CAR_Public/180108.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Monday, January 8, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 6



                            Headlines

12 CHAIRS: "Rucuch" Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Wages under FLSA
ALIBABA GROUP: 2nd Cir. Reinstates Securities Class Action
ALPHA TECHNOLOGIES: Martinez Sues over Wage and Hour Violations
ANNIE'S HOMEGROWN: "Campbell" Suit Moved to N.D. California
ANTHEM BLUE: Beats Proposed Class Suit Over Eating Disorder Care

APPLE INC: Bogdanovich & Speas Sue over Old Phones' Performance
APPLE INC: Drantivy Sues over Performance of Older iPhone Models
APPLE INC: Rabinovits & Mazzeo Sue over Older Phones' Performance
ARRAY BIOPHARMA: Klein Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
AUSTRALIA: Duncan Basheer Mulls Class Acton Over TAFE Debacle

AUSTRALIA: Yarra's Edge Launches Class Action Over Tram Bridge
BAUER'S INTELLIGENT: Violates Labor Code, "Groce" Suit Says
BAZAARVOICE INC: Faces "Schlaffer" Suit in Texas State Court
BAZAARVOICE INC: Faces "Schlaffer" Merger Suit in W.D. Texas
BECHTEL CORP: Australia Suit Won't Progress, Bob Lamont Says

BIG ASS: Ex-Employee Files Class Action Over Wrongful Termination
BIG PHARMA: Clay County Mulls Opioid Epidemic Class Action
BIG PHARMA: Decatur County Plans to Join Opioid Class Action
BROWNING FIRE: Palma Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT under Labor Code
BUILDING & FACILITIES: Teng Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code

CALIFORNIA: Townsend Sues over Inmate Release Dates
CANADA: Students File Class Action Over Ontario Faculty Strike
CASA SECURITY: Estrada Seeks OT & Minimum Wage under Labor Code
CASTLE CHECK: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks OT & Unpaid Wages under FLSA
CENTRAL STREET: Gardner Sues over Collection of Biometric Info

CENTURYLINK INC: IMG USA Securities Suit Moved to W.D. Louisiana
CENTURYLINK INC: No Fraud, Wrongdoing Found as Alleged in Suits
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Rabinowitz Sues over Spam Text Messages
CHOI'S POTISMAN: Torres Seeks Minimum & OT Wages under FLSA
COLMA AUTO: Overcharged Car Buyers, Nour and Jamjoum Claim

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Sued in New York Over "Flushable Wipes"
CYAN INC: Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in Securities Case
DALEY'S MEDICAL: Faces "Strader" Suit over Medical Records Access
EAGLES BROTHERS: "Suazo" Suit Seeks OT Compensation under FLSA
EASTWESTPROTO: "Covarrublas" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages

EDGREN MOTOR: "Gallegos" Suit Seeks OT Pay under Labor Code
ETC INSTITUTE: Williams Seeks Regular & OT Wages under Labor Code
EXACTECH INC: "Rosenblatt" Suit Balks at Osteon Holdings Merger
GENERAL MOTORS: Smith, et al. Sue over Defective Dashboards
GIGAMON INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Class Action Lawsuit

GLASPRO: Faces "Gomez" Suit over Lack of Meal and Rest Breaks
GOOGLE INC: Group Urges Court to Scuttle 'Safari Hack' Settlement
GOOGLE INC: Judge Dismisses Gender Pay Class Action
HARVEY WEINSTEIN: 6 Women Sue in Class Action Lawsuit
HARVEY WEINSTEIN: Law Firms File Sexual Harassment Class Action

HARVEY WEINSTEIN: Suit Ties Two Law Firms to Sexual Enterprise
HNL AUTOMOTIVE: Martins Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT under Labor Code
INC RESEARCH: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Suit
INSTALLED BUILDING: "Arcos" Suit Moved to S.D. California
JACKSONVILLE, FL: Fairway Oaks Class-Action Lawsuit to Continue

KERING BRANDS: Potential Securities Fraud Class Action
LA LIVE THEATRE: Jones Seeks Unpaid OT & Wages under Labor Code
LENDING BIZ: Scoma Chiropractic Sues over Unsolicited Fax
LIBERTY MOVING: Faces "Mendizabal" Suit in S.D. New York
LIVE VENTURES: Securities Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed

MAJOR LEAGUE: Supreme Court Declines to Hear Minor Leaguers' Case
MDL 2800: "Peters" Suit vs. Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Appel" Suit vs. Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Astor" Suit vs Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Baker" Suit vs Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia

MDL 2800: "Cadwallader" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Henderson" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Gibson" Suit vs Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "House" Suit vs. Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Irwin" Suit vs. Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia

MDL 2800: "Mobbs" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Prejean" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Taenzer" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Branch" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Crow" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia

MDL 2800: "Goldweber" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Jones" Suit vs. Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Kemp" Suit vs. Equifax Moved Northern Dist. of Georgia
MDL 2800: "Feied" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Martin" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia

MDL 2800: "Napier" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Williams" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Zribi" Suit vs. Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Benway" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Meyers" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia

MDL 2800: "White" Suit vs Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Amuial" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Trevino" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Domino" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Eppy" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia

MDL 2800: "Fail" Suit vs Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Geller" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Klavans" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Schifano" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Martinez" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D Georgia

MDL 2800: "Melrath" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Podalsky" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: "Hamilton" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
MEDICREDIT INC: DePaulo Sues over Debt Collection Practices
MERCEDES-BENZ: 3rd Cir. Affirms Cracked Wheel Class Action Ruling

MERCK & CO: Seeks Dismissal of Gender Discrimination Case
MOMENTUM CHARTERS: Sorrells-Wright Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
MONSANTO COMPANY: Ragland Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: Faces Ramco Suit over LMR Solutions Monopoly
MV TRANSPORTATION: Fails to Provide Rest Breaks, Sanchez Says

NASSAU, NY: CCK Plus Files Class Suit over Assessment Reviews
NEW KO SUSHI: Fabian Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages under FLSA
NEW ORLEANS, LA: Faces Class Action Over Debtor's Prison
NORTHWESTERN POLYTECHNIC: Kalakanti Sues over ACICS Accreditation
NOVAN INC: Robbins Arroyo LLP Files Class Action

NPI MANUFACTURING: Pichardo Seeks Minimum & OT Wages under FLSA
OCERA THERAPEUTICS: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action Suit
ORGANIGRAM HOLDINGS: Wagners Law Firm Files Marijuana Class Suit
OSI SYSTEMS: Glancy Prongay & Murray Files Class Action
PACIFIC COAST: "Tappin" Suit Seeks OT Compensation under FLSA

PACIFIC DIE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Ortiz" Suit Says
PALATINE, IL: Kilpatrick Townsend Discusses 7th Cir Dismissal
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: February 5 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
PETROBRAS: Law Professors File Amicus Brief in Supreme Court
PHILIP MORRIS: Violates Securities Exchange Act, Rubenstahl Says

PIONEER GENERAL: Lincoln Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT under Labor Law
PLANNED BUILDING: "Hunter" Suit Seeks OT Wages under Labor Law
PLATINUM AUTO: Oseguera Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
QUIET CANYON: "Arce" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under Labor Code
SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Wants Covington to Pay $1.9MM

