the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that the defendants entered into
"exclusionary" agreements that granted exclusive formulary
placement for certain glucagon products in return for higher
rebate payments. The complaint alleges that these agreements had
the effect of driving up the costs of such products for the
putative class members and violated Sections 1 and 3 of the
Sherman Act, RICO, ERISA and the competition and consumer
protection laws of various states, U.S. territories and the
District of Columbia. Plaintiffs seek treble damages, equitable
relief and attorneys' fees and costs. On July 27, 2017,
defendants moved to transfer this action to the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey and that motion
remains pending.

Express Scripts Holding Company operates as a pharmacy benefit
management (PBM) company in the United States, Canada, and
Europe. It operates in two segments, PBM and Other Business
Operations. It was formerly known as Aristotle Holding, Inc. and
changed its name to Express Scripts Holding Company in April
2012.  The Company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in
Saint Louis, Missouri.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Epinephrine Class Action Suit Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts Holding Company 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 and
ESI filed a motion to vacate the conditional transfer order, in
the case entitled Elan and Adam Klein, Leah Weaver, and Arissa
Paschalidis v. Prime Therapeutics, LLC; Express Scripts Holding
Co.; Express Scripts, Inc.; Medco Health Solutions, Inc., CVS
Health Corp.; Caremark, LLC, Caremark Rx, LLC, and CaremarkPCS
Health, LLC, filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota.

A complaint was filed against the Company and other defendants by
a putative class comprising participants in, or beneficiaries of,
health insurance plans governed by ERISA who, pursuant to the
terms of their health insurance plans, paid any portion of the
purchase price for EpiPen products. The complaint alleges that
defendants violated legal obligations under ERISA by negotiating
increasingly large rebates from Mylan, which allegedly caused the
plaintiffs to pay more out of pocket for EpiPen products.

Plaintiffs further allege that defendants retained a significant
portion of rebates, rather than passing them on to putative class
members. Plaintiffs seek equitable relief and attorneys' fees and
costs. The Company moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims on August
4, 2017, and plaintiffs responded by filing an amended complaint
on September 27, 2017. The case is subject to a conditional order
transferring the proceedings to a Kansas federal court for
centralization with a multidistrict litigation, In re: EpiPen
(Epinephrine Injection, USP) Marketing, Sales Practices &
Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2785 (J.P.M.L). On September 21,
2017, the Company and ESI filed a motion to vacate the
conditional transfer order.

Express Scripts Holding Company operates as a pharmacy benefit
management (PBM) company in the United States, Canada, and
Europe. It operates in two segments, PBM and Other Business
Operations. It was formerly known as Aristotle Holding, Inc. and
changed its name to Express Scripts Holding Company in April
2012.  The Company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in
Saint Louis, Missouri.


FEDEX GROUND: "Dahy" Suit Moved to Western Dist. of Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled SIDI MOHAMED ABDERRAHMANE DAHY on
behalf of himself and all similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC. and FIRST ADVANTAGE BACKGROUND
SERVICES CORP., Case No. GD 17-015638, was removed from the Court
of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, to the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh) on Dec. 18,
2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-01633-
LPL to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan.

FedEx Ground provides business-to-business package shipping and
ground delivery services. The company provides day-certain
service to every business address in the United States and
Canada, as well as residential delivery to through its FedEx Home
Delivery service.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          James M. Pietz, Esq.
          Ruairi McDonnell, Esq.
          FEINSTEIN, DOYLE,
          PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
          429 Fourth Avenue
          Law & Finance Building, Suite 1300
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281 8400
          Facsimile: (412) 281 1007
          E-mail: jpietz@fdpklaw.com
                  rmcdonnell@fdpklaw.com

Attorneys for Fedex Ground Package System, Inc.:

          Maria Cristina Sharp, Esq.
          FEDEX GROUND
          1000 FedEx Drive
          Moon Township, PA 15108
          Telephone: (412) 262 7311
          E-mail: csharp@fedex.com


FEE BROTHERS: "Wardlow" Suit Says Bitters Not Alcohol-Free
----------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM WARDLOW, an individual, the Plaintiff, v. FEE BROTHERS,
INC. a New York Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
the Defendants, Case No. 6:17-cv-02006-JR (D. Oreg., Dec. 18,
2017), contends that the label for FEE BROTHERS Lemon Bitters is
completely absent of any indication it contains alcohol, let
alone that it is stronger than whiskey. The label for FEE
BROTHERS' other Bitters flavors are similarly absent of any
indication that they contain alcohol, in spite of the fact that
nearly all of them do, and frequently in high concentrations.
The FEE BROTHERS website also fails to identify the fact that
nearly all of its Bitters contain alcohol, and frequently in high
concentrations.

The Plaintiff frequently purchased the Lemon bitters and would
sometimes drink half a bottle over the course of the night,
completely unaware that he was consuming 2.5 ounces of 91.8-proof
alcohol.  As a direct result of Defendants' acts and omissions,
the Plaintiff was deceived into purchasing and consuming FEE
BROTHERS' Bitters for nearly seven months, which set back his
abstinence by that same amount, and which caused him to
unwittingly consume large amounts of alcohol during that time
without consent and in direct opposition to his intent.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff stopped drinking alcohol,
or so he thought, on September 10, 2016. After that date,
Plaintiff very frequently enjoyed club soda flavored exclusively
with FEE BROTHERS Bitters. The Plaintiff consumed 2 or more
bottles of FEE BROTHERS Bitters each week.  The sole reason
Plaintiff chose FEE BROTHERS Bitters over Peychauds brand, and
many other bitters he formerly enjoyed and actually preferred,
was because, according to the FEE BROTHERS labels, they contain
no alcohol.

On April 2, 2017, Plaintiff became curious as to how he might
make his own bitters, so he started to research how alcohol-free
bitters were made.  During the course of Plaintiff's research, he
discovered an article in which FEE BROTHERS' CEO, Joseph Fee, is
interviewed and discusses the fact that FEE BROTHERS Bitters do,
in fact, contain alcohol.

JOSEPH FEE is quoted as follows: "If you absolutely gotta get a
buzz on . . . and all you have is bitters, grab for the lemon.
It's like 45% alcohol. And when that bottle's done, grab the
mint, which is like 35% alcohol. And your breath will be minty
fresh when you're done."

Defendants' unlawful business practices have caused injury to
Plaintiff and other consumers. As a direct and proximate result
of the conduct of Defendants, Plaintiff, and all others similarly
situated, have both lost money and sustained injury as a result
of defendants' unlawful, fraudulent and unfair business
practices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Wardlow, Esq.
          WARDLOW LAW
          111 NW Hawthorne Avenue, Suite 7
          Bend, Oregon 97703
          Telephone: (541) 903 2311
          E-mail: William@WardlowLaw.com


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Pension Plan Sues over Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------------
TAMPA MARITIME ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S
ASSOCIATION PENSION PLAN, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC
COMPANY, JEFFREY R. IMMELT, JEFFREY S. BORNSTEIN, JOHN L.
FLANNERY, and JAMIE MILLER, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
09888 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 18, 2017), is a class action brought on
behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired the publicly traded securities of General Electric
between December 15, 2016 and November 10, 2017, inclusive. The
action is brought against General Electric and certain of the
Company's current and former senior executives for violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

This securities class action centers on General Electric's
failure to disclose that: (1) the Company's various operating
segments, including the Power and Oil & Gas segments, were
underperforming Company projections, with order drops, excess
inventories and increased costs; (2) GE Capital's long-term care
reserves were understated by billions of dollars in violation of
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; (3) by materially
under-reserving for liabilities related to GE Capital's legacy
long-term care reinsurance policies, General Electric was able to
maintain cash flow for its quarterly dividend payments; and (4)
as a result of the foregoing, General Electric materially
overstated its earnings and cash flows during the Class Period.
As a result of this deception, General Electric common stock
traded at artificially inflated prices, reaching a Class Period
high of more than $31.92 per share on December 19, 2016.

Specifically, during the Class Period, General Electric touted
the strength of its Power Segment and provided false assurances
of GE Capital's cash flow position notwithstanding GE Capital's
failure to accrue sufficient LTC reserves. For example, on July
21, 2017, the Company asserted that "[w]e have created a very
strong position in Power" and "expect cash flow to continue to
improve throughout the year." Then, on October 20, 2017, the
Company disclosed quarterly results for the third quarter 2017,
disclosing earnings per share of $0.29, falling below estimates
of $0.49 per share. The Company also lowered 2017 earnings
expectations, lowering EPS to $1.05-$1.10 from $1.60-$1.70.

New Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") John L. Flannery attributed
the disappointing results to GE's Power segment, stating that
General Electric's Cash Flow from Operating Activities ("CFOA")
was primarily down due to "lower than anticipated Power volume
which was resulted in lower earnings and higher inventory".

Then-Chief Financial Officer ("CFO") Jeffrey S. Bornstein also
provided additional details regarding the Company's LTC reserves
within the GE Capital segment, stating "we have recently observed
elevated claims experience for a portion of the long-term care
[portfolio] at GE Capital's legacy insurance business, which
represents $12 billion or roughly 50% of our insurance reserves."

The Company also stated it began a comprehensive review in the
third quarter of premium deficiency assumptions that are used in
the annual claims reserve adequacy test.

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $1.51 per share, or
nearly 7 percent, to close at $22.32 per share on October 23,
2017. Finally, on November 13, the first day of trading after the
end of the Class Period, General Electric held an Investor Update
and shocked the market by slashing its annual dividend in half,
from $0.96 to $0.48 per share, representing only the second
dividend cut by the Company since the Great Depression. Plagued
by poor cash flow, CEO Flannery explained General Electric had
been paying out a dividend above its industrial free cash flow
for a number of years, and that GE Capital would not be paying a
dividend to General Electric in 2018.

As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.[BN]

Counsel for Tampa Maritime Association-International
Longshoremen's Association Pension Plan:

          Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
          Eric J. Belfi, Esq.
          Francis P. McConville, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907 0700
          Facsimile: (212) 818 0477
          E-mail: ckeller@labaton.com
                  ebelfi@labaton.com
                  fmcconville@labaton.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Appeal in Michigan Class Suit Deal Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2017, that one shareholder has filed an
appeal of the decision approving the settlement on a putative
shareholder class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan.

In the putative shareholder class action filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
(Eastern District) on behalf of purchasers of our common stock
from November 17, 2010 to July 24, 2014 (Shareholder Class
Action), the lead plaintiff, the New York State Teachers'
Retirement System, alleged that GM and several current and former
officers and employees made material misstatements and omissions
relating to problems with the ignition switch and other matters
in SEC filings and other public statements.

On May 23, 2016 the Eastern District entered a judgment approving
a class-wide settlement of the Shareholder Class Action for $300
million. One shareholder has filed an appeal of the decision
approving the settlement.

General Motors Company (GM) designs, builds, and sells cars,
trucks, crossovers, and automobile parts worldwide.  It operates
through GM North America, GM Europe, GM International Operations,
GM South America, and GM Financial segments.  The Company was
founded in 1897 and is based in Detroit, Michigan.


GENERAL MOTORS: Takata and Related Suits Stayed
-----------------------------------------------
General Motors Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2017, that through October 17, 2017, the
Company was aware of two putative class actions pending against
GM in federal court in the U.S., one putative class action in
Mexico and four putative class actions pending in various
Provincial Courts in Canada arising out of allegations that
airbag inflators manufactured by Takata are defective.

General Motors said "At this early stage of these proceedings, we
are unable to provide an evaluation of the likelihood that a loss
will be incurred or an estimate of the amounts or range of
possible loss." On August 16, 2017, the bankruptcy court hearing
the Takata bankruptcy entered an order staying all Takata related
litigation against automotive manufacturers, including GM, until
November 16, 2017.

General Motors Company (GM) designs, builds, and sells cars,
trucks, crossovers, and automobile parts worldwide.  It operates
through GM North America, GM Europe, GM International Operations,
GM South America, and GM Financial segments.  The Company was
founded in 1897 and is based in Detroit, Michigan.


GENOCEA BIOSCENCES: Faces "Walker" Suit over Stock Price Plunge
---------------------------------------------------------------
TAYLOR WALKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. GENOCEA BIOSCENCES, INC., WILLIAM D.
CLARK, and JONATHAN POOLE, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-12474
(D. Mass., Dec. 15, 2017), alleges that Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
the Company's finances were insufficient to support Phase 3
trials of GEN-003; (ii) accordingly, Genocea had overstated the
prospects for GEN-003; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing,
Genocea's public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times.

On September 25, 2017, following close of market, Genocea
disclosed that it was halting spending and activities on GEN-003
and exploring strategic alternatives for the drug. The Company
also announced that it was cutting 40% of its workforce. On this
news, Genocea's stock price declined $4.08, or nearly 76.5%, from
a close of $5.33 per share on September 25, 2017, to a close of
$1.25 on September 26, 2017.

Genocea is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Genocea's
common stock trades on the NASDAQ Capital Market under the ticker
symbol "GNCA." Genocea is a biopharmaceutical company that
discovers and develops vaccines and immunotherapies. Genocea's
genital herpes immunotherapy product GEN-003 was the Company's
lead product candidate.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
          733 Summer Street, Suite 304
          Stamford, CT 06901
          Telephone: (203) 992 4523
          Facsimile: (212) 363 7171
          E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com


GO WITH THE FLOW: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & OT, Haug Says
------------------------------------------------------------
KAYCEE HAUG, an individual on her own behalf and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GO WITH THE FLOW,
INC. dba MASSAGE ENVY, a California corporation, MASSAGE ENVY
FRANCHISING, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company and
DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC687181 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Dec. 18, 2017), seeks to recover overtime
compensation and minimum wage under California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the members of the
putative class were and are classified by Defendants as non-
exempt employees, pursuant to the provisions of the California
Labor Code and the orders and standards promulgated by the
California Department of Industrial Relations, Industrial Welfare
Commission, and Division of Labor Standards. As non-exempt
employees, Plaintiff and members of the putative class are
entitled to certain benefits, including mandated meal and rest
breaks. In addition, said statutory provisions, wage orders,
regulations and standards obligate the employer to maintain
accurate records of the hours worked by employees.

The Defendant owns several franchise locations of "Massage Envy"
including but not limited to Hastings Ranch Pasadena.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
          Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
          Taylor L. Emerson, Esq.
          BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
          2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 130
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Telephone: (805) 270 7100
          Facsimile: (805) 270 7589
          E-Mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
                  kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com


HOME SWEET: Student Files Class Action Over Unsafe Apartments
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Wilson, writing for The Tribune, reports that a Cal Poly
student has filed a lawsuit against his landlord on behalf of
hundreds of fellow tenants, claiming their San Luis Obispo
apartment complex is substandard, unpermitted and unsafe.

Cal Poly student Cameron Geehr filed the lawsuit on Nov. 27 in
San Luis Obispo Superior Court over the conditions of the units
at The SLO apartment complex at 1050 Foothill Blvd., which caters
mostly to Cal Poly and Cuesta student tenants.

Geehr seeks to have the complex's buildings fixed as soon as
possible and the tenants' rent money returned up until the point
when the housing complies with city code.

The property, formerly called Stenner Glen, has been issued
notices of violation for noncompliance with city code under San
Luis Obispo's housing policies.

The lawsuit against Woodland Hills-based property owner Home
Sweet Home LLC and Houston-based property manager Asset Campus
Housing was filed as a class-action complaint, meaning the
lawsuit represents Geehr and will seek to include tenants in the
complex's 13 buildings.

A lawsuit represents one side of a case. Representatives from
Home Sweet Home and Asset Campus Housing didn't respond to The
Tribune's request for comment on Dec. 4.

Joseph A. Ferrentino, the plaintiff's lawyer, said tenants have
cited a number of problems including broken showers, power
outages and overflowing toilets.

In addition, firewalls weren't completed, putting students at
greater risk of a rapidly spreading fire; walls were demolished
and rearranged to make room for more rentable beds, the lawsuit
claims.

"The buildings are clearly not up to code," Mr. Ferrentino said.
"We want to get the building up to code and the students
reimbursed for their rent. The sooner they act, the better it is
for everyone."

The SLO's 13 buildings were remodeled this summer without proper
permitting, according to city officials.

In May, Geehr entered into a one-year lease, from Sept. 9 through
Aug. 31, paying $1,079 monthly for a studio unit. But he was
unaware and not informed of the "illegal, unsafe, and unpermitted
modifications" between the time he signed the lease and when he
moved in, according to the lawsuit.

The city issued a stop-work order on the property's new
construction on July 24, initially requiring only permitting on a
single building, according to Community Development Director
Michael Codron. To comply, the contractors then submitted plans
for that building on July 31.

During inspection, however, it was discovered that the remaining
apartment buildings on the property had been completed with the
same work that had been reported in July.

Mr. Ferrentino said his Newport Beach firm will need to research
the range of rental prices and living situations of other
tenants.

"Students make plans for their housing before they leave for the
summer," Mr. Ferrentino said.  "My understanding is that when
they arrived a few days before school, they saw conditions of
units. With a tight rental market in San Luis Obispo and school
about to start, they had nowhere else to go."

In an October interview with The Tribune, Thomas Pattenaude, an
asset manager with Home Sweet Home, said the owner has a "very
good relationship" with the city and will work to permit the
complex.

Mr. Pattenaude expected the corrective work to take about six
months.

Home Sweet Home bought the complex about a year ago, and
Pattenaude said the buildings, constructed in the 1960s, have
gone from "bad shape to good shape." [GN]


INC RESEARCH: Jan. 30 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Dec. 4
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of INC Research Holdings, Inc.
(NASDAQ:INCR) from May 10, 2017 through November 9, 2017,
inclusive (the "Class Period").  The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for INC Research investors under the federal securities
laws.

To join the INC Research class action, go to
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-1236.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) the merger with inVentiv Health, Inc.
("inVentiv") was not providing the benefit that defendants stated
it would; (2) inVentiv was underperforming; (3) in turn, INC
Research's 2017 financial performance would be negatively
impacted; and (4) as a result, defendants' statements about INC
Research'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 30, 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-1236.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

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. [GN]


INTUITIVE SURGICAL: October Jury Trial in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re Intuitive Surgical Securities Litigation, No.
5:13-cv-1920, the Trial Setting Conference scheduled for November
16, 2017, has been vacated, according to a Nov. 8 pretrial order
entered by Judge Edward J. Davila.

The pretrial order set this timeline:

     Daubert Motions due by 8/2/2018.

     Responses due by 8/16/2018.

     Replies due by 8/23/2018.

     Daubert Motion Hearing set for 9/6/2018 9:00 a.m. in
     Courtroom 4, 5th Floor, San Jose before Judge Edward J.
     Davila.

     Joint Final Pretrial Conference Statement due by 10/4/2018.

     Final Pretrial Conference set for 10/18/2018 11:00 a.m.

     Jury Selection set for 10/30/2018 09:00 a.m.

     Jury Trial set for 10/30/2018 1:30 p.m.

     Jury Trial dates: 10/31, 11/2, 11/6, 11/7, 11/9, 11/13,
     11/14 and 11/20, 11/21 (deliberations)

On Dec. 6, Class Representatives' Motion for Approval of Notice
of Pendency of Class Action was filed by Employees' Retirement
System of the State of Hawaii, Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters'
Pension Fund.  A Motion Hearing is set for March 8, 2018, at 9:00
a.m.  Defendants have responded to the Motion.

Intuitive Surgical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2017, that on April 26, 2013, a purported
class action lawsuit entitled Abrams v. Intuitive Surgical, et
al., No. 5-13-cv-1920, was filed against a number of the
Company's current and former officers and directors in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California. A
substantially identical complaint, entitled Adel v. Intuitive
Surgical, et al., No. 5:13-cv-02365, was filed in the same court
against the same defendants on May 24, 2013. The Adel case was
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on August 20, 2013.

On October 15, 2013, plaintiffs in the Abrams matter filed an
amended complaint. The case has since been retitled In re
Intuitive Surgical Securities Litigation, No. 5:13-cv-1920. The
plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a putative class
of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
common stock between February 6, 2012, and July 18, 2013. The
amended complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by allegedly making false and misleading
statements and omitting certain material facts in certain public
statements and in the Company's filings with the SEC. On November
18, 2013, the court appointed the Employees' Retirement System of
the State of Hawaii as lead plaintiff and appointed lead counsel.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
December 16, 2013, which was granted in part and denied in part
on August 21, 2014. The plaintiffs elected not to further amend
their complaint at that time.

On October 22, 2014, the court granted the Company's motion for
leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the court's August
21, 2014, order. The Company filed its motion for reconsideration
on November 5, 2014. Following opposition and reply briefing, the
court denied the motion on December 15, 2014, allowing the case
to move forward on the claims that remained. The plaintiffs moved
for class certification on September 1, 2015, and following
opposition and reply briefing, the court held a hearing on the
motion on January 21, 2016. While that motion remained pending,
on October 11, 2016, the Company sent plaintiffs' lead counsel,
Labaton Sucharow LLP, a letter enclosing a draft motion for
sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11,
primarily based on statements to the court that lacked a proper
factual basis. In response, on November 1, 2016, plaintiffs'
local counsel withdrew from the case entirely and withdrew their
signatures from the disputed pleadings. On November 2, 2016,
Labaton Sucharow LLP filed a motion for leave to file an amended
complaint that did not include the disputed statements.

On November 16, 2016, the Company filed an opposition to
plaintiffs' motion, along with an independent motion to strike
the amended complaint and the pleadings from which plaintiffs'
local counsel withdrew their signatures. Following additional
briefing, the motion for leave to amend and motion to strike were
fully submitted to the court on November 23, 2016, and December
7, 2016, respectively. On December 22, 2016, the court entered an
order granting plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On
January 5, 2017, the Company filed a Petition for Permission to
Appeal from the order granting class certification in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The court of appeals has
not yet ruled on the Company's petition. On January 12, 2017,
plaintiffs sought leave to file a motion for partial
reconsideration of the court's class certification order, which
the court granted on March 17, 2017. Plaintiffs filed the motion
for reconsideration itself on April 3, 2017, and the Company
filed its opposition on April 17, 2017.

The court denied the motion on September 29, 2017. On January 25,
2017, the court entered an order granting plaintiffs' motion for
leave to amend the complaint and denying the Company's motion to
strike. On February 9, 2017, the Company moved to dismiss the
amended complaint. Following opposition and reply briefing, the
matter was fully submitted to the court on March 2, 2017. The
court denied the motion on September 29, 2017. On July 13, 2017,
the parties filed a stipulation vacating the case schedule, which
the court entered on July 14, 2017. On October 11, 2017, the
court scheduled a trial setting conference for November 16, 2017.

Intuitive Surgical said "Based on currently available
information, the Company does not believe the resolution of this
matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, financial position, or future results of operations."

Intuitive Surgical, Inc. is an American corporation that
manufactures robotic surgical systems, most notably the da Vinci
Surgical System. The da Vinci Surgical System allows surgery to
be performed using robotic manipulators. The company is based in
Sunnyvale, California.


KINDER MORGAN: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Drop Unit Holders Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kinder Morgan, 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 defendants have moved to dismiss the
purported class action suit filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery by a former EPB unitholder on behalf of a class of
former unaffiliated unitholders of EPB,

In April 2017, a purported class action suit was filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery by a former EPB unitholder on behalf
of a class of former unaffiliated unitholders of EPB, seeking to
challenge the $9.2 billion merger of EPB into a subsidiary of KMI
as part of a series of transactions in November 2014 whereby KMI
acquired all of the outstanding equity interests in KMP, KMR, and
EPB that KMI and its subsidiaries did not already own. The suit
alleges that the merger consideration did not sufficiently
compensate EPB unitholders for the value of three derivative
suits concerning drop down transactions which the derivative
plaintiff lost standing to pursue after the merger and which the
present suit now alleges were collectively worth as much as $700
million. The suit claims that the alleged failure to obtain
sufficient merger consideration for the drop down lawsuits
constitutes a breach of the EPB limited partnership agreement and
the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

The suit also asserts claims against KMI and certain individual
defendants for allegedly tortiously interfering with and/or
aiding and abetting the alleged breach of the limited partnership
agreement. Defendants have moved to dismiss the suit.

Kinder Morgan said "We continue to believe that both the merger
and the drop down transactions were appropriate and in the best
interests of EPB, and we intend to continue to defend this
lawsuit vigorously."

Kinder Morgan, Inc. operates as an energy infrastructure company
in North America.  It operates through Natural Gas Pipelines,
CO2, Terminals, Products Pipelines, and Kinder Morgan Canada
segments. The Company was formerly known as Kinder Morgan Holdco
LLC and changed its name to Kinder Morgan, Inc. in February 2011.
Kinder Morgan, Inc. was founded in 1936 and is headquartered in
Houston, Texas.


KINDER MORGAN: 9th Cir. to Hear Appeal on Class Cert. Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Kinder Morgan, 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 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
granted plaintiff's request for an interlocutory appeal from the
District Court's denial of plaintiff's motion for class
certification.

Beginning in 2003, several lawsuits were filed by purchasers of
natural gas against El Paso Corporation, El Paso Marketing L.P.
and numerous other energy companies based on a claim under state
antitrust law that such defendants conspired to manipulate the
price of natural gas by providing false price information to
industry trade publications that published gas indices. Several
of the cases have been settled or dismissed. The remaining cases,
which are pending in a U.S. District Court in Nevada, were
dismissed, but the dismissal was reversed by the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals in a decision dated April 21, 2015, and
the cases were then remanded to the District Court for further
consideration and trial, if necessary, of numerous remaining
issues. On May 24, 2016, the District Court granted a motion for
summary judgment dismissing a lawsuit brought by an industrial
consumer in Kansas in which approximately $500 million in damages
has been alleged. That ruling has been appealed to the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals.

Settlements have been reached in class actions originally filed
in Kansas and Missouri, which settlements received final court
approval and have been paid. In the remaining case, a Wisconsin
class action in which approximately $300 million in damages has
been alleged against all defendants, the District Court denied
plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals granted plaintiff's request for an interlocutory
appeal of this ruling.

Kinder Morgan said "There remains significant uncertainty
regarding the validity of the causes of action, the damages
asserted and the level of damages, if any, which may be allocated
to us in the remaining lawsuits and therefore, our legal
exposure, if any, and costs are not currently determinable."

Kinder Morgan, Inc. operates as an energy infrastructure company
in North America.  It operates through Natural Gas Pipelines,
CO2, Terminals, Products Pipelines, and Kinder Morgan Canada
segments. The Company was formerly known as Kinder Morgan Holdco
LLC and changed its name to Kinder Morgan, Inc. in February 2011.
Kinder Morgan, Inc. was founded in 1936 and is headquartered in
Houston, Texas.


KINDER MORGAN: 9th Cir. Declines to Hear Landowners' Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kinder Morgan, 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 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
denied Plaintiffs' request for interlocutory review of the
decisions on class certification.

SFPP and Union Pacific Railroad Company (UPRR) engaged in a
proceeding to determine the extent, if any, to which rent payable
by SFPP for the use of pipeline easements on rights-of-way held
by UPRR should be adjusted pursuant to existing contractual
arrangements for the ten-year period beginning January 1, 2004
(Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Santa Fe Pacific Pipelines,
Inc., et al., Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Los Angeles, Case No. BC319170). In September 2011, the trial
judge determined that the annual rent payable as of January 1,
2004 was $14 million, subject to annual consumer price index
increases. SFPP appealed the judgment.

In addition, as part of the second ten-year rent setting period,
in 2013 UPRR demanded the payment of $22.3 million in rent for
the first year of the next ten-year period beginning January 1,
2014, which SFPP rejected. On November 5, 2014, the Court of
Appeals issued an opinion which reversed the judgment, including
the award of prejudgment interest, and remanded the matter to the
trial court for a determination of UPRR's property interest in
its right-of-way, including whether UPRR has sufficient interest
to grant SFPP's easements. UPRR filed a petition for review to
the California Supreme Court which was denied. In July 2017, UPRR
and SFPP reached a settlement of the rental disputes on terms
that are confidential and within the right-of-way liability
previously recorded for back rent.

After the decision by the California Court of Appeals which held
that UPRR does not own the subsurface rights to grant certain
easements and may not be able to collect rent from those
easements, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in 2015 in
a U.S. District Court in California by private landowners in
California who claim to be the lawful owners of subsurface real
property allegedly used or occupied by UPRR or SFPP.
Substantially similar follow-on lawsuits were filed and are
pending in federal courts by landowners in Nevada, Arizona and
New Mexico. These suits, which are brought purportedly as class
actions on behalf of all landowners who own land in fee adjacent
to and underlying the railroad easement under which the SFPP
pipeline is located in those respective states, assert claims
against UPRR, SFPP, KMGP, and Kinder Morgan Operating L.P. "D"
for declaratory judgment, trespass, ejectment, quiet title,
unjust enrichment, inverse condemnation and accounting arising
from defendants' alleged improper use or occupation of subsurface
real property. Plaintiffs' motions for class certification were
denied by the federal courts in Arizona and California. The Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals denied Plaintiffs' request for
interlocutory review of the decisions on class certification. The
New Mexico and Nevada lawsuits have been stayed.

Kinder Morgan said "SFPP views these cases as primarily a dispute
between UPRR and the plaintiffs. UPRR purported to grant SFPP a
network of subsurface pipeline easements along UPRR's railroad
right-of-way. SFPP relied on the validity of those easements and
paid rent to UPRR for the value of those easements."

Kinder Morgan, Inc. operates as an energy infrastructure company
in North America.  It operates through Natural Gas Pipelines,
CO2, Terminals, Products Pipelines, and Kinder Morgan Canada
segments. The Company was formerly known as Kinder Morgan Holdco
LLC and changed its name to Kinder Morgan, Inc. in February 2011.
Kinder Morgan, Inc. was founded in 1936 and is headquartered in
Houston, Texas.


LEAP ACADEMY: Violates Conscientious Employee Protection Act
------------------------------------------------------------
TRAQUILLIA KENNEDY, the Plaintiff, v. LEAP ACADEMY UNIVERSITY
CHARTER SCHOOL, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-5 AND 6-10, the Defendants,
Case No. CAM-L-004820-17 (N.J. Super. Ct., Dec. 15, 2017), seeks
to recover compensatory and punitive damages under the
Conscientious Employee Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff began working for
defendant at its 130 North Broadway, Camden, New Jersey address
as a consultant on or around December 8, 2016. The Plaintiff was
promoted to the position of Deputy Chief Human Resources Officer
on or around April 2017.

The Plaintiff was terminated from her employment with defendant
in September 2017.  As the Deputy Chief Human Resources Officer,
plaintiff was responsible for the initial phases of hiring for
employees at defendant, personnel issues, and handling Family
Medical Leave Act requests.  Part of plaintiff's job
responsibilities was to make a determination as to whether or not
an employee would be approved for FMLA leave, and send that
determination to the defendant's board for final determination.

Around April 2017, an employee who will be referred to in this
complaint as Jane Smith, made a request for FMLA leave. Plaintiff
initially approved the FMLA request, as it was compliant with the
FMLA. However, when the request was presented to the board, Board
Member Gloria Santiago stated that the individual, Jane Smith,
should not be approved for the FMLA request.

Santiago stated that Jane Smith should not have been approved for
FMLA leave because she has "numerous" medical problems and
Santiago stated that she did not think the FMLA request was made
in "good faith."

Especially, when plaintiff became the Human Resources Officer,
she told Delgado that she did not want to approve comp time for
employees who were not exempt, because those employees should
have been entitled to overtime pay. After plaintiff objected to
the defendant's unlawful conduct, in September 2017, she was
advised by defendant that she was being placed on administrative
leave. Shortly after that, plaintiff received a letter stating
that she was being terminated from her employment with defendant
in September 2017.

Plaintiff complained to members of upper management at defendant
that she reasonably believed that the actions of denying a
qualified woman's application for FMLA leave request for no
reason was a violation of a law, a rule or regulation promulgated
pursuant to law or actions incompatible as a clear mandate to
public policy. Furthermore, plaintiff complained to members of
upper management at defendant that she believed nonexempt
employees should be paid time and a half overtime for
working overtime opposed to being given comp time was a violation
of a law, a rule or regulation promulgated pursuant to law or
actions incompatible with a clear mandate of public policy.

In acting as she did, plaintiff objected to and refused to
participate in activities, policies and practices she reasonably
believed were in violation of a law, a rule or regulation
promulgated pursuant to law or actions incompatible with a clear
mandate of public policy.

Subsequent to plaintiff engaging in this protected activity by
making these complaints, objecting to these actions and refusing
to participate in these activities, she was subjected to
retaliation that included having her job duties taken away, and
being terminated from her employment.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff

          Drake P. Bearden, Jr., Esq.
          COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC
          18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800
          Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
          Telephone: (856) 727 9700


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Agrees to Settle MDL Claims for $36-Mil.
------------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the Company
will contribute $22 million in cash and provide $14 million in
store-credit vouchers for an aggregate settlement of $36 million
to settle all claims brought on behalf of purchasers of the
Product sold by the Company during the Class Period in relation
to the two multi-district litigations.

Lumber Liquidators, Inc. (the "Company") is a defendant in two
multi-district litigations: (i) In re: Lumber Liquidators
Chinese-Manufactured Flooring Products Marketing, Sales,
Practices and Products Liability Litigation (the "MDL") and (ii)
In Re: Lumber Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Laminate Flooring
Durability Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation (the
"Abrasion MDL"). The MDL and the Abrasion MDL allege, among other
things, claims involving excessive formaldehyde emissions and the
durability and abrasion class rating of the Company's Chinese-
manufactured laminate flooring (the "Product") sold to those
individuals who purchased the flooring from the Company between
January 1, 2009 and May 31, 2015 (the "Class Period").

In April 2017, the Company initiated settlement discussions to
jointly settle the MDL and the Abrasion MDL. In July 2017, the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
(the "Virginia Court") appointed lead settlement counsel for the
plaintiffs in each of the MDL and Abrasion MDL, and directed the
parties to mediate before another federal judge of the Eastern
District of Virginia for purposes of settlement discussions.

On October 23, 2017, the Company entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding ("MOU") with the lead plaintiffs in the MDL and the
Abrasion MDL. Under the terms of the MOU, the Company will
contribute $22 million in cash and provide $14 million in store-
credit vouchers for an aggregate settlement of $36 million to
settle all claims brought on behalf of purchasers of the Product
sold by the Company during the Class Period. Although Holdings
believes that its cash flow from operations, together with
existing liquidity sources, is sufficient to fund the cash
payment, it may fund the cash payment through a combination of
cash and/or common stock.

The MOU is subject to certain contingencies, including the
execution of a definitive settlement agreement, board approval of
the definitive settlement agreement, and court approvals of the
definitive settlement agreement. There can be no assurance that a
definitive settlement agreement will be finalized by the parties
and approved by the court or as to the ultimate outcome of the
MDL or the Abrasion MDL. The entry into the MOU or any subsequent
execution of a definitive settlement agreement does not
constitute an admission by the Company of any fault or liability
and the Company does not admit any fault or liability. Out of an
abundance of caution, the Company discontinued the sale of the
Product in May 2015.

                           *     *     *

Lumber Liquidators disclosed in a Form 10-Q filing for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that the Company has
recognized an additional charge to earnings of $18 million within
selling general and administrative expense during the third
quarter of 2017.