SECURITY INDUSTRY: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
SEQWATER: Savage Drought Resulted to 2011 Queensland Floods
ST. BERNARD HOSPITAL: Faces "Heard" Suit over Biometric Info
STEIL CORPORATION: Refuses to Pay OT Compensation, Volk Says
SUPERIOR ENERGY: "Nichols" Suit Seeks OT Wages under FLSA

TAKE-TWO: Plaintiff Can't Establish Injury in BIPA Case
TFS OILFIELD: "Sandoval" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
THC NORTH SHORE: Heard Sues over Collection of Biometric Data
TIVITY HEALTH: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Suit
TRIANGLE CAPITAL: Arons & Arons File Securities Class Suit

UNITED PARCEL: Delivery Drivers Mull Suit Over Work-Hours Hike
UNITED STATES: ICE Can't Detain Immigrant Teens' w/o Due Process
VIRGO CAPITAL: Faces "Bostic" Suit over LR Credit Judgments

* Poland Ministry Proposes Amendment to 2009 Class Action Act
* US-Style Class Actions Expected in UK Following Data Breaches


                            *********


12 CHAIRS: "Rucuch" Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Wages under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
EDWIN LORENZO RUCUCH, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. 12 CHAIRS BYN, LLC (D/B/A
12 CHAIRS CAFE), SIMON MAMAN , RON KEEREN , and RONEN GRADY, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-07424 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 20, 2017),
seeks to recover minimum wage and overtime pay under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, 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 Rucuch
appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate
of pay or for any additional overtime premium. The Defendants
failed to pay Plaintiff the required "spread of hours" pay for
any day in which he had to work over 10 hours a day.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a Mediterranean
restaurant, located at 342 Wythe Avenue, Brooklyn, New York
11211. The Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendants.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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


ALIBABA GROUP: 2nd Cir. Reinstates Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Ed Beeson, writing for Law360, reports that the Second Circuit on
Dec. 5 reinstated a putative securities class action against
Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. and several executives after finding
that a lower court judge improperly dismissed the suit tied to
the company's $25 billion initial public offering.

In a summary order, the New York federal appeals court vacated
U.S. District Court Judge Colleen McMahon's decision to dismiss
the potentially multibillion-dollar claim against Alibaba and
remanded the case for further proceedings. [GN]


ALPHA TECHNOLOGIES: Martinez Sues over Wage and Hour Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro Rodriguez Martinez, Mateo Hernandez Lopez and Elmer
Menjivar Argeta, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, The Plaintiff, v. Alpha Technologies Services, Inc.,
East Carolina Commercial Services, LLC, Solar Guys, Inc., CÇsar
Mendoza, and Jorge Ramos, the Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00628-
FL (E.D.N.C., Dec. 20, 2017), seeks payment of back wages and
equal amount of liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the North Carolina Wage
and Hour Act.

The Plaintiffs allege that they and their colleagues suffered
several wage and hour violations as a result of Defendants'
practices of misclassifying them as independent contractors, not
paying the proper overtime rate, making unlawful wage deductions,
requiring employees to purchase their own personal protective
equipment and failing to pay all wages owed and due.

The Defendants are the general contractor and subcontractors
responsible for construction of the solar farm. The Plaintiffs
seek to represent several classes of workers pursuant to the
class action procedure in Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and the statutory collective action procedure in 29
U.S.C. section 216(b) who suffered violations of federal and
state wage and hour laws.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Clermont F. Ripley
          Carol L. Brooke
          NORTH CAROLINA JUSTICE CENTER
          P.O. Box 28068
          Raleigh, NC 27611
          Telephone: (919) 856 2154
          Facsimile: (919) 856 2175
          E-mail: clermont@ncjustice.org
                  carol@ncjustice.org


ANNIE'S HOMEGROWN: "Campbell" Suit Moved to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Janell Johnson Campbell,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Annie's Homegrown Inc. and General Mills Inc., Case
No. 3:17-cv-01736, has been transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco). The Northern District of California Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-07288-JSC to the proceeding. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley.

Annie's Homegrown produces food products. It offers pastas,
snacks, soups, frozen snacks, baked items, dressings, condiments
and sauces, and special diet products. The company offers its
products through retail stores in the United States. The company
was founded in 1989 and is based in Berkeley, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles M Thompson, Esq.
          5615 Canongate lane
          Birmingham, AL 35242
          Telephone: (205) 995 0068
          Facsimile: (205) 995 0078

               - and -

          John W. Davis, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JOHN W. DAVIS
          501 West Broadway, Suite 800
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 400 4870
          Facsimile: (619) 342 7170
          E-mail: john@johnwdavis.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Charles C. Sipos, Esq.
          David T. Biderman, Esq.
          Mica D. Simpson, Esq.
          Catherine N. Grech, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
          Seattle, WA 98101-3099
          Telephone: (206) 359 8000
          Facsimile: (206) 359 9000
          E-mail: dbiderman@perkinscoie.com
                  MSimpson@perkinscoie.com
                  cgrech@perkinscoie.com


ANTHEM BLUE: Beats Proposed Class Suit Over Eating Disorder Care
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carmen Castro-Pagan, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that
Anthem Blue Cross Life & Health Insurance Co. again beat a
proposed class action accusing it of systematically denying
coverage for continued residential treatment for eating
disorders.

Aurora Bailey, the 22-year-old woman who filed the lawsuit, is no
longer a covered beneficiary under the plan and therefore can't
seek to represent a class of members for prospective injunctive
relief, Judge Jeffrey S. White held in a decision filed Dec. 5.

The decision comes almost seven months after White dismissed
Bailey's original lawsuit, holding that she didn't have standing
to sue Anthem Blue Cross and that her allegations weren't clear
on the potential for relapse or ongoing treatment of her mental
disease and eating disorder.

White's latest opinion is noteworthy because he accepted Bailey's
argument that she suffers a real and immediate threat of future
harm. Bailey was able to show this by citing a study that she
said indicates the prevalence of relapse for patients with
anorexia nervosa.

Approximately 20 million women and 10 million men in the U.S.
will have an eating disorder at some point in their lives,
according to data from the National Eating Disorder Association.

"Relapse after treatment for anorexia nervosa is a significant
clinical problem," Bailey's lawsuit said. Studies show that the
time with the greatest risk for relapse is the first year post-
treatment for at least up to 17 months after being "well,"
according to the lawsuit.

The information that Bailey was no longer a covered beneficiary
was provided by Anthem in the course of briefing the motion to
dismiss. White granted Bailey leave to amend her lawsuit to
assert whether she is still covered by the plan or to plead only
retrospective injunctive relief as a former member of the plan.

A similar proposed class action over denial of eating disorder
treatment against Kaiser Foundation Health Plan was dismissed by
White two months ago.

Kantor & Kantor LLP and Kathryn M. Trepinski represent the
participant. Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP represents Anthem.

The case is Bailey v. Anthem Blue Cross Life & Health Ins. Co. ,
N.D. Cal., No. 4:16-cv-04439-JSW, order granting defendant's
motion to dismiss 12/5/17 . [GN]


APPLE INC: Bogdanovich & Speas Sue over Old Phones' Performance
---------------------------------------------------------------
STEFAN BOGDANOVICH and DAKOTA SPEAS, on behalf of themselves
individually and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs,
v. APPLE, INC., a corporation; DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-09138 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 21, 2017),
seeks to recover actual damages and compensatory damages as a
result of Defendant's interfering of slowing down older iPhone
models.