             Litigation Relating to Chinese Laminates

                    Formaldehyde-Related Cases

Beginning on or about March 3, 2015, numerous purported class
action cases were filed in various U.S. federal district courts
and state courts involving claims of excessive formaldehyde
emissions from the Company's flooring products (collectively, the
"Products Liability Cases"). The plaintiffs in these various
actions sought recovery under a variety of theories, which
although not identical are generally similar, including
negligence, breach of warranty, state consumer protection act
violations, state unfair competition act violations, state
deceptive trade practices act violations, false advertising,
fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation, failure to
warn, unjust enrichment and similar claims. The purported classes
consisted either or both of all U.S. consumers or state consumers
that purchased the subject products in certain time periods. The
plaintiffs also sought various forms of declaratory and
injunctive relief and various damages, including restitution,
actual, compensatory, consequential, and, in certain cases,
punitive damages, and interest, costs, and attorneys' fees
incurred by the plaintiffs and other purported class members in
connection with the alleged claims, and orders certifying the
actions as class actions. Plaintiffs did not quantify damages
sought from the Company in these class actions.

On June 12, 2015, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation (the "MDL Panel") issued an order
transferring and consolidating ten of the related federal class
actions to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia (the "Virginia Court"). In a series of
subsequent conditional transfer orders, the MDL Panel has
transferred the other cases to the Virginia Court. The Company
continues to seek to have any newly filed cases transferred and
consolidated in the Virginia Court and, ultimately, it expects
all federal class actions involving formaldehyde allegations,
including any newly filed cases, to be transferred and
consolidated in the Virginia Court. The consolidated case in the
Virginia Court is captioned In re: Lumber Liquidators Chinese-
Manufactured Flooring Products Marketing, Sales, Practices and
Products Liability Litigation (the "MDL").

Pursuant to a court order, plaintiffs filed a Representative
Class Action Complaint in the Virginia Court on September 11,
2015. The complaint challenged the Company's labeling of its
flooring products and asserted claims under California, New York,
Illinois, Florida and Texas law for fraudulent concealment,
violation of consumer protection statutes, negligent
misrepresentation and declaratory relief, as well as a claim for
breach of implied warranty under California law. Thereafter, on
September 18, 2015, plaintiffs filed the First Amended
Representative Class Action Complaint ("FARC") in which they
added implied warranty claims under New York, Illinois, Florida
and Texas law, as well as a federal warranty claim. The Company
filed a motion to dismiss and answered the FARC. The Virginia
Court granted the motion as to claims for negligent
misrepresentation filed on behalf of certain plaintiffs, deferred
as to class action allegations, and otherwise denied the motion.
The Company also filed a motion to strike nationwide class
allegations, on which the Virginia Court has not yet ruled. The
Company also filed a motion to strike all personal injury claims
made in class action complaints. Plaintiffs subsequently agreed
and the Virginia Court has ordered that no Chinese formaldehyde
class action pending in this lawsuit will seek damages for
personal injury on a class-wide basis. The order does not affect
any claims for personal injury brought solely on an individual
basis. The Company's motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs'
First Amended Representative Complaint in the MDL was granted in
part and denied in part, and its motion to exclude expert reports
and testimony by plaintiffs' experts related to deconstructive
testing was denied.

In addition, on or about April 1, 2015, Sarah Steele ("Steele")
filed a purported class action lawsuit in the Ontario, Canada
Superior Court of Justice against the Company. In the complaint,
Steele's allegations include (i) strict liability, (ii) breach of
implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, (iii)
breach of implied warranty of merchantability, (iv) fraud by
concealment, (v) civil negligence, (vi) negligent
misrepresentation, and (vii) breach of implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing. Steele did not quantify any alleged
damages in her complaint but, in addition to attorneys' fees and
costs, Steele seeks (a) compensatory damages, (b) punitive,
exemplary and aggravated damages, and (c) statutory remedies
related to the Company's breach of various laws including the
Sales of Goods Act, the Consumer Protection Act, the Competition
Act, the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act and the Canada
Consumer Product Safety Act.

                     Abrasion-Related Cases

On May 20, 2015, a purported class action titled Abad v. Lumber
Liquidators, Inc. was filed in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California and two amended complaints
were subsequently filed. In the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"),
the plaintiffs (collectively, the "Abad Abrasion Plaintiffs")
sought to certify a national class composed of "All Persons in
the United States who purchased Defendant's Dream Home brand
laminate flooring products (the "Dream Home Product") from
Defendant for personal use in their homes," or, in the
alternative, 32 statewide classes from California, North
Carolina, Texas, New Jersey, Florida, Nevada, Connecticut, Iowa,
Minnesota, Nebraska, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York,
West Virginia, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, Maine, Michigan,
Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Wisconsin, Indiana, Illinois and
Louisiana. The products that are the subject of these complaints
are part of the same products at issue in the MDL. The SAC
alleges violations of each of these states' consumer protections
statutes and the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, as well as
breach of implied warranty and fraudulent concealment. The Abad
Abrasion Plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages in the
SAC but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, sought an
order certifying the action as a class action, an order adopting
the Abad Abrasion Plaintiffs' class definitions and finding that
the Abad Abrasion Plaintiffs are their proper representatives, an
order appointing their counsel as class counsel, injunctive
relief prohibiting the Company from continuing to advertise
and/or sell laminate flooring products with false abrasion class
ratings, restitution of all monies it received from the Abad
Abrasion Plaintiffs and class members, damages (actual,
compensatory, and consequential) and punitive damages.

The Abad Abrasion Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint and
the Company moved to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. The
court decided that it would decide the motion only as to the
California plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the Abad
Abrasion Plaintiffs) and ordered that all the non-California
plaintiffs (collectively, the "Non-California Abrasion
Plaintiffs") be dropped from the action with leave to re-file.
Many of the Non-California Abrasion Plaintiffs re-filed separate
complaints in the Central District of California within the
required 60-day period, which were then transferred to the
district court located in the place of residence of each Non-
California Abrasion Plaintiff. These complaints included similar
causes of action and sought similar relief as those of the Abad
Abrasion Plaintiffs.

On October 3, 2016, the MDL Panel issued an order transferring
and consolidating sixteen of the federal abrasion class actions
to the Virginia Court. In subsequent conditional transfer orders,
the MDL Panel transferred other cases to the Virginia Court. The
Company will seek to have any additional related cases
transferred and consolidated in the Virginia Court. The
consolidated case in the Virginia Court is captioned In re:
Lumber Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Laminate Flooring
Durability Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation (the
"Abrasion MDL").

The Virginia Court issued an initial pretrial order instructing
all parties to undertake certain discovery and planning tasks and
scheduled certain preliminary conferences. Pursuant to a court
order, on February 27, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a
Representative Class Action Complaint in the Virginia Court. The
complaint challenged the durability of the Dream Home Product and
asserted claims under Alabama, California, Nevada, New York and
Virginia law for breach of warranty, fraudulent concealment,
violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and violation of
consumer protection statutes. The Company filed a motion to
dismiss the representative complaint, which the Virginia Court
granted in part. The Company also filed a motion to strike
irrelevant and prejudicial allegations from the representative
complaint, which is currently pending.

                Estimated Liability Associated with
                  Formaldehyde and Abrasion MDL's

In April 2017, the Company initiated settlement discussions to
jointly settle the MDL and the Abrasion MDL. As a result of this
and other developments, the Company recognized an estimated
liability of $18 million in its results of operations (within
selling, general and administrative expenses) for the three
months ended March 31, 2017, with a corresponding current
liability on the accompanying condensed consolidated balance
sheet as the Company determined a loss was both probable and
reasonably estimable, with no additional accrual recorded during
the quarter ended June 30, 2017.

In July 2017, the Virginia Court appointed lead settlement
counsel for the plaintiffs in each of the MDL and Abrasion MDL,
and directed the parties to mediate before another federal judge
of the Eastern District of Virginia for purposes of settlement
discussions, with such mediation being held in September 2017.
Subsequent to the mediation, on October 23, 2017, the Company
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") with the lead
plaintiffs in the MDL and the Abrasion MDL.

Under the terms of the MOU, the Company will contribute $22
million in cash and provide $14 million in store-credit vouchers
for an aggregate settlement of $36 million to settle all claims
brought on behalf of purchasers of Chinese-made laminate flooring
sold by the Company between January 1, 2009 and May 31, 2015. The
Company may fund the $22 million through a combination of cash
and/or common stock. The MOU is subject to certain contingencies,
including the execution of a definitive settlement agreement,
board approval of the definitive settlement agreement, and court
approvals of the definitive settlement agreement. There can be no
assurance that a settlement will be finalized and approved or as
to the ultimate outcome of the litigation. If a final, court-
approved settlement is not reached, the Company will defend the
matter vigorously and believes there are meritorious defenses and
legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class
certification and success on the merits. The Company does not
believe it has insurance coverage with respect to the MDL, the
Abrasion MDL and Steele matters.

In addition to the MDL, the Steele matters, and the Abrasion MDL,
there are a number of individual claims and lawsuits alleging (i)
damages due to excessive formaldehyde emissions and (ii) damages
similar to those in the Abrasion MDL (collectively, the "Other
Matters"). While the Company believes that a loss associated with
these Other Matters and the Steele matter is reasonably possible,
the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the amount or range
of possible loss. Any such losses could, potentially, have a
material adverse effect, individually or collectively, on the
Company's results of operations, financial condition, and
liquidity.

As a result of these developments, the Company has determined
that a probable loss has been incurred and has recognized an
additional charge to earnings of $18 million within selling
general and administrative expense during the third quarter of
2017. The Company had previously recognized a charge to earnings
of $18 million in the first quarter of 2017, that when combined
with the $18 million charge in the third quarter of 2017, will
result in an aggregate $36 million liability on its balance sheet
related to this potential settlement as of September 30, 2017. If
the Company does not execute a definitive settlement agreement
consistent with the MOU or incurs losses with the respect to the
Other Matters, the ultimate resolution of these actions could
still have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of
operations, financial condition, and liquidity.

Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. is an American retailer of
hardwood flooring company and is based in Toano, Virginia.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Class Cert. Bid in "Gold" Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in a Form 10-Q filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2017, that a motion for class certification
in the "Gold" class action lawsuit remains pending.

On or about December 8, 2014, Dana Gold ("Gold") filed a
purported class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California alleging that the
Morning Star bamboo flooring that the Company sells is defective.
On February 13, 2015, Gold filed an amended complaint that added
three additional plaintiffs (collectively with Gold, "Gold
Plaintiffs"). The Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint.
The court dismissed most of Gold Plaintiffs' claims but allowed
certain omission-based claims to proceed.

Gold Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on December 16,
2015, then a Third Amended Complaint on January 20, 2016, and
then a Fourth Amended Complaint on June 26, 2017.

In the Fourth Amended Complaint, Gold Plaintiffs limited the
complaint to the Company's Morning Star Strand Bamboo flooring
that the Company sells (the "Bamboo Product") and allege that the
Company has engaged in unfair business practices and unfair
competition by falsely representing the quality and
characteristics of the Bamboo Product and by concealing the
Bamboo Product's defective nature.

In the Fourth Amended Complaint, Gold Plaintiffs limited the
purported class of individuals to those who are residents of
California, Florida, Illinois, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and West
Virginia, respectively, and purchased the Bamboo Product for
personal, family, or household use. Gold Plaintiffs did not
quantify any alleged damages in their complaint but, in addition
to attorneys' fees and costs, Gold Plaintiffs seek (i) a
declaration that the Company's actions violate the law and that
it is financially responsible for notifying all purported class
members, (ii) injunctive relief requiring the Company to replace
and/or repair all of the Bamboo Product installed in structures
owned by the purported class members, and (iii) a declaration
that the Company must disgorge, for the benefit of the purported
classes, all or part of the profits received from the sale of the
allegedly defective Bamboo Product and/or to make full
restitution to Gold Plaintiffs and the purported class members.

Fact discovery in the matter is now complete. The Gold Plaintiffs
filed a motion for class certification seeking to certify state-
wide classes for purchases of the Bamboo Product in California,
Florida, Illinois, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.

The Company filed an opposition to class certification and a
motion to exclude the opinions of the Gold Plaintiffs' experts.
These motions are currently pending. The Company's previously
filed motion to dismiss the non-California plaintiffs on
jurisdictional grounds was denied.

Lumber Liquidators said, "In addition, there are a number of
other claims and lawsuits alleging damages similar to those in
the Gold matter. The Company disputes these and the Gold
Plaintiffs' claims and intends to defend such matters vigorously.
Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of the
case, and the legal standards that must be met for, among other
things, class certification and success on the merits, the
Company is unable to estimate the amount of loss, or range of
possible loss, at this time that may result from this action. Any
such losses could, potentially, have a material adverse effect,
individually or collectively, on the Company's results of
operations, financial condition, and liquidity."


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Mason" Class Action Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in a Form 10-Q filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2017, that the Company continues to defend
against the "Mason" class action lawsuit.

On or about August 15, 2017, Ashleigh Mason, Dan Morse, Ryan
Carroll and Osagie Ehigie (collectively, the "SM Plaintiffs")
filed a purported class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of
all current and former store managers, store managers in training
and similarly situated current and former employees holding
comparable positions but different titles (collectively, the "SM
Employees") alleging that the Company violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL") by
classifying the SM Employees as exempt. The alleged violations
include failure to pay for overtime work. The SM Plaintiffs seek
certification of the SM Employees for (i) a collective action
covering the period beginning three years and 115 days prior to
the filing of the complaint through the disposition of this
action for the SM Employees nationwide (the "Nationwide
Collective Class") in connection with FLSA and (ii) a class
action covering the period beginning six years and 115 days prior
to the filing of the complaint through the disposition of this
action for members of the SM Employees who currently are or were
employed in New York (the "NY SM Class") in connection with NYLL.

The SM Plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages but, in
addition to attorneys' fees and costs, the SM Plaintiffs seek
class certification, unspecified amount for unpaid wages and
overtime wages, liquidated and/or punitive damages, declaratory
relief, restitution, statutory penalties, injunctive relief and
other damages.

The Company disputes the SM Plaintiffs' claims and intends to
defend the matter vigorously.

The Company said, "Given the uncertainty of litigation, the
preliminary stage of the case and the legal standards that must
be met for, among other things, class certification and success
on the merits, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably
possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from this
action and therefore no accrual has been made related to this."


MARTINIQUE RESTAURANT: Ahmed Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mohammad Ahmed, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Martinique Restaurant
Associates LLC, d/b/a Petit Poulet, the Defendant, Case No.
715134/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Dec. 18, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid non-overtime wages and wage deductions from Defendant for
not being paid their hourly rate for each and all hours worked,
maximum liquidated damages and attorneys' fees, pursuant to the
New York Minimum Wage Act, the New York Labor Law, and New York
Codes, Rules and Regulations.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed by
Defendant as a busser in its restaurant from September 21, 2012
until August 31, 2017. The Plaintiff was paid at a regular rate
of $5.50-$7.50 an hour plus tips. The Plaintiff was not paid for
each and all hours worked in a week, for each week during his
employment with Defendant -- Plaintiff was required to report to
work earlier than his official scheduled time and was required to
work beyond his scheduled time for most or all days during his
employment with Defendant but Defendant had a policy and practice
of failing to pay Plaintiff for such extra work time in violation
of the NYLL. The Plaintiff was not paid any wages for 3-5 or more
hours weekly. The Plaintiff worked approximately 20-25 hours each
week for Defendant but was not paid for all hours worked in each
week.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          KANE KESSLER
          666 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10017


MDL 2437: Drywall Makers Agree to $125 Million Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Perlman, writing for Law360, reports that several drywall
manufacturers have agreed to pay a class of direct purchasers an
additional $125 million to settle price-fixing claims in
multidistrict litigation being overseen by a Pennsylvania federal
court, according to co-counsel for the class, Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC, in a statement on Jan. 2.  The firm said the
agreements bring the total settlement amount for the class up to
$190.7 million, and that the deal concludes the direct
purchasers' portion of the litigation. The latest settlements
were struck with affiliates of American Gypsum.

Prior settlements:

     $21,169,292 with Lafarge defendants
      $5,250,000 with TIN, Inc. defendants
     $39,250,000 with USG defendants

The class action lawsuit is on behalf of direct purchasers of
Wallboard.  "Wallboard" refers to paper-backed gypsum wallboard
and is also known as drywall or plasterboard.  The lawsuit
alleges that CertainTeed Gypsum, Inc., USG Corporation, United
States Gypsum Company, New NGC, Inc., Lafarge North America,
Inc., Eagle Materials, Inc., American Gypsum Company LLC, PABCO
Building Products, LLC, and TIN, Inc. participated in a
conspiracy to raise, fix, maintain or stabilize prices of
Wallboard in violation of federal antitrust laws. The Defendants
deny that they violated the antitrust laws and have asserted
defenses to the claims in this lawsuit.

On December 7, 2016, the Court approved a settlement between
Plaintiffs and Lafarge North America, Inc. for $21,169,292.00 and
has agreed to provide cooperation against the remaining Non-
Settling Defendants in exchange for the release and dismissal of
Lafarge from this lawsuit. The Court has certified the Lafarge
Settlement Class for the purpose of settling claims against
Lafarge.

Previously, Plaintiffs settled with TIN, Inc. for $5.25 million
and cooperation, and with USG Corporation, United States Gypsum
Company, and USG Corporation's subsidiary L&W Supply Corporation
for $39.25 million and cooperation. The District Court granted
final approval of the TIN and USG settlements on August 20, 2015,
and TIN and USG have been dismissed from the lawsuit.

In a decision, the District Court allowed Plaintiffs' claims
regarding the alleged conspiracy to go forward against four of
the five remaining Defendants, but granted CertainTeed Gypsum's
motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs continue to pursue the
case against the remaining Defendants who have not settled (New
NGC, Inc., Eagle Materials, Inc., American Gypsum Company LLC,
and PABCO Building Products, LLC).

Additional information on the case is available at:

        http://classaction.kccllc.net/CaseInfo.aspx?pas=DDL

                          *     *     *

Eagle Materials 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 the Domestic Wallboard Antitrust Suit.

Since late December 2012, several purported class action lawsuits
were filed in various United States District Courts, including
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Western District of North
Carolina and the Northern District of Illinois, against the
Company's subsidiary, American Gypsum Company LLC ("American
Gypsum"), alleging that the defendant wallboard manufacturers
conspired to fix the price for drywall sold in the United States
in violation of federal antitrust laws and, in some cases related
provisions of state law. The complaints allege that the defendant
wallboard manufacturers conspired to increase prices through the
announcement and implementation of coordinated price increases,
output restrictions, and other restraints of trade, including the
elimination of individual "job quote" pricing.

In addition to American Gypsum, the defendants in these lawsuits
include CertainTeed Corp. ("Certainteed"), USG Corporation and
United States Gypsum (together "USG"), New NGC, Inc. ("New NGC"),
Lafarge North America ("Lafarge"), Temple Inland Inc. ("TIN") and
PABCO Building Products LLC ("PABCO"). On April 8, 2013, the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") transferred
and consolidated all related cases to the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania for coordinated pretrial proceedings.

On June 24, 2013, the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs
filed consolidated amended class action complaints. The direct
purchasers' complaint added the Company as a defendant. The
plaintiffs in the consolidated class action complaints assert
claims on behalf of purported classes of direct or indirect
purchasers of wallboard from January 1, 2012 to the present for
unspecified monetary damages (including treble damages) and in
some cases injunctive relief. On July 29, 2013, the Company and
American Gypsum answered the complaints, denying all allegations
that they conspired to increase the price of drywall and
asserting affirmative defenses to the plaintiffs' claims.

In 2014, USG and TIN entered into agreements with counsel
representing the direct and indirect purchaser classes pursuant
to which they agreed to settle all claims against them.  Under
the terms of its settlement agreement, USG agreed to pay $48.0
million to resolve the direct and indirect purchaser class
actions. In its settlement agreement, TIN agreed to pay $7.0
million to resolve the direct and indirect purchaser class
actions.  On August 20, 2015, the court entered orders finally
approving USG and TIN's settlements with the direct and indirect
purchaser plaintiffs.

Following completion of the initial discovery, the Company and
remaining co-defendants moved for summary judgment.  On February
18, 2016, the court denied the Company's motion for summary
judgment, and granted summary judgment in favor of Certainteed.

On June 16, 2016, Lafarge entered into an agreement with counsel
for the direct purchaser class under which it agreed to settle
all claims against it for $23.0 million. The court entered an
order finally approving this settlement on December 7, 2016.

On July 28, 2016, Lafarge entered into an agreement with counsel
representing the indirect purchaser class under which it agreed
to settle all claims against it for $5.2 million. On July 14,
2016, the Company's motion for permission to appeal the summary
judgment decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit was denied.

Direct purchaser plaintiffs and indirect purchaser plaintiffs
filed their motions for class certification on August 3, 2016 and
October 12, 2016, respectively. The Court held an evidentiary
hearing on the direct purchaser plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in April 2017 and held a hearing on indirect
purchaser plaintiffs' motion for class certification in June
2017.

On August 23, 2017, the court granted the direct purchaser
plaintiffs' motion for class certification and certified a class
consisting of all persons or entities that purchased paper-backed
gypsum wallboard in the United States from January 1, 2012
through January 31, 2013 directly from American Gypsum, the
Company, Lafarge, New NGC, PABCO, USG, and/or L&W Supply
Corporation (which was a subsidiary of USG Corporation during the
class period).  On August 24, 2017, the court denied the indirect
purchaser plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

On September 6, 2017, American Gypsum, the Company, New NGC, and
PABCO filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit seeking interlocutory appeal of the district
court's decision granting the direct purchaser plaintiffs' motion
for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(f). On September 7, 2017, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs
filed a petition with the Third Circuit appealing the district
court's denial of their motion for class certification. The Third
Circuit denied the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' petition on
October 12, 2017; the defendants' petition remains pending before
the Third Circuit.  On September 7, 2017, the indirect purchaser
plaintiffs also filed a proposal to file a motion for class
certification for a class consisting of persons and entities who
purchased drywall manufactured by American Gypsum, USG, New NGC,
Lafarge, TIN, and PABCO from The Home Depot, Inc., Lowe's
Companies, Inc., or Menards Inc. during the period from January
1, 2012 through January 31, 2013.

On September 6, 2017, American Gypsum, the Company, New NGC, and
PABCO moved for the entry of partial summary judgment in their
favor with respect to the direct purchaser and indirect purchaser
plaintiffs' claims that TIN and non-defendant Georgia-Pacific LLC
participated in the alleged conspiracy.  The plaintiffs moved to
strike the motion for partial summary judgment on September 18,
2017.

In the direct purchaser class action, if the petition currently
before the Third Circuit appealing direct purchasers class
certification is not granted, we expect that a trial date may be
set in the near future.

Eagle Materials said, "We intend to continue to defend against
these claims vigorously. In addition, we plan to commence
preparations for trial and may from time to time engage in
settlement and other discussions with direct purchaser
plaintiffs, if we conclude that such discussions have the
potential to result in an appropriate resolution of this action.
At this point, we are not able to predict the likely outcome of a
trial or any settlement discussions; however, an adverse outcome
in either scenario could have a material adverse effect on our
financial position or results of operations."

On March 17, 2015, a group of homebuilders filed a complaint
against the defendants, including American Gypsum, based upon the
same conduct alleged in the consolidated class action complaints.
On March 24, 2015, the JPML transferred this action to the
multidistrict litigation already pending in the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania. Following the transfer, the homebuilder
plaintiffs filed two amended complaints, on December 14, 2015 and
March 25, 2016. As a result of settlements reached with TIN and
Lafarge, the homebuilder plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their
claims against TIN and Lafarge on June 6 and June 24, 2016,
respectively. On January 31, 2017, the plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed their claims against CertainTeed. Discovery in this
lawsuit is ongoing.

Eagle Materials Inc. makes, distributes, and sells gypsum
wallboard, Portland cement, recycled paperboard, and concrete and
aggregates. The Company was formerly named Centex Construction
Products Inc.  It was founded in 1963 and is based in Dallas,
Texas.


MDL 2785: Express Scripts Awaits Court OK to Transfer "Branon"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts Holding Company 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 and
Express Scripts, Inc., filed a motion to transfer the Brannon
case to Minnesota, in the case Traci Brannon, Lindsey Rizzo, and
Jamie Herr v. Express Scripts Holding Company, Express Scripts,
Inc., UnitedHealth Group, Inc., OptumRx, Inc., and Prime
Therapeutics, LLC, filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Kansas.

Plaintiffs alleged that the Company and other defendants by a
putative class comprising participants in, or beneficiaries of,
health insurance plans governed by ERISA who, pursuant to the
terms of their health insurance plans, paid any portion of the
purchase price for EpiPen products. The complaint alleges that
defendants violated legal obligations under ERISA by negotiating
increasingly large rebates from Mylan, which allegedly caused the
plaintiffs to pay more out of pocket for EpiPen products.
Plaintiffs further allege that defendants retained a significant
portion of rebates, rather than passing them on to putative class
members. Plaintiffs seek equitable relief and attorneys' fees and
costs.

The case is subject to a pending request to consolidate the
proceedings into a multidistrict litigation also pending in
Kansas federal court, In re: EpiPen (Epinephrine Injection, USP)
Marketing, Sales Practices & Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2785
(J.P.M.L). On September 7, 2017, the Company and ESI filed a
brief opposing consolidation. On September 15, 2017, the Company
and ESI filed a motion to transfer the Brannon case to Minnesota.

Express Scripts Holding Company operates as a pharmacy benefit
management (PBM) company in the United States, Canada, and
Europe. It operates in two segments, PBM and Other Business
Operations. It was formerly known as Aristotle Holding, Inc. and
changed its name to Express Scripts Holding Company in April
2012.  The Company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in
Saint Louis, Missouri.


MDL 2800: "VonWiller" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Krista VonWiller, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Equifax Information Services LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-
cv-01839, 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. 18, 2017. The
Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-
cv-05195-TWT to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. The lead case is Case No. 1:17-cv-
05004-TWT.

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

Attorneys for Defendant:

          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: "Cooper" Suit vs. Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Corinne Cooper, Morgan
Rutherford, and Donna DeConcini, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Equifax
Incorporated, a Georgia corporation; Equifax Information Services
LLC, a foreign limited liability company; Equifax Consumer
Services, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company; Mary Bradley;
Debbie Reinert; and Randy Reinert, the Defendants, Case No. 4:17-
cv-00490, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia (Atlanta) MDL 2800, on Dec. 18, 2017. The
Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-
cv-05222-TWT to the proceeding.  The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr.  The lead case is Case No. 1:17-cv-
05004-TWT.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
          Susan Mary Rotkis, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.-NN VA
          763 J Clyde Morris Blvd., Suite 1-A
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Telephone: (757) 930 3660
          Facsimile: (757) 930 3662
          E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com
                  srotkis@clalegal.com


MDL 2800: "Daughtery" Suit vs. Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Cady Daughtery, Michael Norris,
and Julie Richardson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Equifax, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00597, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) MDL
2800, on Dec. 18, 2017. The Northern District of Georgia Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05228-TWT to the proceeding. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. The lead
case is Case No. 1:17-cv-05004-TWT.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alex G. Streett, Esq.
          STREETT LAW FIRM, P.A.
          107 West Main
          Russellville, AR 72801
          Telephone: (479) 968 2030
          Facsimile: (479) 968 6253

               - and -

          Benjamin A. Gastel, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER STRANCH & JENNINGS PLLC
          The Freedom Center
          223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 254 8801
          Facsimile: (615) 250 3937
          E-mail: beng@bsjfirm.com

               - and -

          James A. Streett
          Streett Law Firm, P.A.
          107 West Main
          Russellville, AR 72801
          Telephone: (479) 968 2030
          Facsimile: (479) 968 6253

               - and -

          Michael G. Stewart, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER STRANCH & JENNINGS PLLC
          The Freedom Center
          223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 254 8801


MDL 2800: "Dremak" Suit vs. Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Andrew Dremak, on Behalf of
Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Equifax, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-01829, 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. 18, 2017. The
Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-
cv-05193-TWT to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. The lead case is Case No. 1:17-cv-
05004-TWT.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
          BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
          701 B Street, Suite 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 338 1100
          Facsimile: (619) 338 1101
          E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

          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: "Gersten" Suit vs. Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Ehud Gersten and Hannah
Obradovich, individual, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Equifax, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-01828, 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. 18, 2017. The Northern District of Georgia
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05192-TWT to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas W.
Thrash, Jr. The lead case is Case No. 1:17-cv-05004-TWT.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kevin H. Sharp, Esq.
          SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
          611 Commerce Street, Suite 3100
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 343 7001
          Facsimile: (615) 434 7020
          E-mail: ksharp@sanfordheisler.com


MDL 2800: "Gulley" Suit vs. Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Roshunda Gulley and Brenda King,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. Equifax, Inc. and Equifax Information Services
LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-04088, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
(Atlanta) MDL 2800, on Dec. 18, 2017. The Northern District of
Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05229-TWT to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas W.
Thrash, Jr. The lead case is Case No. 1:17-cv-05004-TWT.

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

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


MDL 2800: "Seymore" Suit vs. Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Omar Seymore and Angela Seymore,
an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. Equifax, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-
01871, 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. 18, 2017. The
Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-
cv-05196-TWT to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. The lead case is Case No. 1:17-cv-
05004-TWT.

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          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: "Tanks" Suit vs. Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Christopher Tanks and Brittany
Dixon on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. Equifax, Inc., a Georgia corporation and DOES
1-10 inclusive, Case No. 3:17-cv-01832, 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. 18, 2017. The Northern District of Georgia
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05194-TWT to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas W.
Thrash, Jr. The lead case is Case No. 1:17-cv-05004-TWT.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Tammy Gruder Hussin, Esq.
          HUSSIN LAW
          1596 N. Coast Highway 101
          Encinitas, CA 92024
          Telephone: (877) 677 5397
          Facsimile: (877) 667 1547

The Defendants are 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: "Partridge" Suit vs. Equifax Goes to N.D. Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Barron Partridge, individually
and on behalf of all other residents of the State of Alabama,
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Equifax, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00423, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta), on
Dec. 18, 2017. The Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05227-TWT to the proceeding. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. The lead case
is Case No. 1:17-cv-05004-TWT.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven A. Martino, Esq.
          TAYLOR MARTINO & HEDGE
          61 St. Joseph Street
          1600 SouthTrust Bank Building
          Mobile, AL 36602
          Telephone: (251) 433 3131

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kirkland E. Reid, Esq.
          JONES WALKER LLP
          11 North Water Street, Suite 1200
          Mobile, AL 36602
          Telephone: (251) 432 1414
          Facsimile: (251) 439 7358


MDL 2800: "Stanfield" Suit vs. Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Tyler Stanfield and Ernestine
Johnson, Individual, and on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Equifax, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-01102, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) MDL
2800, on Dec. 18, 2017. The Northern District of Georgia Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05223-TWT to the proceeding. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. The lead
case is Case No. 1:17-cv-05004-TWT.

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


MDL 2800: "Gray" Suit vs Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Denise Carter Gray and Blair
Garthright, Individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Equifax Information Services LLC, a
Georgia limited liability company, the Defendant, Case No. 6:17-
cv-06095, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Arkansas, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) on Dec. 15, 2017. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05171-TWT to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas W.
Thrash, Jr.

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


MDL 2804: "Lewis" Suit vs Purdue Pharma Consolidated in N.D. Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Michael Ray Lewis, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Purdue Pharma L.P.; Purdue Pharma Inc.; The Purdue Frederick
Company, Inc.; TEVA Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Johnson & Johnson
Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Ortho-Mcneil-Janssen
Pharmaceuticals Inc. also known as: Janssen Pharmaceuticals,
Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceutica Inc., also known as: Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Endo Health Solutions Inc.; Endo
Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; also known
as: Actavis Inc.; Watson Laboratories Inc.; Actavis LLC; Actavis
Pharma, Inc.; formerly known as: Watson Pharma, Inc.; and
Cephalon Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-05118, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Arkansas, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Ohio (Cleveland) on Dec. 15, 2017. The Northern District of
Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-op-45076-DAP to the
proceeding.

The Lewis case is being consolidated with MDL 2804 in re:
National Prescription Opiate Litigation. The MDL was created by
Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation on December 5, 2017.

In its December 5, 2017 Order, the MDL Panel says, "After
considering the argument of counsel, we find that the actions in
this litigation involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of Ohio will serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and
efficient conduct of the litigation. Plaintiffs in the actions
before us are cities, counties and states that allege that: (1)
manufacturers of prescription opioid medications overstated the
benefits and downplayed the risks of the use of their opioids and
aggressively marketed (directly and through key opinion leaders)
these drugs to physicians, and/or (2) distributors failed to
monitor, detect, investigate, refuse and report suspicious orders
of prescription opiates. All actions involve common factual
questions about, inter alia, the manufacturing and distributor
defendants' knowledge of and conduct regarding the alleged
diversion of these prescription opiates, as well as the
manufacturers' alleged improper marketing of such drugs."

"Both manufacturers and distributors are under an obligation
under the Controlled Substances Act and similar state laws to
prevent diversion of opiates and other controlled substances into
illicit channels. Plaintiffs assert that defendants have failed
to adhere to those standards, which caused the diversion of
opiates into their communities. Plaintiffs variously bring claims
for violation of RICO statutes, consumer protection laws, state
analogues to the Controlled Substances Act, as well as common law
claims such as public nuisance, negligence, negligent
misrepresentation, fraud and unjust enrichment."

The presiding judge in the MDL is the Hon. Judge Dan Aaron
Polster. The lead case is 1:17-md-02804-DAP.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Marcus N. Bozeman, Esq.
          CARNEY, WILLIAMS, BATES, BOZEMAN & PULLIAM
          11311 Arcade Drive, Ste. 200
          Little Rock, AR 72212
          Telephone: (501) 312 8500
          Facsimile: (501) 312 8505
          E-mail: mbozeman@carneywilliams.com

               - and -

          Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
          KITTERMAN LAW FIRM
          1101 Garland
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 374 1145

The Defendants are represented by:

          Lyn Peeples Pruitt, Esq.
          Adria W. Conklin, Esq.
          Sainabou M. Sonko, Esq.
          MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES & WOODYARD
          425 West Capitol Avenue, Ste. 1800
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 688 8869
          Facsimile: (501) 918 7869
          E-mail: lpruitt@mwlaw.com
                  ssonko@mwlaw.com

               - and -

          David M. Donovan, Esq.
          WATTS, DONOVAN & TILLEY, P.A.
          200 River Market Ave., Ste. 200
          Little Rock, AR 72201-1769
          Telephone: (501) 372 1406
          Facsimile: (501) 372 1209

               - and -

          Charles C. Lifland, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS - LOS ANGELES
          400 South Hope Street, Ste. 1500
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 430 6000
          Facsimile: (213) 430 6407
          E-mail: clifland@omm.com

               - and -

          James M. Simpson, Esq.
          Martin A. Kasten, Esq.
          FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK
          2000 Regions Center
          400 West Capitol Avenue
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3493
          Telephone: (501) 376 2011
          Facsimile: (501) 376 2147

               - and -

          Jess L. Askew, III, Esq.
          KUTAK ROCK LLP
          124 West Capitol, Suite 2000
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 975 3000
          Facsimile: (501) 975 3001

               - and -

          Jeff Fletcher, Esq.
          Samantha B. Leflar, Esq.
          KUTAK ROCK LLP
          234 East Millsap Road, Suite 400
          Fayetteville, AR 72703
          Telephone: (479) 973 4200
          Facsimile: (479) 973 0007
          E-mail: samantha.leflar@kutakrock.com

               - and -

          Brandon B. Cate, Esq.
          E. B. Chiles, IV, Esq.
          Steven W. Quattlebaum, Esq.
          Lindsey Carroll Pesek, Esq.
          QUATTLEBAUM, GROOMS & TULL PLLC
          4100 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 310
          Springdale, AR 72762
          Telephone: (479) 444 5200
          Facsimile: (479) 444 5255
          E-mail: bcate@qgtlaw.com
                  cchiles@qgtb.com
                  quattlebaum@qgtb.com
                  lpesek@qgtlaw.com

               - and -

          Donna M. Welch, Esq.
          Jennifer G. Levy, Esq.
          Martin L. Roth, Esq.
          Timothy W. Knapp, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS-CHICAGO
          300 North LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 862 2425
          Facsimile: (312) 862 2200
          E-mail: dwelch@kirkland.com
                  jlevy@kirkland.com
                  rothm@kirkland.com
                  tknapp@kirkland.com


MDL 2807: Hughes-Hillman Sues Sonic over Consumer Data Theft
------------------------------------------------------------
CLARA HUGHES-HILLMAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SONIC CORPORATION, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-09062 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 15, 2017),
seeks to recover damages arising from Plaintiff's inability to
use debit or credit card accounts because those account were
suspended or otherwise rendered unusable as a result of
fraudulent charges stemming from data breach.