The Plaintiffs and Class Members have owned iPhone 7, and iPhone
7s, or have owned older iPhone models for the past years. The
Plaintiffs and Class Members have notice that their older iPhone
models slows down when new models come out. On December 20, 2017,
Defendant admitted to purposefully slowing down older iPhone
models. The Plaintiffs and Class Members never consented to allow
Defendants to slow their iPhones. As a result of Defendant's
wrongful actions, Plaintiffs and Class Members had their phone
slowed down, and thereby it interfered with Plaintiffs' and Class
Members' use or possession of their iPhones, Plaintiffs and Class
Members have otherwise suffered damages and other harm for which
they are entitled to compensation, including Replacement of old
phone; Loss of use; Loss of value; Purchase of new batteries;
Ascertainable losses in the form of deprivation of the value of
their iPhone; and Overpayments to Defendant for iPhones in that a
portion of the price paid for such iPhone by Plaintiffs and Class
Members to Defendant was for Defendant to purposefully not
interfere with the usage of their iPhones, which Defendant and
its affiliates purposefully interfered in order to slow down its
performance and, as a result, Plaintiffs and Class Members did
not receive what they paid for and were overcharged by Defendant.

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

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Bobby Saadian, Esq.
          Colin M. Jones, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 381 9988
          Facsimile: (213) 381 9989


APPLE INC: Drantivy Sues over Performance of Older iPhone Models
----------------------------------------------------------------
RAISA DRANTIVY, Plaintiff, on behalf of themselves individually
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. APPLE, INC.,
a corporation; DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-07480 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 22, 2017), arises from Apple's
announcement on December 20, 2017, that it purposefully caused
older iPhone models to operate more slowly when new models are
released. The Plaintiff contends that she and Class Members never
consented to allow Defendants to slow their iPhones. As a result
of Defendant's wrongful actions, Plaintiffs and Class Members had
their phone slowed down, and thereby it interfered with
Plaintiffs' and Class Members' use or possession of their
iPhones, Plaintiffs and Class Members have otherwise suffered
damages.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregg A. Pinto, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF GREGG A. PINTO
          225 Broadway, Suite 307
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (646) 328 2434
          Facsimile: (212) 898 0117
          E-mail: pinto@pintolawoffices.com

               - and -

          Joshua E. Seidman, Esq.
          244 5th Avenue, No. 2030
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 726 1190
          E-mail: jes@seidmanlegal.com

               - and -

          DRANTIVY LAW FIRM, PLLC
          1414 Kings Highway, Suite 203
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 375 3750
          E-mail: askedwin@drantivylaw.com


APPLE INC: Rabinovits & Mazzeo Sue over Older Phones' Performance
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ELIEZER RABINOVITS and VICTOR MAZZEO on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. APPLE INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-10032 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 22, 2017),
seeks to recover damages as a result of Defendant's conduct of
slowing down of iPhone Models.

This is a class action on behalf of owners of all versions of the
iPhone 6 and/or iPhone 7 who were harmed when their devices'
software was updated to any of the following: iOS 10.2.1
(released on January 23, 2017); iOS 10.3 (released on March 27,
2017); iOS 10.3.1 (released on April 3, 2017); iOS 10.3.2
(released on May 15, 207); iOS 10.3.3 (released on July 19, 2017)
-- iOS 10 Update -- iOS 11.0.1 (released on September 26, 2017);
iOS 11.0.2 (released on October 3, 2017); iOS 11.0.3 (released on
October 11, 2017); iOS 11.1 (released on October 31, 2017); iOS
11.1.1 (released on November 9, 2017); iOS 11.1.2 (released on
November 16, 2017); iOS 11.2 (released on December 2, 2017); and
iOS 11.2.1 (released on December 13, 2017) -- iOS 11 Update.  The
iOS 10 and iOS 11 Updates caused Plaintiffs' and class members'
devices to be significantly slower and interfered with the normal
usage of the phones.

The Plaintiffs allege that Defendant engaged in deceptive trade
practices and false advertising in violation of New York General
Business Law section 349 and section 350 when it represented that
the iOS 10 and iOS 11 Updates were compatible with and support
iPhone 6s and iPhone 7s. Specifically, Apple failed to warn
iPhone 6 and iPhone 7 owners that the iOS 10 and iOS 11 Updates
could significantly and negatively interfere with their phones'
performance. To the contrary, Apple specifically touted the
increased phone performance that would result from the iOS 10 and
iOS 11 updates. Apple has since admitted however that, through
the iOS 10 and iOS 11 Updates, Apple deliberately prevents chips
in iPhone 6s and iPhone 7s from reaching their full processing
power. In other words, instead of enhancing the performance of
iPhone 6s and iPhone 7s as Apple represented, the iOS 10 and iOS
11 Updates were designed to limit the devices' performance in
certain circumstances.

Having updated their phones, Plaintiffs and owners of iPhone 6s
and iPhone 7s must either continue using devices that experience
significant lag time that interferes with their ordinary use, or
purchase a new phone for hundreds of dollars.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs in the Class:

          Stanley D. Bernstein
          U. Seth Ottensoser
          Stephanie M. Beige
          BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP
          10 East 40th Street
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 779 1414
          Facsimile: (212) 779 3218
          E-mail: bernstein@bernlieb.com
                  ottensoser@bernlieb.com
                  beige@bernlieb.com


ARRAY BIOPHARMA: Klein Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm notifies shareholders that a class action
complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Array
Biopharma Inc. (NASDAQ:ARRY) who purchased shares between
December 16, 2015 and March 17, 2017. The action, which was filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado,
alleges that the Company violated federal securities laws.

In particular, the complaint alleges that throughout the Class
Period, defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that (1) Array's NEMO study
failed to show sufficient clinical benefit of the binimetinib NDA
in use for patients with NRAS-mutant melanoma; (2) Array was
aware that this lack of supporting data would not be sufficient
to receive FDA approval of binimetinib in use for patients with
NRAS-mutual melanoma; and (3) as a result of the foregoing,
Array's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

Shareholders have until January 22, 2018 to petition the court
for lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery
does not require that you serve as lead plaintiff. You may choose
to be an absent class member.

If you suffered a loss during the class period and wish to obtain
additional information, please contact Joseph Klein, Esq. by
telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-sbm/array-biopharma-inc-
arry?wire=3.

Joseph Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in
securities litigations involving financial fraud throughout the
nation. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes. [GN]


AUSTRALIA: Duncan Basheer Mulls Class Acton Over TAFE Debacle
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nigel Hunt, writing for The Advertiser, reports that the State
Government is facing a potential class action over the TAFE
debacle that could cost it millions of dollars.

Leading law firm Duncan Basheer Hannon is investigating the legal
action and will act for victims on a "no win, no fee" basis.

DBH managing partner Patrick Boylen -- pboylen@dbh.com.au -- said
it was apparent qualifications that students had enrolled, paid
and studied for have not been delivered by TAFE SA.

"For many students this will result in additional fees and having
to redo course work, which results in delays in obtaining higher
paid employment," he said.

"Some students will have to attend private Registered Training
Organisations at their own cost as a result of the failure of
TAFE."

He said the class action would seek compensation for the
reimbursement of fees paid for courses, the loss of income and
income earning potential and any additional costs associated with
further study and course work to obtain the qualification
promised.

"For an individual taking on the South Australian Government and
TAFE would be a difficult and costly process," Mr Boylen said.