The case is a consumer class action against Sonic for its failure
to secure and safeguard the credit and debit card numbers and
other payment card data, and other personally identifiable
information that Sonic collected from Plaintiff and other Class
members when they made purchases at Sonic.

On September 26, 2017, Sonic announced that its payment system
had been breached and that PII consisting of up to five million
credit card and debit card numbers and other personally
identifying information had been stolen. The stolen PII is being
sold on the black market. The stolen Customer Data is sufficient
for wrongdoers to make fraudulent charges to the accounts of
Plaintiff and the Class members.  The Customer Data was
compromised due to Sonic's acts and omissions and its failure to
properly protect the Customer Data.

Data breaches at other restaurants, including Sonic's
competitors, have occurred and were widely publicized, putting
Sonic on notice that it might be the target of a cybersecurity
attack like the Data Breach. Sonic could have prevented the Data
Breach. Sonic disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class
members by: (i) intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or
negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to
ensure its data systems were protected; (ii) failing to take
available steps to prevent and stop the breach from happening;
(iii) failing to disclose to its customers the material facts
that it did not have adequate computer systems and security
practices to safeguard Customer Data; (iv) failing to take
available steps to prevent and stop the breach from ever
happening; and (v) failing to monitor and detect the breach on a
timely basis.

Had Sonic implemented and maintained adequate safeguards to
protect Customer Data, deter the hackers, and detect the beach
within a reasonable amount of time, it is more likely than not
that it would have been able to prevent the Data Breach.  As a
result of the Data Breach, the Customer Data of Plaintiff and the
Class members have been exposed to criminals and is ripe for
misuse.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Kasif Khowaja, Esq.
          Frank Castiglione, Esq.
          THE KHOWAJA LAW FIRM, LLC
          70 East Lake Street Suite 1220
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 356 3200
          E-mail: kasif@khowajalaw.com
                  fcastiglione@khowajalaw.com

               - and -

          Brian P. Murray, Esq.
          Bryan G. Faubus, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          230 Park Ave Suite 530
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 682 5340
          Facsimile: (212) 884 0988
          E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com
                  bfaubus@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Paul C. Whalen, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PAUL C. WHALEN, P.C.
          768 Plandome Road
          Manhasset, NY 11030
          Telephone: (516) 426 6870
          E-mail: pcwhalen@gmail.com

               - and -

          Jasper D. Ward IV, Esq.
          JONES WARD PLC
          312 S. Fourth Street
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 882 6000
          E-mail: jasper@jonesward.com

               - and -

          John Yanchunis, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 275 5272
          E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Jean S. Martin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JEAN SUTTON MARTIN PLLC
          2018 Eastwood Road. Suite 225
          Wilmington, NC 28403
          Telephone: (800) 678 6612
          E-mail: jean@jsmlawoffice.com


MDL 2807: "MacKay" Suit vs Sonic Moved to N.D. Ohio
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit by Megan Mackay against Sonic Corporation
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio, on Dec. 18, 2017.  The Ohio Northern District of Georgia
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-sb-55006-JSG to the
proceeding.

The class action lawsuit is titled Megan MacKay, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Sonic Corporation; Sonic Franchising LLC; Sonic Industries
Services Incorporated; Sonic Industries LLC; Sonic Development of
AZ LLC; Sonic Drive In, Anthem, AZ, LLC; Sonic Drive-In,
Glendale, AZ, 59th Ave., LLC; Sonic Drive-In, Glendale, AZ,
Glendale Ave., LLC; Sonic Drive-In, Glendale, Northern & 43rd
Ave., LLC; Sonic Drive-In, Glendale, Peoria & 51st Ave., LLC;
Sonic Drive-In, Litchfield Park, AZ, LLC; Sonic Drive-In,
Maricopa, AZ, LLC; Sonic Drive-In, Peoria, AZ, Beardsley, LLC;
Sonic Drive-In, Peoria, AZ, Deer Valley & 83rd, LLC; Sonic Drive-
In, Peoria, AZ, 67th Avenue, LLC; Sonic Drive-In, Peoria, AZ,
Union Hills Dr. & 83rd Ave., LLC; Sonic Drive-In, Peoria, 83rd
LLC; Sonic Drive-In, Phoenix, AZ, Baseline & 48th St., LLC; Sonic
Drive-In, Phoenix, AZ, Bethany Home Road, LLC; Sonic Drive-In,
Phoenix, AZ, Camelback Road, LLC; Sonic Drive-In, Phoenix, AZ,
Chandler Boulevard, LLC; Sonic Drive-In, Phoenix, AZ, Deer Valley
Road, LLC; Sonic Drive In, Phoenix, AZ, 51st & Baseline, LLC;
Sonic Drive-In, Phoenix, AZ, 40th St. & Greenway, LLC; Sonic
Drive-In, Phoenix, AZ, Greenway Parkway, LLC; Sonic Drive-In,
Phoenix, AZ, Jesse Owens, LLC; Sonic Drive-In, Phoenix, AZ,
McDowell, LLC; Sonic Drive-In, Phoenix, AZ, McDowell & 7th St.,
LLC; Sonic Drive-In, Phoenix, AZ, 19th Ave., LLC; Sonic Drive-In,
Phoenix, AZ, 19th Ave., No. 2, LLC; Sonic Drive-In, Phoenix, AZ.
Thomas Road, LLC; Sonic Drive-In, Phoenix, AZ, Thomas Road #2,
LLC; Sonic Drive-In, Phoenix, AZ, Union Hills Dr. & 35th Ave.,
LLC; Sonic Drive-In, Phoenix, 43rd Avenue & Glenrosa, LLC; Sonic
Drive-In, Phoenix, 7th Street, LLC; Sonic Drive-In, Scottsdale,
AZ, Hayden, LLC; Sonic Drive-In, Surprise, AZ, Bell/Reems, LLC;
Sonic Drive In, Surprise, AZ, Litchfield & Waddell, LLC; and
Unknown Parties named as: John DOES 1-50, the Defendants, Case
No. 2:17-cv-04166.

The MacKay case is being consolidated with MDL 2807 in Re: Sonic
Corp. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. The MDL was
created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on December 6, 2017. Before the Panel,
Plaintiffs in two Western District of Oklahoma actions, move
under 28 U.S.C. section 1407 to centralize this litigation in the
Western District of Oklahoma.  The litigation consists of five
actions pending in three districts.

The Plaintiffs in the remaining Western District of Oklahoma
action and the District of Oregon action support the motion or,
alternatively, support centralization in the Northern District of
Ohio. Plaintiffs in the District of Nevada action and the
Northern District of Ohio potential tag-along action support
centralization in the Northern District of Ohio. Defendant Sonic
Corp. opposes centralization or, alternatively, supports
centralization in the Western District of Oklahoma.

In its December 6, 2017 Order, the MDL Panel found that the
centralization under Section 1407 in the Northern District of
Ohio will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and
promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These
actions -- all of which are putative nationwide class actions --
share factual issues concerning an incident in which Sonic's
point-of-sale system was breached, allowing computer hackers to
gain access to up to 5 million individuals' personally
identifiable information. Centralization will eliminate
duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings on
class certification and other issues; and conserve the resources
of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge
in the MDL is Hon. Judge James S. Gwin, United States District
Judge. The lead case is 1:17-md-02807-JSG.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hart Lawrence Robinovitch, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED PLLP
          14646 N Kierland Blvd., Ste. 145
          Scottsdale, AZ 85254-2762
          Telephone: (480) 348 6400
          Facsimile: (480) 348 6415

               - and -

          William B. Federmanm Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235 1560
          Facsimile: (405) 239 2112
          E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Faces "N.F." Suit over Healthcare Programs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
N.F. by and through her parents and guardians, M.R. and K.F., and
A.H. by and through G.H. and L.C., both individually, and on
behalf of the MICROSOFT CORPORATION WELFARE PLAN, and on behalf
of similarly situated individuals and plans, the Plaintiffs, v.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION WELFARE PLAN; and MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01889 (W.D. Wash., Dec. 18,
2017), seeks to end Microsoft's standard discriminatory practice
of excluding all coverage for outdoor/wilderness behavioral
healthcare programs.

According to the complaint, Microsoft excludes coverage of
outdoor/wilderness behavioral healthcare programs even when
medically necessary to treat a mental health condition. It
excludes coverage of outdoor/wilderness behavioral healthcare
programs even though it covers medical treatment provided in
other types of intermediate residential programs, such as skilled
nursing facilities. Plaintiffs seek to enforce the Federal Mental
Health Parity Act and its implementing regulations as
incorporated into the terms of Microsoft's health plans in order
to end such discriminatory and illegal practices.

The Microsoft Corporation Welfare Plan is an "employee welfare
benefit plan" under ERISA. The Plan covers more than 50
employees. The Plan is located in King County, Washington. The
Plan is a group health plan that provides both medical/surgical
benefits and mental health/substance use disorder benefits.

N.F., A.H. and class members have been, are or will be
participants or beneficiaries of the Microsoft Corporation
Welfare Plan which is subject to the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 1003. N.F.,
A.H. and other members of the class have been or are diagnosed
with conditions that are considered to be mental health
conditions under the Plan and the Parity Act. N.F., A.H. and
members of the class have required, currently require or will
require mental health treatment at licensed outdoor/wilderness
behavioral healthcare programs for their mental health
conditions. Microsoft, however, has excluded all coverage of such
treatment through the application of blanket exclusions and
treatment limitations.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Eleanor Hamburger, Esq.
          Richard E. Spoonemore, Esq.
          SIRIANNI YOUTZ
          SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER
          701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3650
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 223 0303
          Facsimile: (206) 223 0246
          E-mail: ehamburger@sylaw.com
                  rspoonemore@sylaw.com

               - and -

          Jordan M. Lewis, Esq.
          JORDAN LEWIS, P.A.
          4473 N.E. 11th Avenue
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33334
          Telephone: (954) 616 8995
          Facsimile: (954) 206 0374
          E-mail: jordan@jml-lawfirm.com


MIDLAND FUNDING: Faces "Koch" Suit over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL M. KOCH individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, and
MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-
cv-14038-TGB-EAS (E.D. Mich., Dec. 15, 2017), seeks to recover
statutory and actual damages available under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff proposes to represent a class comprised of (a) all
individuals with a Michigan address (b) to whom Midland Credit
Management, Inc., sent or caused to be sent a letter, (c) seeking
to collect monies on an account alleged to owned by Midland
Funding, LLC, (d) which includes the language, "The law limits
how long you can be sued on a debt. Because of the age of your
debt, we will not sue you for it. If you do not pay the debt, we
may continue to report it to the credit reporting agencies as
unpaid" (e) when the letter was sent on or after December 15,
2016, and January 5, 2018.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Curtis C. Warner, Esq.
          WARNER LAW FIRM, LLC
          350 S. Northwest HWY, Ste. 300
          Park Ridge, IL 60068
          Telephone: (847) 701 5290
          E-mail: cwarner@warner.legal


MONAKER GROUP: Awaits Court OK to Drop "Mcleod" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Monaker Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
August 31, 2017, that the Court has entered an order staying
discovery and all other proceedings pending resolution of the
motion to dismiss, filed in the case McLeod v. Monaker Group,
Inc. et al, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida.

The Company said, "A class action lawsuit has been filed against
us, William Kerby, our Chief Executive Officer and Chairman,
Donald Monaco, our director, and D'Arelli Pruzansky, P.A., our
former auditor, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on behalf of persons who purchased our common
stock and exercised options between April 6, 2012 and June 23,
2016 (the "Class Period"). The case, McLeod v. Monaker Group,
Inc. et al, was filed on December 9, 2016. The lawsuit focuses on
whether the Company and its executives violated federal
securities laws and whether the Company's former auditor was
negligent and makes allegations regarding the activities of
certain Company executives. The lawsuit alleges and estimates
total shareholders losses totaling approximately $20,000,000. The
lawsuit stems from the Company's announcement in June 2016 that
it would have to restate its financial statements due to issues
related to the Company's investment in RealBiz. The lawsuit asks
the court to confirm the action is a proper class action."

Added Monaker, "We believe the claims asserted in the lawsuit are
without merit and intend to vigorously defend ourselves against
the claims made in the lawsuit. The Company has no basis for
determining whether there is any likelihood of material loss
associated with the claims and/or the potential and/or the
outcome of the litigation."

On February 16, 2017, the company filed a Motion to Dismiss the
lawsuit and on March 3, 2017, the Court entered an order staying
discovery and all other proceedings pending resolution of the
Motion to Dismiss.

Monaker Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries operates an online
marketplace for the alternative lodging rental industry.
Alternative lodging rentals (ALRs) are whole unit vacation homes
or timeshare resort units that are fully furnished, privately
owned residential properties, including homes, condominiums,
villas and cabins, that property owners and managers rent to the
public on a nightly, weekly or monthly basis. The company is
based in Weston, Florida.


MURPHY USA: Faces "Holt" Suit over Full Sales Taxes
---------------------------------------------------
STEVEN GREGORY HOLT & ROBERT ENSLEN, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, v. MURPHY USA
INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00911-RV-CJK (N.D. Fla.,
Dec. 15, 2017), seeks to recover damages resulting from unfair
and deceptive trade practices by Defendant for improperly
charging and collecting money from its customers.

Specifically, Murphy charges sales tax on the full, un-discounted
sales price of Murphy funded discounted or sale price items where
the Murphy funded portion of the discount is not properly
taxable. Plaintiffs, for themselves and all others similarly
situated, bring this action for damages and injunctive relief to
end Murphy's unfair and deceptive trade practices and to prevent
further losses to Plaintiffs and the classes of consumers that
they seek to represent.

Murphy operates more than 1,000 retail gas stations with attached
convenience stores, including operating stores in the states of
Florida and Alabama, serving many thousands of customers on a
daily basis.

The Plaintiffs are Murphy customers who purchased items at Murphy
stores that were marked as discounted or on sale based on Murphy
funded discounts.

According to the complaint, Murphy funded the discounted amount
(the difference between the item's full price and its discounted
price). The discounted amount, the portion of the discount that
was funded by Murphy, is not taxable and Murphy customers should
not have been charged for tax on that amount.

However, when Murphy customers purchase products that are
discounted or on sale with Murphy funded discounts in whole or
part during in-store purchases, Murphy charges and purports to
collect "sales tax" on the full price of the item, without
application of the portion of the discount that is funded by
Murphy to reduce the sales price of the item.

The additional money that Murphy unfairly and deceptively charges
its customers under the guise of collecting "sales tax" on the
difference between the item's full price and the portion of the
discount that is funded in whole or in part by Murphy is not
actually a lawful sales tax at all, and therefore should not have
been charged or collected from consumers as such.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Classes

          John R. Dowd, Jr., Esq.
          DOWD LAW FIRM
          Regions Bank Building
          25 Beal Parkway, SE, Suite 230
          Fort Walton Beach, FL 32548
          Telephone: (850) 650 2202
          Facsimile: (850) 650 5808
          E-mail: john@dowdlawfirm.com
                  michelle@dowdlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
          GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 985 9177
          Facsimile: (215) 985 4169
          E-mail: rgolomb@golombhonik.com
                  kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com

               - and -

          Joseph "Jay" H. Aughtman, Esq.
          AUGHTMAN LAW FIRM, LLC
          1722 Platt Place
          Montgomery, AL 36117
          Telephone: (334) 215 9873
          Facsimile: (334) 213 5663
          E-mail: jay@aughtmanlaw.com


NANE JAN: "MacDermott" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages, OT under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHARITY MACDERMOTT, on behalf of Herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. NANE JAN, LLC, a Florida Limited
Company, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00692-SPC-CM (M.D. Fla.,
Dec. 15, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid tips, minimum wages,
overtime wages, and an equal amount of liquidated damages and
reasonably attorney's fees and costs under Fair Labor Standards
Act.

According to the complaint, from Oct. 2015 through March 2016,
the Defendant violated the FLSA tip credit provision, as
Plaintiff's tips were distributed to managers/assistant managers
and not distributed in full amongst employees who customarily and
regularly receive tips and therefore the Defendant violated the
tip credit provision and is required to pay the Plaintiff a
minimum wage for each hour worked.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NASPERS: Pomerantz Law Firm Mulls Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Sasha Planting, writing for Moneyweb, reports that The
Naspers/MultiChoice/SABC saga gets stranger by the minute.

US-based legal firm Pomerantz has waded into the fray by
initiating an investigation into claims that Naspers and certain
of its officers or directors might have engaged in securities
fraud or other unlawful business practices.

This could result in the firm launching a class action lawsuit
against Naspers.