"If the many hundreds and perhaps thousands of students who have
been affected join together I am confident that a favourable and
sensible outcome can be achieved." [GN]


AUSTRALIA: Yarra's Edge Launches Class Action Over Tram Bridge
--------------------------------------------------------------
Docklands News reports that Yarra's Edge is launching a class
action seeking potentially $300 million compensation for
diminished property values caused by the proposed tram bridge to
Fishermans Bend.

Yarra's Edge Class Action Committee (YCAC) spokesperson Catherine
Dawson said the action would be launched early in 2018 and
represented property owners, businesses, Marina YE and tenants of
the marina.

She said the group was in final negotiations with Australia's
three largest class action legal firms.  The chosen firm would
act on a "no win, no fee" basis.

"There's certainly no issue with the lawyers wanting to represent
us," Ms Dawson said.

She said that 1500 apartments would each devalue by between
$50,000 and $100,000.  The loss of the marina and associated
amenity would also need to be calculated.

"The bridge proposal is still in a draft form, but values have
already been affected," she said.  "Outside of bushfires, there
is no doubt this will be one of the biggest class actions ever
brought in Victoria."

She said the action was being launched on an "opt out" basis.
All affected individuals and businesses are represented unless
they choose not to be.

Ms Dawson said committee members had accepted that the bridge
could not be stopped and all that remained was to seek adequate
compensation.

"We have no other option," she said.  "The so-called consultation
is just a box-ticking exercise."

Ms Dawson encouraged owners and business in the rest of Docklands
to consider forming a closely-aligned Victoria Harbour Class
Action Committee (VCAC) if a freight or pedestrian/cyclist bridge
was built across the mouth of the harbour at a level lower than
the Bolte Bridge.

"I'd be very happy to receive emails from affected people in the
rest of Docklands," she said.

Ms Dawson is a Yarra's Edge resident and marina berth tenant and
is acting in a voluntary capacity.

In her day job, she works for a Collins St finance company, which
specialises in property valuation on behalf of class action
lawyers. [GN]


BAUER'S INTELLIGENT: Violates Labor Code, "Groce" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
CHARLOTTE GROCE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. BAUER'S INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION,
INC., a California corporation and DOES 1-20, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. BC687897 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 22, 2017),
alleges that Defendants failed to provide meal periods; failed to
provide paid rest periods; failed to timely furnish accurate
itemized wage statements; violated the state Labor Code; and
conducted unfair business practices.

The Defendant is owner and operator of an industry, business,
and/or facility licensed to do business and actually doing
business in the State of California by providing transportation
services, including charters, corporate commuter programs, and
major event transportation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Paul Lee, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PAUL J. LEE
          2161 W. 182nd Street. Suite 204
          Torrance. CA 90504
          Telephone: (310) 844-7827
          Facsimile: (310) 294-9963


BAZAARVOICE INC: Faces "Schlaffer" Suit in Texas State Court
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL SCHLAFFER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BAZAARVOICE, INC.,
GENE AUSTIN, CRAIG A. BARBAROSH, KRISTA BERRY, STEVE H.
BERKOW1TZ, JEFFREY HAWN, THOMAS J. MEREDITH, and ALI WING, the
Defendants, Case No. D-1-GN-17-006868 (District Court, 201st
Judicial District, Travis Cty., Tex., Dec. 22, 2017), the
Plaintiff brings this stockholder class action on behalf of
himself and all other public stockholders of Bazaarvoice. Inc.,
against Bazaarvoice and its Board of Directors, for breaches of
fiduciary duty as a result of Defendants' efforts to sell the
Company to entities affiliated with Marlin Equity Partners by an
unfair process for an unfair price, and to enjoin a stockholder
vote, currently scheduled to take place in the first quarter of
2018, in which Marlin will acquire each share of Bazaarvoice
common stock for S5.50 per share in cash, with a total valuation
of approximately $521 million.

The terms of the Proposed Transaction were memorialized in a
November 27, 2017 filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Form 8-K attaching the definitive Agreement and
Plan of Merger. On December 15, 2017, Bazaarvoice filed a
Preliminary Proxy Statement on Schedule I4A with the Securities
and Exchange Commission in support of the Proposed Transaction.
Notably, the Preliminary Proxy reveals a sales process that was
hamstrung by interference from activist stockholders of the
Company, who struck a settlement agreement with the Company Board
in the midst of the sales process that significantly affected the
composition of the Company Board and. therefore, the process
itself.

Moreover, Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the
Company's stockholders by agreeing to the Proposed Transaction
which undervalues Bazaarvoice and is the result of a Hawed sales
process.  Post-closure, Bazaarvoice stockholders will be frozen
out of seeing the return on their investment of any and all
future profitability of Bazaarvoice.

Further, pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, upon the
consummation of the Proposed Transaction, Company Board Members
and executive officers will be able to exchange large, illiquid
blocks of Company stock for massive payouts, in addition to
receiving cash in exchange for all outstanding and unvested
options and/or other types of restricted stock units. Moreover,
certain Directors and other insiders will also be the recipients
of lucrative change-in-control agreements, triggered upon the
termination of their employment as a consequence of the
consummation of the Proposed Transaction. Such large paydays upon
the consummation of the Proposed Transaction have clearly tainted
the motivations of the Board in approving it.

Finally, in violation of their fiduciary duties, Defendants
caused to be filed the materially deficient Preliminary Proxy on
December 15, 2017 with the SEC to solicit stockholders to vote
their Bazaarvoice shares in favor of the Proposed Transaction.
The Preliminary Proxy is materially deficient and deprives
Bazaarvoice stockholders of the information they need to make an
intelligent, informed and rational decision of whether to vote
their shares in favor of the Proposed Transaction.  The
Preliminary Proxy omits and/or misrepresents material information
concerning, among other things: (a) the Company's financial
projections; and (b) the data and inputs underlying the financial
valuation analyses that purport to support the fairness opinions
provided by the Company's financial advisor, GCA Advisors
LLC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael D. Marin, Esq.
          BOULETTE GOLDEN & MARIN LLP
          2801 Via Fortuna Drive, Suite 530
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 732 8900
          Facsimile: (512) 732 8905
          E-mail: mmarin@boulettegolden.com

               - and -

          Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: 610 667 6200
          Facsimile: 610 667 9029
          E-mail: mackerman@brodskysmith.com


BAZAARVOICE INC: Faces "Schlaffer" Merger Suit in W.D. Texas
------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL SCHLAFFER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. BAZAARVOICE, INC., GENE
AUSTIN, THOMAS J. MEREDITH, CRAIG A. BARBAROSH, STEVEN H.
BERKOWITZ, KRISTA BERRY, SYDNEY L. CAREY, JEFFREY S. HAWN,
ALLISON M. WING, BV PARENT, LLC, BV MERGER SUB, INC., and MARLIN
EQUITY PARTNERS, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01199 (W.D.
Tex., Dec. 22, 2017), is stockholder class action on behalf of
Plaintiff and all other public stockholders of Bazaarvoice. Inc.,
against Bazaarvoice and its Board of Directors, for breaches of
fiduciary duty as a result of Defendants' efforts to sell the
Company to entities affiliated with Marlin Equity Partners by an
unfair process for an unfair price, and to enjoin a stockholder
vote, currently scheduled to take place in the first quarter of
2018, in which Marlin will acquire each share of Bazaarvoice
common stock for S5.50 per share in cash, with a total valuation
of approximately $521 million.

The terms of the Proposed Transaction were memorialized in a
November 27, 2017 filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Form 8-K attaching the definitive Agreement and
Plan of Merger. On December 15, 2017, Bazaarvoice filed a
Preliminary Proxy Statement on Schedule I4A with the Securities
and Exchange Commission in support of the Proposed Transaction.
Notably, the Preliminary Proxy reveals a sales process that was
hamstrung by interference from activist stockholders of the
Company, who struck a settlement agreement with the Company Board
in the midst of the sales process that significantly affected the
composition of the Company Board and. therefore, the process
itself.

Moreover, Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the
Company's stockholders by agreeing to the Proposed Transaction
which undervalues Bazaarvoice and is the result of a Hawed sales
process. Post-closure, Bazaarvoice stockholders will be frozen
out of seeing the return on their investment of any and all
future profitability of Bazaarvoice.

Further, pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, upon the
consummation of the Proposed Transaction, Company Board Members
and executive officers will be able to exchange large, illiquid
blocks of Company stock for massive payouts, in addition to
receiving cash in exchange for all outstanding and unvested
options and/or other types of restricted stock units. Moreover,
certain Directors and other insiders will also be the recipients
of lucrative change-in-control agreements, triggered upon the
termination of their employment as a consequence of the
consummation of the Proposed Transaction. Such large paydays upon
the consummation of the Proposed Transaction have clearly tainted
the motivations of the Board in approving it.

Finally, in violation of their fiduciary duties, Defendants
caused to be filed the materially deficient Preliminary Proxy on
December 15, 2017 with the SEC to solicit stockholders to vote
their Bazaarvoice shares in favor of the Proposed Transaction.
The Preliminary Proxy is materially deficient and deprives
Bazaarvoice stockholders of the information they need to make an
intelligent, informed and rational decision of whether to vote
their shares in favor of the Proposed Transaction.

The Preliminary Proxy omits and/or misrepresents material
information concerning, among other things: (a) the Company's
financial projections; and (b) the data and inputs underlying the
financial valuation analyses that purport to support the fairness
opinions provided by the Company's financial advisor, GCA
Advisors LLC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas E. Bilek
          THE BILEK LAW FIRM, L.L.P.
          700 Louisiana, Suite 3950
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 227 7720

               - and -

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


BECHTEL CORP: Australia Suit Won't Progress, Bob Lamont Says
------------------------------------------------------------
The Observer reports that a proposed class action against Bechtel
over travel allowances for Curtis Island workers will not
progress, Corporate Accountants owner Bob Lamont said.

Travel and ferry allowance claims were at the centre of the
proposed class action, which followed a mass audit by the
Australian Taxation Office on Bechtel workers in 2015 that found
inconsistencies between workers' claims.

More than 3,000 workers' tax returns were forcibly adjusted,
following stern warnings late in 2015 while more than 2600
adjusted theirs voluntarily.

Mr Lamont said there were 1,380 accountants and tax agents with
clients involved in the audit.

In a statement published online, Mr Lamont blamed "the unions"
for Shine Lawyers' decision not to move forward with a class
action against Bechtel on behalf of his clients.

"Like you will be, we are dumb-founded that our attempt on your
behalf to get a class action under way against Bechtel has
failed," Mr Lamont said.

"It has apparently failed because your unions handed to Bechtel
the right to ignore the terms of the employment contract you
signed with them in return for a travel and ferry allowance.

"But now it's over, the whole Bechtel saga is over for us and you
. . . I repeat absolutely nothing more can be done, shitty as it
all is."

In May the Australian Appeals Tribunal rejected a challenge to
the Australian taxation law put forward by Corporate Accountants,
as a test case on behalf of a Bechtel worker.

The tribunal found work-related claims including for overtime
meals, mobile phone bills and tool expenses were not legitimate.

The Observer is awaiting a response from multiple unions and the
Tax Practitioners Board.

Timeline

October 2015: ATO issues threats to around 1000 Curtis Island
Bechtel workers demanding they amend tax returns.

February 2016: Gladstone accountancy firm Corporate Accountants
lodges formal complaint about the audit with national tax office.

April 2016: Bechtel "test case" put before the Administrative
Appeals Tribunal.

May 19, 2016: 2000 Bechtel workers fined for failing to resubmit
tax returns.

December 2016: Corporate Accountants continues challenging its
case before a tribunal against the ATO.

May 2017: Test case rejected by AAT

December 2017: Proposed class action against Bechtel canned [GN]


BIG ASS: Ex-Employee Files Class Action Over Wrongful Termination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LEX 18 reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed by a
former employee of Big Ass Fans alleging that several workers
were wrongly fired after the company was in negotiations to be
sold.

The lawsuit was filed on Dec. 5 in Circuit Court by
Isaac W. Fedyniak on behalf of numerous employees.  The suit
names as defendants Big Ass Fans' parent company Delta T LLC and
several affiliated companies, as well as Big Ass owner J. Carey
Smith and other individuals.

Delta T LLC owned and operated Big Ass Fans and Big Ass
Solutions.  In October, the company announced it was being
purchased by New York-based equity firm Lindsay Goldberg in a
deal estimated at $500 million.

The lawsuit alleges that some employees were wrongfully
terminated and were not able to retain their stock appreciation
rights.  It takes several years for employees to earn the rights
to their stocks, and the lawsuit claims they were fired before
they were able to receive those rights.  It also states that the
common stock was undervalued by the defendants.

One point of contention is that a company document states, "if
the company is sold (or there is another change in control of the
company as defined in the plan), all outstanding stock
appreciation rights granted prior to the change in control will
become immediately vested."

The suit alleges breach of contract, contractual breach of
fiduciary duty and interference with contractual relations the
owner of the business among other counts. [GN]


BIG PHARMA: Clay County Mulls Opioid Epidemic Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Hopper, writing for Daily Reporter, reports that the Clay
County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a resolution on
Dec. 5 during its regular session which may result in Clay County
joining a potential class-action lawsuit regarding the opioid
epidemic in a class consisting of other counties in Iowa and
Wisconsin.  The resolution -- also referenced as an engagement
letter, showing an indication of a desire to join a class -- will
be sent to one of the two groups currently forming a class,
however the signed letter will be pending delivery until
Assistant County Attorney Barry Sackett receives more information
regarding the second entity's efforts.

"I want to make sure we look at the other side before we jump on
this ship, but it seems this is the one to go for," Mr. Sackett
said.

The class Sackett thought likely for Clay County to join was
explained as having around two-thirds of Wisconsin's counties
signed on, and additional Iowa counties either signed on or
planning to join.  During the meeting, Mr. Sackett said he had
been in contact with one of the lead attorneys with the group;
Erin Dickinson, founding partner of Crueger Dickinson, a firm
based out of Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin.

". . . (The group) thought they had about 10 Iowa counties,
they've got about two-thirds of the counties in Wisconsin and
they think they'll get all of them," Mr. Sackett said.  "In a
class action suit, the bigger the class, the more clout you have
as far as negotiating something.  Generally as you negotiate
something, if you go through litigation then you're talking
several years (of litigation).  As far as any costs to the
county, there wouldn't be any cost. . . . As far as time
dedicated to the case, (Dickinson) indicated it would be minimal.
She can't say it wouldn't be anything, because they would need
access to certain documents, they feel good about their chances
obviously."

Burlin Matthews, supervisor chairman and third vice-chair of the
Iowa State Association of Counties, shared that during a recent
ISAC meeting, ISAC shared their support of the group and spoke
directly to Dickinson about her group.