The development follows revelations that Naspers' subsidiary
MultiChoice allegedly tried to influence decision-makers on the
type of technology that should be deployed once South Africa had
completed the move from analogue to digital TV.  Naspers
announced that MultiChoice had initiated an investigation into
whether improper payments were made to ANN7, once owned by the
Gupta family.

While Naspers CEO Koos Bekker insists the payments are above
board, the substantial increases have raised eyebrows -- over the
last two years MultiChoice increased its annual payment to ANN7
from R50 million to R141 million.

On this news, Naspers' American Depositary Receipt price fell
$3.05, or 5.58%, to close at $51.60 on December 1.  In South
Africa, the share fell 3.47% from R3 629.97 at the opening on
Dec. 5 to R3 467.70 just after midday.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los
Angeles, and Paris, is active in the areas of corporate,
securities, and antitrust class litigation. Recent securities
litigation includes cases against AOL TimeWarner, Avid
Technology, Lucent, Groupon and Tesla.

The firm appears to have pioneered the field of securities class
actions, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct and
has recovered over $1 billion on their behalf.

Naspers investors have been invited to express interest in
joining the class action. [GN]


NATIONAL PARK MOTORS: "Roark" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------
CANDIE ROARK, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. NATIONAL PARK MOTORS, INC., ORR MOTORS OF FORT SMITH
4, INC., ORR MOTORS OF FORT SMITH 3, INC., ORR MOTORS OF
RUSSELLVILE, INC., and ORR, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 6:17-
cv-06131-PKH (W.D. Ark., Dec. 18, 2017), seeks monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties and
costs including reasonable attorney's fees as a result of
Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff and other Title Clerks
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week under Fair Labor Standards Act.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Faces Suit Over Risky Subprime Loans
-------------------------------------------------------
Karl Baker, writing for The News Journal, reports that
Wilmington-based Navient is facing legal assaults from
shareholders who claim the company withheld information from
investors during 2017 about its subprime student loans.

In early October, Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro
filed a lawsuit in federal court alleging Navient -- one of the
country's largest servicers of student loans -- harmed
"countless" borrowers by "peddling risky and expensive subprime
loans that they knew or should have known were likely to
default."

Subprime loans are riskier for lenders because their borrowers
have lower credit ratings.

While Navient responded to the allegations immediately, calling
them unfounded, the company's share price nevertheless fell more
than 14 percent after Shapiro filed the lawsuit.

Now, shareholders angry over the loss in value are alleging
Navient had "recklessly" failed to disclose loan operation
details that were outlined in Shapiro's filing.

Navient investor Melvin Gross, who is one of various plaintiffs,
said he bought "securities at artificially-inflated prices."

Attorneys from the shareholder cases will join as one class
action lawsuit following a Dec.-15 deadline, said Noel
Chandonnet, Jr. of the Rosen Law Firm.

While Chandonnet declined to say how much money the plaintiffs
will seek from Navient, the company lost more than $500 million
in value the day the Pennsylvania attorney general filed his
suit.

Navient in a statement said Shapiro filed his case without
reviewing customer accounts within his own state. Additionally,
Navient's student loan borrowers are 37 percent less likely to
default than those working with other loan servicers, the company
said.

"We will vigorously defend our record in court, and are confident
we will prevail following an impartial review of the facts,"
officials said in the statement.

Navient also is the target of a lawsuit filed by the federal
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau over allegations that the
company cheated borrowers out of their right to lower their
payments, according to the lawsuit.

The federal lawsuit further stated that the company created
unlawful repayment obstacles for tens of thousands of student
borrowers by providing incorrect payment information, processing
payments incorrectly and failing to act when borrowers
complained.

Navient, which was spun off from Newark-based Sallie Mae in 2014,
denies those charges.

The company employs about 800 people at its headquarters along
Wilmington's Riverfront.  It also operates a student loan
processing center in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania where it employs
1,000 people, according to Shapiro's lawsuit.

The company during past years has expanded its operations beyond
student loans, purchasing a parking collections company and a
health care payments processing company.

Navient officials have said they continue to explore new
acquisitions and potential targets included "a number of banks"
with portfolios of federally guaranteed student loans, as well as
private loans. [GN]


NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Fuel Surcharge Class Suit Denied Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk Southern Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that a District Court has denied
class certification on an antitrust consolidated class action.

On November 6, 2007, various antitrust class actions filed
against us and other Class I railroads in various Federal
district courts regarding fuel surcharges were consolidated in
the District of Columbia by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation. On June 21, 2012, the court certified the case as a
class action. The defendant railroads appealed this
certification, and the Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia vacated the District Court's decision and remanded the
case for further consideration. On October 10, 2017, the District
Court denied class certification.

Norfolk said "We believe the allegations in the complaints are
without merit and intend to vigorously defend the cases. We do
not believe the outcome of these proceedings will have a material
effect on our financial position, results of operations, or
liquidity."

Norfolk Southern Corporation is one of the nation's premier
transportation companies. The company's Norfolk Southern Railway
Company subsidiary operates approximately 19,500 miles of road in
22 states and the District of Columbia, serves every major
container port in the eastern United States, and provides
efficient connections to other rail carriers.  The company
operates the most extensive intermodal network in the East and
are a major transporter of coal, automotive, and industrial
products. The company is based in Norfolk, Virginia.


NRT LLC: "Smith" Suit Moved to Southern District of California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Shannon Smith, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NRT
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and Does 1-50,
inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 37-02017-00043218-CU-MC-CTL,
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of CA, San
Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California (San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:17-cv-02523-CAB-WVG to the proceeding. The case is assigned
to the Hon. Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo.

NRT LLC is a residential real estate brokerage company in the
United States of America. A subsidiary of Realogy Corporation,
its headquarters are located in Madison, New Jersey.[BN]

Attorneys for Shannon Smith, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated:

          Zachariah Paul Dostart, Esq.
          DOSTART HANNINK COVENEY LLP
          4180 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 530
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 623 4200
          Facsimile: (858) 623 4299
          E-mail: zdostart@sdlaw.com

Attorneys for NRT LLC:

          Aaron P. Rudin, Esq.
          GORDON & REES, LLP
          633 West Fifth Street, 52nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 576 5000
          Facsimile: (213) 680 4470
          E-mail: arudin@gordonrees.com


NUVASIVE INC: Trial in California Securities Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
Nuvasive, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017, that trial was set to begin December 18,
2017, on a securities class action suit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California.

On August 28, 2013, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California naming the Company and certain of its current and
former executive officers for allegedly making false and
materially misleading statements regarding the Company's business
and financial results, specifically relating to the purported
improper submission of false claims to Medicare and Medicaid. The
operative complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from
October 22, 2008 to July 30, 2013. The complaint alleges
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder
and seeks unspecified monetary relief, interest, and attorneys'
fees.

On February 13, 2014, Brad Mauss, the lead plaintiff in the case,
filed an Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the
Federal Securities Laws. The Company answered the complaint on
August 25, 2016, and discovery is proceeding. The plaintiffs
filed motions for class certification on October 28, 2016 and the
Company's opposition papers were filed on January 9, 2017. On
March 22, 2017, the court issued an order granting class
certification. The Company filed a petition to appeal the order
granting class certification with the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit (the "Ninth Circuit") on April 5, 2017 and the
plaintiffs filed an opposition to the petition. On August 15,
2017, the Ninth Circuit denied the Company's petition. Trial has
been set for December 18, 2017.

Nuvasive said "At September 30, 2017, the probable outcome of
this litigation cannot be determined, nor can the Company
estimate a range of potential loss. In accordance with
authoritative guidance on the evaluation of loss contingencies,
the Company has not recorded an accrual related to this
litigation."

Nuvasive, Inc. is a leading medical device company in the global
spine surgery market, focused on developing minimally-disruptive
surgical products and procedurally-integrated solutions for spine
surgery. The company's currently-marketed product portfolio is
focused on applications for spine fusion surgery, including
ancillary products used to aid in the surgical procedure. The
company is based in San Diego, California.


OHIO MULCH: "Smyers" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
Diane Smyers, 426 Wagon Ave. Pataskala, Ohio 43062, and Robert
Carter 45 Andover Rd., Apt. D Heath, Ohio 43056, the Plaintiffs,
v. Ohio Mulch Supply, Inc. 1600 Universal Rd. Columbus, Ohio
43207 and Jim Weber, II 1600 Universal Rd. Columbus, Ohio 43207,
the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01110-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio., Dec.
18, 2017), seeks to recover overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act,
and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

According to the complaint, during her employment with
Defendants, the Plaintiff and Defendants' other retail managers
worked as hourly, non-exempt retail managers. The Defendants
automatically deducted 0.5 hours from Smyers' and Defendants'
other retail managers' compensable hours on each shift for a meal
break. In addition, Defendants had a policy or practice that
Named Smyers and Defendants' other retail managers that they had
to clock-out anytime they left Defendants' stores and that they
were not permitted to be clocked-in unless they were physically
working at one of Defendants' OMS stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


PANERA BREAD: Former Employees Sue Over Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Cooper, writing for Washington Business Journal, reports
that former Panera employees from D.C. and Alabama have filed a
class-action lawsuit against the fast-casual deli and bakery
chain, claiming they were not paid overtime wages they say they
were owed when they worked as assistant managers.

The D.C. employee, Alan Meyer, worked for Panera in Tenleyown
from April to October 2015.  He and Alabama Panera employee David
Cornelius filed their suit Nov. 29 in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia.

Messrs. Meyer and Cornelius say they were "unlawfully classified
as exempt from overtime protections," and that they worked more
than 40 hours per week without being paid a higher overtime wage
for extra time at the St. Louis-based chain.

"Meyer regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, and
frequently worked approximately 60 hours per week, without being
paid overtime," the suit states.

We have reached out to Panera and will update this story if we
get a response.

While federal employment law does exempt some managers from
overtime regulations, Meyer and Cornelius argue that assistant
managers at Panera "predominantly perform non-managerial work
related to customer service, cashiering, food preparation and
cleaning."

The suit alleges that Panera has an intentional pattern of
violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and D.C. wage laws,
including by "willfully failing to record all of the time that
its employees . . . have worked," and "willfully misclassifying
plaintiffs and the collective members as exempt from the
requirements of FLSA" and others. That means, according to the
suit, that Panera is "willfully failing to timely pay its
employees . . . overtime wages and all wages earned for hours
that they worked in excess of forty per week."

The two ex-employees are bringing the suit on behalf of any
current and former similarly situated assistant managers at
Panera, the suit states.  They believe there are more than 100
employees who would be eligible to join the suit.

They are seeking back wages, interest, liquidated damages,
attorneys fees and any other compensation to be determined by the
court. The plaintiffs are asking for a trial by jury.

This is not Panera's first rodeo in court over overtime pay; the
company paid $5 million to settle two class-action lawsuits
focused on overtime and breaks in 2011, according to sister
publication the St. Louis Business Journal.  It is also facing a
similar suit in Georgia, filed in 2016, and another in Florida,
filed in 2017, focused on overtime wages. [GN]


PAX ASSIST: "Adonis" Suit Seeks OT & Unpaid Wages under Labor Law
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Adonis, Individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Pax Assist, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 715017/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Dec. 18, 2017),
seeks to recover maximum liquidated damages and interest for
being paid overtime wages and non-overtime wages later than
weekly, costs and attorneys' fees, pursuant to the New York Labor
Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant was engaged in the
business of providing wheelchair services to airlines for
passengers. The Defendant employed more than 90 employees during
the class period. Mr. Plaintiff Adonis was employed by Defendant
from June 14, 2014 to mid-August 2017. The Plaintiff was employed
by Defendant as a wheelchair assistant performing all manual
tasks within this capacity such as handling, and pushing
wheelchairs with passengers in them throughout his workday. The
putative class members performed a variety of manual work
including functions like those performed by Plaintiff. Mr. Adonis
was an hourly employee of Defendant at a regular rate of pay of
$11.00 per hour. The Plaintiff worked about 25 or more hours per
week for Defendant. The Plaintiff and the putative class members
were paid on a biweekly basis in violation of NYLL. The Defendant
did not provide Plaintiff with the notice(s) required by
NYLL.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PAYPAL HOLDINGS: "Cho" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------
PayPal 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 lead plaintiff in the case
captioned, Cho v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:16-
cv-07371, voluntarily dismissed the securities case without
prejudice.

On December 28, 2016, a putative securities class action
captioned Cho v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-
07371 (the "Securities Case"), was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California (the "Court"). The
Securities Case asserted claims relating to the company's
disclosure in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2016, that on March 28, 2016, the company
received a CID from the FTC as part of its investigation to
determine whether the company, through its Venmo service, have
been or are engaged in deceptive or unfair practices in violation
of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

The Securities Case purported to be brought on behalf of
purchasers of eBay's stock on or after December 19, 2013 who
subsequently received the Company's stock pursuant to eBay's
spin-off of the Company, effective as of July 17, 2015, and/or
purchasers of the Company's stock between July 20, 2015 and April
28, 2016, and asserted claims for violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act") against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, Chief
Financial Officer, and former interim Chief Financial Officer,
and eBay and certain of its former officers, including the
Chairman of our Board of Directors. The Securities Case alleged
that defendants made materially false and misleading statements
or omissions regarding our compliance with applicable laws and
regulations, including the failure to disclose that the company
were purportedly engaging in unfair trade practices through its
Venmo service and that as a result of alleged false and
misleading statements or omissions, the company's stock traded at
artificially inflated prices.

The Securities Case sought unspecified compensatory damages on
behalf of the putative class members. On March 23, 2017, the
Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel to represent
the putative class. On May 12, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed an
amended complaint that, among other things, did not name eBay or
the former eBay officers as defendants. On June 1, 2017, the lead
plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the Securities Case without
prejudice.

PayPal Holdings, Inc. is a leading technology platform and
digital payments company that enables digital and mobile payments
on behalf of consumers and merchants worldwide. The company's
vision is to democratize financial services, as it believes that
managing and moving money is a right for all people, not just the
affluent. The company is based in San Jose, California.


PENEKA INC: Fails to Pay Wages & Overtime, "Torres" Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
RAUL TORRES, individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PENEKA, INC., an active
California Corporation; NAHARA, INC., a dissolved California
Corporation; KASAF, INC., an FTB suspended California
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, the Defendants, Case No.
BC687432 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 18, 2017), is a class action
lawsuit arising out of the failure of Defendants to pay all wages
owed including overtime, to provide compliant wage statements, to
reimburse employee business expenses, to maintain and produce
employment records, and to pay all wages owed to terminated or
separated employees in a timely manner.

The Defendants employed Plaintiff during the applicable time
period, utilizing consistent policies and procedures in violation
of Labor Code and the applicable Wage Orders issued by the
California Industrial Welfare Commission. The Defendants are
engaged in the business of garment and clothing manufacturing.
Plaintiff Torres was hired in 2009 and was terminated on or about
January 2, 2017.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs was not paid all his
wages. The Plaintiff was also not paid all wages including
overtime wages he was entitled to, and failed to receive legally
compliant itemized wage statements. The Defendants had a
consistent policy of not paying wages for all hours worked,
including overtime wages as applicable.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zorik Mooradian, Esq.
          Haik Hacopian, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ZORIK MOORADIAN
          5023 N. Parkway Calabasas
          Calabasas, CA 91302
          Telephone: (818) 876 9627
          Facsimile: (888) 783 1030
          E-mail: zorik@mooradianlaw.com
                  haik.hacopian@gmail.com


PRESENCE HEALTH: Faces "Holm" Suit over Use of Biometric Info
-------------------------------------------------------------
NICHOLE HOLM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. PRESENCE HEALTH NETWORK, an Illinois
corporation, and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-100, the Defendants, Case No.
2017-L-012793 (Cook County Circuit Court, Ill., Dec. 15, 2017),
seeks to recover money damages arising from Defendants'
violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

The Defendants illegally collected, stored and used Plaintiff's
and other similarly situated individuals' biometric identifiers
and biometric information ("biometrics") without informed written
consent, in direct violation of BIPA.

The Complaint notes, "Our legislature has recognized that
"[b]iometrics are unlike other unique identifiers that are used
to access finances or other sensitive information." For example,
social security numbers, when compromised, can be changed.
Biometrics, however, are biologically unique to the individual;
therefore, once compromised, the individual has no recourse, is
at heightened risk for identity theft, and is likely to withdraw
from biometric facilitated transactions."

"In response to these concerns over the security of individuals'
biometrics, our legislature enacted SIP A, which provides, inter
alia, that a private entity, may not obtain and/or possess an
individual's biometrics unless it: (1) informs that person in I
writing that biometric identifiers or information will be
collected or stored, see id.; (2) informs that person in writing
of the specific purpose and length of term for which such
biometric identifiers or biometric information is being
collected, stored and used, see id.; written release from the
person for the collection of his or her biometric (3) receives a
identifiers or information; and (4) publishes publicly available
written retention schedules and guidelines for permanently
destroying biometric identifiers and biometric information."

Presence Health provides exceptional care with 12 hospitals, over
150 outpatient facilities, 27 senior care locations and dozens of
doctors' offices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John J. Driscoll, Esq.
          Christopher J. Quinn, Esq.
          Gregory J. Pals, Esq.
          THE DRISCOLL FIRM, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 4050
          St. Louis, MO 63012
          Telephone: (314) 932 3232
          Facsimile: (314) 932 3233
          E-mail: john@thedriscollfirm.com
                  chris@thedriscollfirm.com
                  greg@thedriscollfirm.com


QUDIAN INC: Zolotukhin Sues over American Depository Shares
-------------------------------------------------------------
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-07331 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 15, 2017), is a federal
securities class action lawsuit 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, 2017 and November 20, 2017, both dates
inclusive.

Qudian is a provider of 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.[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


RELIABLE REPORTS: "Maclin" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------
HAROLD MACLIN, 5867 Sunset Drive Bedford Hts., OH 44146, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. RELIABLE REPORTS OF TEXAS, INC. D/B/A RELIABLE
REPORTS, INC. c/o Statutory Agent National Registered Agents,
Inc. 4400 Easton Commons Way Suite 125 Columbus, OH 43219, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02612 (N.D. Ohio, Dec. 15, 2017),
seeks to recover overtime compensation at the rate of 1-1/2 times
their regular rate of pay for hours worked over 40 each workweek,
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards and Ohio Minimum Fair
Wage Standards Act.

Defendant is a home inspection company that performs property and
casualty insurance inspections and prepares corresponding reports
for its clients. The Defendant employed Plaintiff as a property
inspector between July 2016 and March 2017. Other similarly-
situated employees were employed by Defendant as property
inspectors. The Plaintiff and other similarly-situated property
inspectors were non-exempt employees. The Plaintiff and other
similarly-situated property inspectors were paid by the number of
properties they inspected (a piece rate).

The Plaintiff and other similarly-situated property inspectors
regularly worked over 40 hours per week. However, Defendant
failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly-situated property
inspectors overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half
times their regular rate of pay for the hours they worked over 40
each workweek.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

          Don J. Foty, Esq.
          KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
          4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523 0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523 1116
          E-mail: dfoty@kennedyhodges.com


REWALK ROBOTICS: Massachusetts Class Suits Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
ReWalk Robotics Ltd. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on October 23, 2017,
that the company continues to defend itself in the class actions
filed in the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
and U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
respectively.

The Company said, "Between September 2016 and January 2017, eight
putative class actions on behalf of alleged shareholders that
purchased or acquired our ordinary shares pursuant and/or
traceable to our registration statement on Form F-1 (File No.
333-197344) used in connection with our initial public offering
(the "IPO"), were commenced in the following courts: (i) the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo;
(ii) the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
Suffolk County; (iii) the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California; and (iv) the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The actions
involve claims under various sections of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), against us, certain of
our current and former directors and officers, the underwriters
of our IPO and certain other defendants. The four actions
commenced in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of San Mateo have been dismissed for lack of personal
jurisdiction, and the action commenced in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California has been
voluntarily dismissed."

As of October 13, 2017, three actions remain pending, including
(i) the two actions commenced in the Superior Court of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts ("Massachusetts State Court"),
which have been consolidated, and (ii) the action commenced in
the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts ("Massachusetts Federal Court"), which was brought
in part by certain of the plaintiffs whose actions were dismissed
in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Mateo. The parties in the consolidated Massachusetts State Court
actions have completed briefing on the Company's motion to
dismiss. The plaintiffs in the Massachusetts Federal Court action
filed a consolidated amended complaint in August 2017 adding
claims that certain statements we made after our IPO were
materially misleading.

                           *     *     *

ReWalk Robotics disclosed in its Form 10-Q report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017, the various class action lawsuits involving
the Company:

     (A) Dismissed Actions

On September 20, November 3, November 9, and November 10, 2016,
respectively, four putative class actions on behalf of alleged
shareholders that purchased or acquired the Company's ordinary
shares pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement
used in connection with the Company's IPO were commenced in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo.
The actions were filed against the Company, certain of the
Company's current and former directors and officers, and the
underwriters of the Company's IPO.  ReWalk Robotics refers to
these actions as the "California State Court Actions." The
complaints in the California State Court Actions asserted various
claims under the Securities Act. Each of the California State
Court Actions was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction in
January 2017.

On January 24, 2017, a substantially similar class action was
commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California (Case No. 4:17-cv-362) against the same
defendants as in the California State Court Actions plus certain
additional defendants. This action is referred to as the
"California Federal Court Action." On March 23, 2017, this case
was voluntarily dismissed.

     (B) Pending Actions

On or about October 31, 2016, a class action with claims
substantially similar to the California State Court Actions was
commenced in the Massachusetts Superior Court, Suffolk County, by
a different plaintiff (Civ. Action No. 16-3336), alleging claims
under Section 11 of the Securities Act against the Company,
certain of the Company's current and former directors and
officers, and the underwriters of the Company's IPO, and alleging
claims under Section 15 of the Securities Act against the Company
and certain of the Company's current and former directors and
officers.

On or about November 30, 2016, a substantially similar class
action was commenced in the Massachusetts Superior Court, Suffolk
County, by a different plaintiff (Civ. Action No. 16-3670)
alleging claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act
against the same defendants as in the action commenced on October
31, 2016, and also alleging claims under Section 12(a)(2) of the
Securities Act against the Company, certain of the Company's
current and former directors and officers, and the underwriters
of the Company's IPO. This action was ordered consolidated in the
Massachusetts Superior Court, Suffolk County on January 9, 2017
with the action commenced on October 31, 2016, and the two
actions are referred to as the "Consolidated Massachusetts State
Court Actions". The plaintiffs in the Consolidated Massachusetts
State Court Actions filed a consolidated amended complaint on
March 20, 2017. The Company moved to dismiss the Consolidated
Massachusetts State Court Actions on June 2, 2017.

On or about January 31, 2017, a substantially similar class
action was commenced in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts (Case No. 1:17-cv-10169) by four of the
same plaintiffs who commenced the California State Court Actions,
and two additional plaintiffs, alleging claims under Sections 11
and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act against the Company, certain
of the Company's current and former directors and officers, and
the underwriters of the Company's IPO, and alleging claims under
Section 15 of the Securities Act against certain of the Company's
current and former directors and officers. This action is
referred to as the "Massachusetts Federal Court Action." On July
6, 2017, the Company moved to stay the Massachusetts Federal
Court Action. The plaintiffs in the Massachusetts Federal Court
Action filed a consolidated amended complaint on August 9, 2017.

The complaints in all of the actions allege that the Company's
registration statement used in connection with its IPO failed to
disclose that the Company was unprepared or unable to comply with
certain regulatory special controls and to provide the FDA with a
postmarket surveillance study on the Company's ReWalk Personal
device, and that, as a result of such alleged omission, the
plaintiffs suffered damages. The Massachusetts Federal Court
Action also alleges that certain statements issued by the Company
after its IPO are materially misleading because they omitted
certain information. The Company believes that the allegations
made in the complaints are without merit and intends to defend
itself vigorously against the complaints relating to the three
pending actions.

ReWalk Robotics is an innovative medical device company that
derives revenue from selling the ReWalk Personal and ReWalk
Rehabilitation exoskeleton devices that allow individuals with
paraplegia the ability to stand and walk once again.


REXNORD CORP: "Aguilar" Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Salvador Aguilar, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Rexnord Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2017-CH-14775, was
removed from the Cook County Circuit Court, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Dec. 15,
2017. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:17-cv-09019 to the proceeding.

Rexnord Corporation designs, manufactures, and markets process
and motion control, and water management products worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Joseph A. Strubbe, Esq.
          VEDDER PRICE P.C.
          222 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 609 7500
          E-mail: jstrubbe@vedderprice.com


RTK MANAGEMENT: Mercuriali Seeks OT & Minimum Wages under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARCO MERCURIALI, and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(b), the Plaintiff, v. RTK MANAGEMENT INC. d/b/a PIZZA
RUSTICA SUNNY ISLES, and STAVROS KONSOULAS, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-24543-RNS (S.D. Fla., Dec. 15, 2017), seeks to
recover overtime and/or minimum wages for work performed in
excess of 40 hours weekly pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SIX FLAGS: Illinois Appellate Court to Review Privacy Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Six Flags Entertainment Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that two questions
regarding the interpretation of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act have been certified for consideration by
the Appellate Court.

The Company said, "On January 7, 2016, a potential class action
complaint was filed against Six Flags Entertainment Corporation
in the Circuit Court of Lake County, Illinois. On April 22, 2016,
Great America, LLC was added as a defendant. The complaint
asserts that we violated the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act in connection with the admission of season pass
holders and members through the finger scan program at Six Flags
Great America in Gurnee, Illinois, and seeks statutory damages,
attorneys' fees and an injunction. The program commenced at the
park in the 2014 operating season. The complaint does not allege
that any information was misused or disseminated."

"On June 17, 2016, the court denied our motion to dismiss and
allowed the case to proceed. On January 6, 2017, the court denied
our motion to certify questions for interlocutory appeal, but on
April 7, 2017, the court granted our motion for reconsideration
of the motion for interlocutory appeal and certified two
questions for consideration by the Illinois Appellate Court of
the Second District. On June 7, 2017, the Illinois Appellate
Court granted our motion to appeal. Accordingly, two questions
regarding the interpretation of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act have been certified for consideration by
the Appellate Court."

Six Flags added, "We intend to continue to vigorously defend
ourselves against this litigation. Since this litigation is still
in an early stage, the outcome is currently not determinable and
a reasonable estimate of loss or range of loss in excess of the
immaterial amount that we have recorded for this litigation
cannot be made."

Six Flags Entertainment Corporation the largest regional theme
park operator in the world based on the number of parks we
operate. Of our 20 regional theme and water parks, 17 are located
in the United States, two are located in Mexico and one is
located in Montreal, Canada. The company is based in Grand
Prairie, Texas.


SIX FLAGS: Continues to Defend Suits over Credit Card Info
----------------------------------------------------------
Six Flags Entertainment Corporation 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 three potential class action
complaints.

Three potential class action complaints were filed against Six
Flags Entertainment Corporation or one of its subsidiaries. The
complaints were filed on August 11, 2017 in the Circuit Court of
Lake County, Illinois, on September 1, 2017 in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, and on
September 11, 2017 in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.

The complaints allege that the company, in violation of federal
law, printed more than the last five digits of a credit or debit
card number on customers' receipts. The plaintiffs seek statutory
damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorneys'
fees. The complaints do not allege that any information was
misused.

Six Flags said "We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against
this litigation. Since this litigation is in an early stage, the
outcome is currently not determinable and a reasonable estimate
of loss or range of loss cannot be made."

Six Flags Entertainment Corporation the largest regional theme
park operator in the world based on the number of parks we
operate. Of our 20 regional theme and water parks, 17 are located
in the United States, two are located in Mexico and one is
located in Montreal, Canada. The company is based in Grand
Prairie, Texas.


SMCP USA: Castaneda Seeks Overtime Underpayment under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARIE CASTANEDA, an individual on behalf of herself and all
others similarly the situated, the Plaintiff, v. SMCP USA, INC, a
corporation; and 14 DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No.BC687413 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 18, 2017), seeks to
recover underpayment of overtime wage under California Labor
Code.

The Defendant sells men's and women's fashion, accessories, and
home decor bearing brands Sandro Paris, Maje, and Sandro Home.
Defendant's boutiques are located in a number of Bloomingdales
stores in California, including locations in Glendale, Sherman
Oaks, the Beverly Center, and a standalone storefront on Beverly
Drive.

Starting January 1, 2017 and continuing through present, the
Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Sales Associate at
Defendant's location in Glendale, California.  The Plaintiff's
wages and the wages of other Sales Associates working for
Defendant in California consisted of an hourly wage and a
nondiscretionary commission. This commission was 1.5% of the
sales made by the Sales Associate. Additionally, when the monthly
store sale's target was achieved, Sales Associates would receive
an additional commission equal to 1% of the store's sales.

The Plaintiff and other Sales Associates worked overtime during
their employment with Defendant by working over eight hours in a
workday and/or 40 hours in a workweek. In violation of California
law, Defendant did not include nondiscretionary commissions in
calculating Plaintiff s and other Sales Associates' hourly rate
of pay for overtime purposes. Instead, the regular rate of pay
used for calculating the overtime rate of pay was strictly based
on their hourly wage (not including the nondiscretionary
commission). As such, Defendant owes Plaintiff and other members
of the proposed classes additional overtime pay based on a
calculation using the correct, higher rate of pay (taking into
account the non-discretionary commissions).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          George S. Azadian, Esq.
          Ani Azadian, Esq.
          Edrik Mehrabi, Esq.
          AZADIAN LAW GROUP, PC
          790 E. Colorado Blvd., 9th Floor
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 449 4944
          Facsimile: (626) 628 1722
          E-mail: George@azadianlawgroup.com


SOUTH AFRICA: Students Sue Over Delayed Graduation Certificates
---------------------------------------------------------------
Msindisi Fengu, writing for City Press, reports that tired of
having their lives on hold for up to six years, college students
are launching a class action against the state for not ensuring
that they receive their certificates of graduation.

Keneilwe Molawa, a former student at Motheo technical and
vocational education and training college in Bloemfontein, has
been desperately trying to get her civil engineering and building
construction national vocational certificate since 2010.

"I'm the only hope to improve the situation in my family. No one
ever passed matric and they hoped that I will be the one to make
it in life.  It has been a frustrating journey.  I've done
whatever I could to get my qualification," she said.

Her six-year struggle could soon come to an end if a private law
firm launches a massive class action -- pro bono -- against the
government for failing to force public colleges to issue
certificates to hundreds of deserving graduates like Malowa.

"I never received my certificate during the graduation ceremony.
It was a normal graduation without certificates presented to us .
. . this has put my life on hold for so many years," said the
35-year-old Molawa, who initially started her college campaign in
2008.

Empty certificate holders were handed over to graduates with a
promise that their certificates would follow later.

It has been a treacherous journey bedevilled with lies and empty
promises.

Higher Education and Training Minister Hlengiwe Mkhize admitted
to City Press in an interview that there were delays but argued
they were being prioritised.

Her predecessor, Blade Nzimande had also admitted to the delays
during his tenure.

In an interview with City Press, Mkhize said at the time that her
department was dealing with the challenge.

The issue started after the government took the decision to
transfer colleges from the provincial education departments to
the national department of higher education and training in 2013.

Mkhize said a process had been undertaken by the State
Information Technology Agency to establish a central database,
which would accurately store graduates' information and speed up
issuing of certificates.

Molawa has written to many organisations including Section 27,
asking for intervention to force the Motheo college management to
issue the certificate. Even the Free State provincial government
and the ANC in the province failed to help.

City Press has seen a letter written by the chief directorate for
national examinations and assessment in the department of higher
education confirming that Molawa had completed the qualification
and needed to be given her certificate.

"The above candidate meets the minimum requirements for admission
to higher certificate studies as per Government Gazette 32743,
November 26 2009.  The department is currently unable to issue a
certificate for the candidate and the certificate will only be
available in February 2016," the memo read.  Molawa said this
memo was sent to her in 2015 but nothing has happened.

"There should be some justice for all those wasted years and
others like me," she said.

Molawa said she was currently doing clerical work for a
construction company but that was not what she studied for and
qualified to do.

"I've missed so many opportunities. Other children in my age
group are successful.  I'm stuck," she lamented.

City Press understands that Pretoria-based law firm Maluleke
Seriti Makume Matlala Incorporated agreed to take on the
department on behalf of the disadvantaged graduates but it needed
to have a list of at least 100 affected students to lodge the
case.

Lawyer Mmuso Matlala said: "The relief sought is self-
explanatory. Any person who has written an examination and passed
is legally entitled to a certificate.  The matter will be done
pro bono and our wish is to issue court processes latest January
2018," he said, adding that currently, they had names of 20
affected students.

"We'd like to urge as many as possible to come forward," he said.

Madikwe Mabotha, higher education and training spokesperson said
that in a parallel project involving the college management,
State Information Technology Agency and the quality assurer
Umalusi, the department had successfully managed to clear all
outstanding national certificate (vocational) for technical
vocational education and training colleges going as far back as
2007.

"As at September 2017, more than 230 000 certificates were
processed and released to colleges.  Accordingly -- for the
examination cycle period between November 2007 and November 2016
-- all eligible candidates' certificates have been processed and
distributed to colleges." [GN]


SOUTH COAST BEVERAGE: Fails to Pay Wages & Overtime, Moreno Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCISCO MORENO, an individual, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SOUTH COAST BEVERAGE
SERVICE, INC.; and DOES 1 thru 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case
No. (S.D. Fla., Dec. 15, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages and
overtime under California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, from at least four years prior to the
filing of this action continuing to the present, Defendant has
had a consistent policy of failing to pay wages and/or overtime
to Plaintiff and Proposed On-Call Class Members at the
appropriate rate. Defendant failed to accurately calculate the
regular rate of pay for Plaintiff and the Proposed On-Call Class,
because Defendant failed to blend the on call pay when
calculating the regular rate for purposes of determining the
correct rate for all overtime hours worked. Thus, in pay periods
where members of the Proposed On-Call Class worked overtime and
earned on-call pay, these employees were not properly compensated
for their overtime.

South Coast covers managed service programs, namely, service
dispatching, maintenance program planning, equipment leasing
programs, and performing inventory inspections.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric B. Kingsley, Esq.
          Liane Katzenstein Ly, Esq.
          KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
          16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 990 8300
          Facsimile: (818) 990 2903
          E-mail: eric@kingsleykingsley.com
                  liane@kingsleykingsley.com

               - and -

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


STATE SECURITY: Faces "Lipscomb" Suit over Minimum Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Rasheen Lipscomb, Individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. State Security Agency, LLC,
the Defendant, Case No. 713746/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Dec. 18,
2017), seeks to recover minimum wage, maximum liquidated damages,
overtime wages, non-overtime wages, costs and attorneys' fees,
pursuant to the New York Labor Law.