"The CEO of ISAC has had lengthy discussions with law firms on
this specific area and has determined this firm would provide the
best counsel for Iowa counties," Matthews said.

He continued, "When we met at our ISAC executive board meeting, .
. . two counties, Monroe and Sioux, had already signed up. . . .
The ISAC board listened to Erin (Dickinson), the attorney of
Wisconsin.  There really was only one question, and that was how
much time it would take.  She told us . . . it would take a
little bit of time, but they will redact any personal
information, they will supply people to actually go through the
records that they will have to access  . . . and so she thinks
the time will be minimal."

Mr. Matthews asked Mr. Sackett if the suit reached a settlement,
how it would be structured to the counties involved.

"What (Dickinson) said at the meeting was, any settlement is
probably going to be population based," Mr. Sackett said.  "If it
goes through litigation then you never know, . . . what the
pharmaceutical company will do is try to show that you're
different, so they're negotiating one on one with people instead
of a group.  For example, if Tama county has way more than we do
or had a doctor that was prescribing like crazy and we've got
good doctors, they'll try to segregate those."

Mr. Sackett shared some of his own thoughts regarding how the
potential suit would be handled.

"I didn't get a great sense from (Dickinson) . . . as far as
damages," Mr. Sackett said.  "What are our current costs of the
opioid epidemic? How do we quantify those? How do we figure those
out?"

Both Messrs. Sackett and Matthews indicated that by participating
in the formation of a class early, Clay County would have a
better position regarding a potential settlement if one occurs,
citing the 1998 Tobacco Settlement as an example of a settlement
being reached without any compensation for the counties.

"In the tobacco litigation, when it was settled it was usually
done at the state level and counties never really ended up with
the settlement funds," Mr. Sackett said.  "This is kind of a way
to get ahead of that and make sure we have a seat at the table if
there is a settlement."

"This way, even though the attorney general, several attorney
generals have filed, if they file also -- this organization -- we
would end up receiving something," Mr. Matthews said. [GN]


BIG PHARMA: Decatur County Plans to Join Opioid Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Brent Brown, writing for Daily News, reports that Decatur County
officials are mulling the possibility of joining a class action
lawsuit that targets manufacturers and distributors of opioid
drugs that, if successful, could see Hoosier cities and counties
receive compensation for costs related to the state's "opioid
epidemic."

Attorneys with the Indianapolis-based Cohen and Malad, LLP
detailed the pending litigation for the Decatur County Board of
Commissioners on Dec. 4, which they said includes Marion County
and the cities of Lafayette and Hammond as plaintiffs.

Attorney Jeff Gibson said opioid manufacturers "grossly over-
promoted their products for purposes and reasons it should never
have been used for" while "downplaying the drugs' addictive
nature."  Such drugs contain the same chemical composition as
heroin, Mr. Gibson said.

"You might as well call it a heroin pill," he added.

Also named in the suit is a trio of pharmaceutical companies
Mr. Gibson said failed to monitor "suspicious orders" of drugs
and did not report such activity to the DEA in accordance with
the federal Controlled Substances Act.

Those same pills have now trickled out of the pharmacies and into
the streets, joining illicit substances such as heroin, and the
result has been rising incarceration rates and increased
addiction treatment costs cities and counties have been forced to
bear.

It's become a growing problem statewide.

"We've kind of reached a tipping point where the cities and
communities and states have reached such a crisis level that they
realize that, while this won't solve the whole problem, this is
another 'arrow in the bag' of trying to combat the opioid crisis
and what it's doing -- both in the community and economically to
cities and counties in Indiana," Gibson said.

County Attorney Ken Bass previously brought the suit to the
attention of the commissioners, and he recommended county
officials consider the possibility of joining the litigation as a
plaintiff.  The board did not make a decision on Dec. 4, choosing
to wait until after January 1 to make a decision.

Others in attendance agreed that the case warranted the
officials' consideration.

Decatur County Prosecuting Attorney Nate Harter encouraged the
commissioners to listen to the advice of the county attorney,
while Decatur County Memorial Hospital CEO Rex McKinney said he
wanted to learn more of the "facts and scope" of the litigation.

"Obviously, the opioid crisis has hit us as much as anyone else,"
Mr. Harter said.  "I'm certainly open to finding as many tools
for our tool belt as possible."

The case would be heard in a federal court as none of the
defendants are based in Indiana, Gibson explained.

Mr. Gibson's partner at Cohen and Malad, class action attorney
Vess Miller, detailed the process of a possible resolution that
could see money distributed to the plaintiffs.  Those funds could
be used for treatment programs and other efforts to stop the
spread of opioid addiction.

"We want to make sure that if there is money coming back that . .
. it goes into fixing the problem," he said.

Other possible results if an outcome benefiting the plaintiffs is
reached include damages that could reimburse counties and cities
and allow them to employ more police, cover the cost of naloxone
(an antidote for opiate overdose), and funds to cover costs
associated with increased incarceration rates.

Gibson said he was uncertain how long the litigation process
could take, but he encouraged Decatur County officials to make a
decision regarding joining the suit "sooner than later."

The contingency agreement between the county and the firm would
come at no cost to the former as the expense of the litigation
would be borne by Cohen and Malad until an outcome is reached.
If the outcome is unfavorable for the plaintiffs, none would have
to pay the cost involved with the suit, Gibson explained.

Commissioner Jerome Buening said the decision of whether or not
to join the suit is currently being weighed by many members of
the Indiana Association of County Commissioners.

"There are quite a few that have not jumped on board just yet,"
Mr. Buening said.

"I think we should think about this a little more . . . and
address this again after the first of the year," commented
Commissioners President Rick Nobbe. [GN]


BROWNING FIRE: Palma Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT under Labor Code
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARCOS T. PALMA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. BROWNING FIRE PROTECTION, INC., a
California corporation and DOES 1-20, inclusive, the Defendant,
Case No. BC687896 (Cal. Super. Ct. Dec. 22, 2017), alleges that
the Defendants implemented a common practice or policy that did
not compensate Plaintiff and Class Members at the proper overtime
rate. Specifically, Defendants would issue two separate checks
during each pay period. The first check was attached to a wage
statement that identified only regular wage payments, including
rates and hours. The second check, which was not attached to a
wage statement, only contained a single sum of monies without the
inclusion of the rate or hours worked.

The Defendants further implemented a common practice or policy of
failing to provide Class Members with proper wage statements,
which often did not include: (1) the employee's full name, home
address, occupation, social security number, employee's date of
birth, and time records showing when the employee begins and ends
each work period; (2) an employee's meal periods; (3) total wages
paid each payroll period; and (4) total hours worked during the
payroll period and applicable rates of pay. As a result,
Defendants' failed to pay Class Members for each hour worked.[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


BUILDING & FACILITIES: Teng Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------------
ERICK TENG, individually and as representative of those similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. BUILDING & FACILITIES SERVICES LLC,
a California Limited Liability Corporation, ANTHONY VENTURI, an
individual, and DOES 1-10, the Respondents, Case No. 17CIV05853
(Cal Super. Ct., Dec. 22, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages
and penalties under the California Labor Code.

Teng Sr. was hired to help Venturi understand and improve BFS's
bookkeeping and accounting practices, to help Venturi as he set
operating budgets for BFS and to supervise BFS'S bookkeeping and
payroll functions on an ongoing basis going forward.  At the time
that Teng Sr. was hired, BFS's accounting and payroll staff
consisted of one person -- him.

In July 20, 2015, Venturi offered Teng Sr. work as BFS's
"Controller" at a $96,000 annual "salary," i.e., with no
eligibility for overtime.  Based on Venturi's explanation of his
duties and hours, Teng Sr. believed he would be required to work
from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm. Monday through Friday.  Teng Sr. also
believed the hourly rate of compensation implied and limited
benefits BFS and Venturi were offering were inferior to those
typically offered persons performing the duties of an actual
"controller" or even an "accounting manager" in the San Francisco
Bay Area. As Teng Sr. was a non-native English speaker and lacked
an advanced degree or CPA -- and believed he would not be
required to work in excess of 40 hours per week in any event --
Teng Sr. decided he would accept the offer and hope for the best.

Initially at least, the duties and hours required of TENG SR. in
his position with BFS were consistent with what Venturi had
described while recruiting Teng Sr. Not long after starting,
however, Venturi began asking Teng Sr. to assist him with a
variety of projects and duties unrelated to the duties for BFS
that they had discussed during Teng Sr.'s recruitment. For
example, Venturi asked for Teng Sr.'s assistance on a special
project going through BFS's business records for purposes of
establishing a share value that Venturi would then use to buy out
Mr. Miranda's ownership interest.  Venturi claimed that he
suspected Mr. Miranda had long been embezzling from BFS, but
Venturi wanted Teng Sr. to help to gather evidence
surreptitiously at night and on weekends that he could use to
prove his suspicions and expel Mr. Miranda from BFS.

With the addition of such special projects to his already full
time duties, Teng Sr. found himself regularly starting work at
home from between 7:00 and 7:30 a.m. in the morning, getting
to work before 9:00 a.m., and then, after leaving work around
5:30 to 6:30 pm, resuming work again in the evening around 8:00
pm, and frequently working three or four hours thereafter -- or
even after midnight. Eventually in light of the fact that he was
working several dozen hours a week more than the 40 hours a week
he had been told the job would require, Teng Sr. complained to
Venturi about the situation and this additional uncompensated
work. The Plaintiff has been harmed as the direct and proximate
result of Venturi and BFS's conduct in amounts subject to proof
at trial.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John H. Douglas, Esq.
          DOUGLAS LAW OFFICES
          100 Pine St., Suite 1250
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 794 4751
          Facsimile: (415) 795 3432
          E-mail: JDOUGLAS@DOUGLASLEGAL.COM


CALIFORNIA: Townsend Sues over Inmate Release Dates
---------------------------------------------------
TREVON TOWNSEND, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA;
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION; and DOES
1-50, the Defendants, Case No. BC688089 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec.
22, 2017), challenges the pattern and practice of Defendants,
whereby individuals are "over-detained" in State prison and
deprived of their liberty without the due process of law as a
result of Defendants' (a) failure to correctly calculate inmate
release dates based on all governing laws and applicable inmate
custody credits, and (b) failure to implement and supervise an
adequate statewide system for ensuring the timely release of all
prisoners under their custody, care, and supervision.

Defendants' internal records reflect that between 2004 and 2014
there were 11,160 persons respectively over-detained anywhere
from 1 to 5,141 days, for a total of 123,419 days overall due to
Defendants' calculation errors. The Plaintiff alleges that
Defendants did not inform, notify, or advise those persons that
their respective release dates were miscalculated, or that they
were overdetained for a period in excess of their lawful release
dates. The over-detentions result in a substantial expenditure of
money by Defendants which is unnecessary. According to the State
Controller's website, the corrections system is the State's third
largest State expenditure and is allocated approximately nine
percent of the State's General Fund each year.

This action is brought by Plaintiff, an individual who sustained
loss of freedom and injuries arising out of the deprivation of
his Constitutional and civil rights while under the care,
custody, and supervision of Defendants. As a result of
Defendants' calculation errors, Plaintiff was over-detained and
continued to be treated as though he was a prisoner after all
legal justification for his continued incarceration and treatment
as a prisoner ended. To be clear, Plaintiff does not contest in
this action the basis of his incarceration or the imposition of
his underlying criminal sentence. Rather, Plaintiff's claims stem
from Defendants' miscalculation of Plaintiffs release date that
resulted in his over-detention.

California, a western U.S. state, stretches from the Mexican
border along the Pacific for nearly 900 miles. Its terrain
includes cliff-lined beaches, redwood forest, the Sierra Nevada
Mountains, Central Valley farmland and the Mojave Desert. The
city of Los Angeles is the seat of the Hollywood entertainment
industry. Hilly San Francisco is known for the Golden Gate
Bridge, Alcatraz Island and cable cars.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul R. Kiesel, Esq.
          Steven D. Archer, Esq.
          Jeffrey A. Koncius, Esq.
          Melanie Meneses Palmer, Esq.
          KIESEL LAW LLP
          8648 Wilshire Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: 310 854 4444
          Facsimile: 310 854 0812
          E-mail: kiesel@kiesel.law
                  archer@kiesel.law
                  koncius@kiesel.law
                  palmer@kiesel.law

               - and -

          Sanford Jossen, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SANFORD JOSSEN
          136 Main Street, Suite E
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (310) 546 9118
          Facsimile: (310) 546 3806


CANADA: Students File Class Action Over Ontario Faculty Strike
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lyle Adriano, writing for Insurance Business, reports that a
class-action lawsuit has been launched on behalf of students
affected by the ongoing college faculty strike in Ontario.

The lawsuit comes as the academic staff on strike have just
recently begun to vote on a contract offer.

Globalnews reported that about 12,000 Ontario college professors,
instructors, councillors and librarians have not been at work
since October 15, leaving hundreds of thousands of students out
of class.

The law firm Charney Lawyers filed the proposed class-action
against 24 of the province's colleges.  According to the firm, 14
students have come forward to potentially stand as representative
plaintiffs.

The lawsuit claims that the colleges allegedly breached contracts
with students by failing to provide vocational training and a
full term of classes.  The suit seeks full refunds for students
who choose not to continue their programs and refunds "equivalent
to the value of the lost instruction" for those who wish to
continue. [GN]


CASA SECURITY: Estrada Seeks OT & Minimum Wage under Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------------
CECILIA ESTRADA, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated employees, the Plaintiff, v. CASA SECURITY,
LLC, a California limited liability company; PIERRE ANGEL
BAQUERO, an individual, and DOES 1 through 250, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. BC688062 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 22, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime and minimum wage under the
California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, Defendant has regularly refused to
pay Plaintiff and Class members for all hours worked, whether
this was for regular time hours or overtime hours. In fact, at
the beginning of her employment Plaintiff was told by Defendant
Pierre Angel Baquero that she would not be paid for the first
week of work. She has still not been paid at all for that week or
for other weeks during which she worked for Defendants during her
employment. Other Class members were also not paid for their work
weeks and in fact employees have quit because Defendants refused
to pay for the hours the employees worked.