The Defendant employed 50 or more employees at any given time and
over 200 during the class period.  Plaintiff Lipscomb was
employed by Defendant from on or about November 15, 2014 until on
or about September 15, 2017. The Plaintiff was employed by
Defendant as a security guard performing all manual and
repetitive tasks involved within this capacity such as standing
and walking throughout his workday and handling, searching and
checking customer's bags containing a variety of supermarket
items. The Plaintiff was an hourly employee of Defendant. The
Plaintiff and the putative class members were paid on a biweekly
basis in violation of NYLL. The Plaintiff was paid at the NYS
minimum wage rate. The Plaintiff worked approximately 16 or more
hours a day, 1-2 days a week for Defendant and was paid at the
New York State minimum wage rate during this period of his
employment with Defendant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SUGAR FACTORY: "Leon" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------
REINALDO LEON, and other similarly-situated individuals, the
Plaintiff(s), v. SUGAR FACTORY OCEAN DRIVE LLC, DOWN AND DIRTY
TACOS & TEQUILA BAR OCEAN DRIVE LLC, SHARED SERVICES FLORIDA LLC,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-24551-MGC (S.D. Fla., Dec. 15,
2017), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid half-time
overtime wages, liquidated damages, and costs and reasonably
attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

This cause of action is brought by Plaintiff as a collective
action to recover damages from Defendants on behalf of Plaintiff
and all other current and former employees similarly situated to
Plaintiff and who worked in excess of 40 hours during one or more
weeks on or after December 2015, without being properly
compensated.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 446 1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446 1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


TEECOR GROUP: "Castillo" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERTO COLIN CASTILLO, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE TEECOR GROUP, INC., a
California Corporation, and DOES 1-20, inclusive, the Defendant,
Case No. BC687135 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 18, 2017), seeks to
recover unpaid wages and unpaid overtime wages under the
California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to pay overtime
wages for all overtime hours worked; failed to provide meal
periods; filed to provide paid rest periods; failed to timely
furnish accurate itemized wage statements; violated Labor Code
section 203; failed to reimburse business expenses; andconducted
unfair business practices.

The Teecor Group, doing business as Key Environmental Services,
offers environmental maintenance services. The company was
founded in 2000 and is based in Los Angeles, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sam Kim, Esq.
          Yoonis Han, Esq.
          VERUM LAW GROUP, APC
          841 Apollo Street, Suite 340
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 320 2000
          Facsimile: (424) 221 5010
          E-mail: skim@verumlg.com

               - and -

          Anthony Choe, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ANTHONY CHOE
          3700 Wilshire Boulevard, Ste 260
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 788 4448
          Facsimile: (213) 788 4450


TIME INC: "Rosenfeld" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Meredith Corp. Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOEL ROSENFELD, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. TIME INC., RICHARD BATTISTA, DAVID
A. BELL, JOHN M. FAHEY, MANUEL A. FERNANDEZ, DENNIS J.
FITZSIMONS, BETSY D. HOLDEN, KAY KOPLOVITZ, RONALD S. ROLFE,
DANIEL L. ROSENSWEIG, KATIE J. STANTON, and MICHAEL P. ZEISSER,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-09886 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 18, 2017),
is brought on behalf of the public stockholders of Time Inc.
against Time and its Board of Directors for their violations of
Sections 14(d)(4), 14(e) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to
which Time will be acquired by Meredith Corporation.

On November 26, 2017, Time issued a press release announcing that
it had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger to sell Time
to Meredith. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, Meredith
will acquire all outstanding shares of Time for $18.50 in cash
per share of Time's common stock. Pursuant to the Merger
Agreement, Meredith, through Merger Sub, commenced the Tender
Offer on December 12, 2017. The Tender Offer is scheduled to
expire at 11:59 p.m., New York City time on January 10, 2018. The
Proposed Transaction is valued at approximately $2.8 billion.

On December 12, 2017, Time filed a Solicitation/Recommendation
Statement on Schedule 14D-9 with the SEC. In short, the Proposed
Transaction will unlawfully divest Time's public stockholders of
the Company's valuable assets without fully disclosing all
material information concerning the Proposed Transaction to
Company stockholders.

Time Inc. is a multinational mass media corporation founded on
November 28, 1922 by Henry Luce and Briton Hadden and based in
New York City.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 682 3025
          Facsimile: (212) 682 3010
          E-mail: racocelli@weisslawllp.com


UBS COMMERCIAL: Discovery Still Ongoing in New York Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
UBS Commercial Mortgage Trust 2012-C1 said in its Form 10-D
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
monthly distribution period from September 13, 2017 to October
13, 2017, that discovery is ongoing in a class action suit filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
by a group of investors, including funds managed by Blackrock
Advisors, LLC, PIMCO-Advisors, L.P., and others, against Deutsche
Bank Trust Company Americas ("DBTCA") and Deutsche Bank National
Trust Company ("DBNTC").

On June 18, 2014, a group of investors, including funds managed
by Blackrock Advisors, LLC, PIMCO-Advisors, L.P., and others,
filed a derivative action against DBNTC and DBTCA in New York
State Supreme Court purportedly on behalf of and for the benefit
of 544 private-label RMBS trusts asserting claims for alleged
violations of the U.S. Trust Indenture Act of 1939 ("Trust
Indenture Act"), breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and
negligence based on DBNTC and DBTCA's alleged failure to perform
their duties as trustees for the trusts.

Plaintiffs subsequently dismissed their state court complaint and
filed a derivative and class action complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
and for the benefit of 564 private-label RMBS trusts, which
substantially overlapped with the trusts at issue in the state
court action. The complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have
suffered total realized collateral losses of U.S. $89.4 billion,
but the complaint does not include a demand for money damages in
a sum certain. DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion to dismiss, and on
January 19, 2016, the court partially granted the motion on
procedural grounds: as to the 500 trusts that are governed by
Pooling and Servicing Agreements, the court declined to exercise
jurisdiction. The court did not rule on substantive defenses
asserted in the motion to dismiss.  On March 22, 2016, plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint in federal court.

In the amended complaint, in connection with 62 trusts governed
by indenture agreements, plaintiffs assert claims for breach of
contract, violation of the Trust Indenture Act, breach of
fiduciary duty, and breach of duty to avoid conflicts of
interest. The amended complaint alleges that the trusts at issue
have suffered total realized collateral losses of U.S. $9.8
billion, but the complaint does not include a demand for money
damages in a sum certain.  On July 15, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  On January 23,
2017, the court granted in part and denied in part DBNTC and
DBTCA's motion to dismiss.  The court granted the motion to
dismiss with respect to plaintiffs' conflict-of-interest claim,
thereby dismissing it, and denied the motion to dismiss with
respect to plaintiffs' breach of contract claim (except as noted
below) and claim for violation of the Trust Indenture Act,
thereby allowing those claims to proceed.

On January 26, 2017, the parties filed a joint stipulation and
proposed order dismissing plaintiffs' claim for breach of
fiduciary duty. On January 27, 2017, the court entered the
parties' joint stipulation and ordered that plaintiffs' claim for
breach of fiduciary duty be dismissed.  On February 3, 2017,
following a hearing concerning DBNTC and DBTCA's motion to
dismiss on February 2, 2017, the court issued a short form order
dismissing (i) plaintiffs' representation and warranty claims as
to 21 trusts whose originators and/or sponsors had entered
bankruptcy and the deadline for asserting claims against such
originators and/or sponsors had passed as of 2009 and (ii)
plaintiffs' claims to the extent they were premised upon any
alleged pre-Event of Default duty to terminate servicers.
On March 27, 2017, DBNTC and DBTCA filed an answer to the amended
complaint. Discovery is ongoing.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Quebec Appeals Court Okays Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Siskinds LLP on Dec. 4 disclosed that a class action on behalf of
investors in Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.
("Valeant") (TSX and NYSE: "VRX") will proceed toward trial now
that Quebec's Court of Appeal has dismissed applications by the
defendants to commence an appeal from the judgment of the
Honourable Justice Chantal Chatelain of the Quebec Superior
Court, dated August 29, 2017, which authorized the securities
class action.

A notice detailing the impact of the authorization of the action
as a class proceeding on the rights of investors will be
delivered at a later date in accordance with a further order of
the Court.

The class action was brought on behalf of persons who acquired
the securities of Valeant outside of the U.S. between February
28, 2013 and October 26, 2015 after allegations arose that
Valeant engaged in improper business and financial reporting
practices, particularly within its relationships with Philidor Rx
Services.  Following an internal investigation of its board of
directors, Valeant identified material weaknesses in its internal
controls over financial reporting, and restated certain of its
previously-released financial statements.

The defendants include Valeant, certain of Valeant's former
directors and officers, Valeant's auditors PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP, and a group of underwriters including Goldman Sachs,
Deutsche Bank Securities, Barclays Capital, HSBC Securities,
Morgan Stanley, RBC Capital Markets, Citigroup Global Markets,
CIBC World Markets, Merrill Lynch, JP Morgan Securities, TD
Securities, BMO Capital Markets, Mitsubishi UFJ Securities, DNB
Markets, SunTrust Robinson and SMBC Nikko Securities.

"We are very pleased that this case has passed this initial
hurdle and will now be able to move ahead to a determination on
its merits," said Michael Robb -- michael.robb@siskinds.com -- a
partner at Siskinds LLP.  "It is of paramount importance to
investors that participants in Canada's capital markets abide by
their disclosure obligations to investors.  One of the ways to
ensure that happens is by holding them to account in the courts."

The plaintiffs and investor class are represented by a consortium
of Canadian law firms which includes Siskinds LLP, Faguy & Co,
Siskinds Desmeules, Koskie Minsky LLP, Rochon Genova LLP,
Strosberg Sasso Sutts LLP, Morganti Legal, and Investigation
Counsel PC. [GN]


VIAND COFFEE: "Rosas" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage & Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
FERNANDO ROSAS, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. VIAND COFFEE SHOP OF 61 ST. INC.
(d/b/a VIAND COFFEE SHOP) and GEORGE KONTOGIANNIS, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-09851 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 15, 2017),
seeks to recover liquidated damages in an amount equal to one
100% of the total amount of minimum wage, overtime compensation,
and spread of hours pay shown to be owed pursuant to New York
Labor Law.

The Plaintiff Rosas is a former employee of Defendants Viand
Coffee Shop of 61 St. Inc. (d/b/a Viand Coffee Shop) and George
Kontogiannis. The Defendants own, operate, or control a coffee
shop, located at 673 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10021 under the
name "Viand Coffee Shop".

The Plaintiff was ostensibly employed as a waiter. However, he
was required to spend a considerable part of his work day
performing non-tipped duties, including but not limited to taking
care of the cash register, picking up the phone, and cleaning the
tables. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours
per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread
of hours compensation for the hours that he worked.

Rather, Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of
the hours worked, failed to pay Plaintiff appropriately for any
hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium.

Further, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff Rosas the required
"spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10
hours a day. The Defendants employed and accounted for Plaintiff
Rosas as a waiter in their payroll, but in actuality his duties
required a significant amount of time spent performing the
alleged non-tipped duties.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317 1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317 1620
          E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com


VIKING RIVER: Fails to Pay All Wages & Overtime under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANGIE MORIANA, on behalf of all other similarly situated
aggrieved, the Plaintiff, v. VIKING RIVER CRUISES, INC., a
California corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. BC687325 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 18, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid all wages and overtime under the
California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to pay straight time,
minimum and/or overtime wages for all hours worked; failed to pay
overtime wages at the appropriate overtime pay rate; failed to
provide all meal periods; and failed to authorize and permit all
paid rest periods.

Viking Cruises is a cruise line providing river and ocean
cruises, with operations based in Basel, Switzerland. It is the
parent company of Viking River Cruises and Viking Ocean
Cruises.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin T. Barnes, Esq.
          Gregg Laiider, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN T. BARNES
          5670 Wilshire boulevard, Suite 1460
          Los Angeles, CA 90036 5664
          Telephone: (323) 549 9100
          Facsimile: (323) 549 0101
          E-mail: Bames@kbarnes.com

               - and -

          Emil Davtyan, Esq.
          DAVTYAN PROFESSIONAL'LAW CORPORATION
          21900 Burbank Boulevard, Suite 300
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (818) 992 2935
          Facsimile: (818) 975 5525
          E-mail: Emil@davtyanlaw.com


WEST VIRGINIA AMERICAN: 38,000 Claims in Water Crisis Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Ward Jr., writing for Charleston Gazette-Mail, reports that
nearly 38,000 residents and businesses in the Kanawha Valley have
filed claims to be compensated as part of the landmark proposed
settlement in the class-action lawsuit over the January 2014
water crisis.

The deadline for filing claims -- Feb. 21, 2018 -- is still
several months away, and a hearing where U.S. District Judge John
T. Copenhaver Jr. will consider whether to grant final approval
of the $151 million deal isn't scheduled until Jan. 9.

But for anyone who doesn't want to take part in the settlement, a
key deadline was Friday, Dec. 8.  Anyone who wants to "opt out"
of the settlement -- meaning they get no money from it but could
file their own case -- has to submit an exclusion request to the
court postmarked no later than Dec. 8.

In the case, lawyers for residents and businesses had alleged
that West Virginia American Water Co. did not adequately prepare
for or respond to the chemical spill and that MCHM-maker Eastman
Chemical did not properly warn Freedom Industries of the dangers
of its chemical or take any action when Eastman officials learned
that the Freedom facility along the Elk River in Charleston was
in disrepair.  West Virginia American and Eastman deny any
liability.  They say the blame for the crisis rests with Freedom
Industries, which admitted to criminal pollution violations
related to the spill.

Under the settlement, residential households -- including
homeowners and renters -- can file a simple claim form and obtain
$550 for the first resident and $180 for each additional
resident.  Residents also may file more detailed information
about their losses -- for things such as bottled water or
replacement appliance purchases -- if they provide proof of those
expenditures on a separate type of claim form.

Businesses and nonprofit organizations can likewise obtain flat
payments, based on their size, or can submit documentation of
specific losses to have those recouped.

The settlement also provides additional payments to women who
were pregnant at the time of the chemical spill that sparked the
water crisis, residents who had medical expenses and hourly-wage
earners who lost money when businesses they worked at closed
because of the crisis. Government agencies also are eligible to
submit claims.

More information about the settlement is available online, at
www.wvwater claims.com.  Claims may be submitted online at that
same site, and more information also may be obtained by calling
1-855-829-8121.

Anthony Majestro, one of the lead attorneys for residents and
businesses, said on Dec. 4 that the claims administrator had
received 37,971 claims.  Most of those -- about 36,000 -- came
from residents, he said, and the rest came from businesses.

As with other class-action cases, residents and businesses don't
have to have signed up with a lawyer prior to the settlement to
be part of the class.  Anyone who fits into the definition of the
class covered by the settlement is included in the class, unless
they have filed opt-out papers to exclude themselves. Filing
claims gives class members more options about how much
compensation they could receive.

The class covered by the case includes 224,000 residents and
7,300 businesses.  Basically, it includes any business or
resident who received tap water from the Elk River intake plant
and any hourly-wage earner whose employer closed because of the
spill and resulting water system contamination.

Exclusion notices should include the location of the residence or
business at issue, identification of the position of authority
for a person submitting an exclusion for a business, a statement
regarding whether a separate legal claim is planned against the
water company or Eastman, a signature and a date, according to a
"frequently asked questions" document on the settlement website.

Exclusions should be mailed to WV Water Settlement Opt Outs, P.O.
Box 4227, Charleston, WV 25364.

Class members who do not want to exclude themselves may still
object to all or part of the settlement.  The deadline for such
objections was December 8, 2017.  Those should be sent to United
States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
Clerk of the Court, Robert C. Byrd United States Courthouse, 300
Virginia St. E., Charleston, WV 25301. [GN]


WOLVERINE WORLDWIDE: Faces Class Action Over Toxic Waste
--------------------------------------------------------
Marvis Herring, writing for WOOD, reports that Wolverine
Worldwide is facing its first federal class-action lawsuit in
connection to the dumping of waste at the center of well
contamination concerns north of Grand Rapids.

In a 52-page lawsuit filed on Dec. 1, the eight plaintiffs on
board so far say they are worried not only about their private
property and wells, but also the potential impact that Wolverine
tannery and manufacturing waste may have on municipal water
systems in Kent County -- though there is no evidence that the
city water systems of either Rockford or Grand Rapids were
tainted.

The contaminated wells identified so far are all in the Belmont
area and elsewhere around Rockford, but the suit says one of the
places the shoe manufacturer dumped toxic chemicals was the old
Butterworth Landfill within Grand Rapids' city limits.  The
landfill, which now links some Kent County trails, is on the
federal Environmental Protection Agency's list of Superfund Sites
in Michigan; that program is aimed at redevelopment of hazardous
or contaminated land.

The chemical discovered in residential wells causing the most
concern is PFAS, which could previously be found in the
Scotchgard that Wolverine used to waterproof shoes.  PFAS is a
likely carcinogen and has also been linked to other illnesses --
though Wolverine has seemed to downplay the potential health
risks.  Regardless, the company is offering to foot the bill for
whole-house water filtration systems for hundreds of homes in
Plainfield and Algoma townships where contamination has been
detected.

Among other things, the twelve-count lawsuit against Wolverine,
Scotchgard manufacturer 3M and Waste Management alleges
negligence leading to serious health problems, private and public
nuisance because of the companies' reckless behavior and product
liability problems.  The suit also claims battery, saying the
companies "willfully, wantonly and recklessly" dumped toxic
chemicals that directly harmed the plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs claim Wolverine failed to fix a defective design even
though the company knew about it and never warned residents near
dumps there may be danger.

The lawsuit says Waste Management, which owns a separate landfill
along the East Beltline in Plainfield Township, failed to make
sure toxic chemicals never reached aquifers and drinking water
supplies, nor did it work to remediate the area.

The suit noted the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
is looking in to reports of possible Wolverine dumping at 75
sites -- though it's important to note that only a fraction of
those have been confirmed. The state has not provided a list of
the locations it is investigating.

Eight other individual lawsuits have already been filed against
Wolverine, and lawyers say there will likely be more.

If you are eligible for a whole-house water filtration system
from Wolverine Worldwide, you can call 616.866.5627 or email
HouseStreet@wwwinc.com

The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Environmental
Assistance Center can be reached at 1.800.662.9278.

Websites with additional information on the contamination:

Plainfield Township
Kent County Health Department
Water testing interactive map
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
Michigan PFAS Action Response Team
Varnum PFAS Contamination updates Facebook group
Wolverine Worldwide [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  * * *