Additionally, Defendants refused to pay for overtime hours
worked. Despite Plaintiff and Class members regularly working
overtime, they were not paid for these hours and/or were not
paid, for them at the overtime rate. As such, during the course
of Plaintiff's and Class members' employment, Defendants failed
to properly compensate Plaintiff and the Class members for all
overtime hours worked in excess of eight hours per day and/or 40
hours per week as required by Labor Code.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary R. Carlin, Esq.
          Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq.
          Laurel N. Haag, Esq.
          Ian M. Silvers, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM LLP
          555 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 818
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 432 8933
          Facsimile: (562) 435 1656
          E-mail: gary@carlinbuchsbaum.com
                  brent@carlinbuchsbaum.com
                  laurel@carlinbuchsbaum.com
                  ian@carlinbuchsbaum.com


CASTLE CHECK: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks OT & Unpaid Wages under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH RODRIGUEZ and JOHN DOE, on behalf of themselves and
FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs, v. CASTLE CHECK
CASHING CORP., GEORGE CARBALLO, and JASON CARBALLO, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-09930 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 20, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime premium, unpaid wages due to
time-shaving, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

According to the complaint, from the start of her employment on
October 1, 2014, until March 1, 2016, the Plaintiff was
compensated at a base hourly rate of $9.00 per hour. Then, from
March 1, 2016 until January 2017, the Plaintiff was compensated
at a base hourly rate of $10.00. From January 2017 until July 11,
2017 (when Plaintiff's employment ended), Plaintiff was
compensated at a base hourly rate of $11.50. Throughout her
employment by Defendants, Plaintiff was not compensated for
regular and overtime hours that she worked each workweek, due to
a commonly applicable policy of time shaving. Specifically,
Defendants subjected Plaintiff to the following illegal
practices, which were also applicable to FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs and Class Members.

The Defendants operate a check cashing business under the common
trade name "Castle Check Cashing".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465 1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465 1181


CENTRAL STREET: Gardner Sues over Collection of Biometric Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALISSA GARDNER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CENTRAL STREET MANAGEMENT,
LLC and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-100, the Defendants, Case No. 2017-L-
013021 (Circuit Court of Cook County, Ill., Dec. 21, 2017), seeks
to recover statutory and actual damages for Defendants'
violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

The complaint alleges that Defendants illegally collected, stored
and used Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals'
biometric identifiers and biometric information without informed
written consent, in direct violation of BIPA.

Central Management is a commercial and residential property
management company that brings a well-rounded real estate
approach to our management services.[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@zhedriscollfirm.com


CENTURYLINK INC: IMG USA Securities Suit Moved to W.D. Louisiana
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Inter-Marketing Group U S A Inc.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. CenturyLink Inc. Glen F Post, III, R Stewart Ewing,
Jr., and David D Cole, the Defendants, and State of Oregon, on
behalf of Oregon Public Employee Retirement Fund, the Movant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-08234, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Louisiana (Monroe) on Dec. 20,
2017. The Western District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-
01648 to the proceeding.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of all
persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
CenturyLink's 7.60% Senior Notes, Series P, due 2039 ("7.60%
Senior Notes" or "Notes") during the period March 1, 2013 through
June 19, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The complaint alleges
that CenturyLink and certain of its officers and/or directors
made materially false or misleading statements during the Class
Period in press releases and filings with the SEC.

CenturyLink provides various communications services to
residential, business, wholesale and governmental customers in
the United States. It operates through two segments: Business and
Consumer. The Company offers broadband, Ethernet, colocation,
video entertainment and satellite digital television
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Bernard Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 N. Pennsylvania
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 235 1560
          Facsimile: (405) 239 2112
          E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Lyle Roberts, Esq.
          COOLEY (DC)
          1299 Pennsylvania Ave NW Ste 700
          Washington, DC 20004-2400
          Telephone: (202) 842 7855
          Facsimile: (202) 842 7899
          E-mail: lroberts@cooley.com

Attorneys for Movant State of Oregon, on behalf of Oregon Public
Employee Retirement Fund:

          Michael D Blatchley, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ ET AL (NY)
          1251 Ave of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 554 1400
          Facsimile: (212) 554 1444
          E-mail: michaelb@blbglaw.com


CENTURYLINK INC: No Fraud, Wrongdoing Found as Alleged in Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Gately, writing for Channel Partners, reports that
CenturyLink has concluded its independent committee investigation
into allegations of overbilling and overcharging for services,
and found no evidence of fraud or wrongdoing by any member of
management.

However, the findings do acknowledge mistakes and lack of
sufficient monitoring.

Class-action suits have been filed against CenturyLink in
Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon and
Washington, in addition to a suit filed by Minnesota Attorney
General Lori Swanson and numerous investor class-action suits.
They accuse CenturyLink of cramming or stuffing fees that
customers never agreed to for services.

During the past six months, the committee with independent
counsel from O'Melveny and Myers and forensic data analysts,
collected and searched more than 9.7 million documents as well as
4.3 terabytes of billing data consisting of more than 32 billion
billing records, according to CenturyLink. They also interviewed
more than 200 current and former employees, it said.

Mark Molzen, CenturyLink spokesman, tells Channel Partners his
company is "pleased that the investigation confirmed there was no
fraud or wrongdoing . . . and that cramming was neither
widespread nor condoned."

"We remain committed to maintaining an ethical business culture
based on our unifying principles, which include honesty and
integrity and a commitment to excellence," he said. "Our
principles are at the core of who we are as a company and we want
our customers and partners to feel that in every interaction with
us. Our focus is, and will continue to be, providing quality
products and a positive customer experience. We intend to
vigorously defend ourselves in the pending lawsuits."

In addition to finding no evidence of fraud or wrongdoing, the
committee's findings were:

   * Company management did not condone or encourage cramming,
and the evidence did not show that cramming was common at the
company; and when instances of cramming were found to have
occurred, the company took "reasonable actions to discipline
employees." However, the company's investment in consumer sales
monitoring was not "sufficiently effective" in proactively
detecting and quantifying potential cramming.

   * Some of CenturyLink's products, pricing and promotions were
"complex and caused confusion, and the resulting bills sometimes
failed to meet customer expectations."  Also, limitations in
ordering and billing software made it difficult to provide
customers with estimates of their bills and confirmation of
service letters that reflected all discounts, prorated charges,
taxes and fees.

   * Systems and human errors led to certain customers not
receiving an offered point-of-sale discount, and CenturyLink did
not fully address this issue in a timely manner for some
customers.

"The investigation confirmed my long-held belief that there was
no fraud or wrongdoing at the company and that cramming was
neither widespread nor condoned," said Glen Post, CenturyLink's
CEO. "However, we know there have been times when we haven't
provided our customers the experience they deserve. We have
identified a number of areas where we can improve the customer
experience and have already made significant progress in
addressing those areas." [GN]


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Rabinowitz Sues over Spam Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD RABINOWITZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL,
INC., CHIPOTLE SERVICES, LLC, AND CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL OF
COLORADO, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 9:17-cv-81382-RLR (S.D.
Fla., Dec. 21, 2017), seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendants'
illegal conduct; statutory damages on behalf of himself and
members of the class; and any other available legal or equitable
remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Defendants.

Aimed at protecting consumer privacy, the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, prohibits the use of "automatic telephone dialing
systems" to call cellular telephones. The TCPA bans nonemergency
"robocalls" i.e. telephone calls placed through an automatic
telephone dialer system, to cellular telephones unless the
recipient expressly consents to receive those calls, including
automatically sent text messages.

According to the complaint, on November 17, 2017, Plaintiff
Richard Rabinowitz began receiving unsolicited autodialed text
messages on his cellular telephone, which were placed by or on
behalf of Defendants. The text messages were sent as part of a
marketing campaign, the purpose of which was to advertise
Defendants' products and ordering services to a large number of
potential customers in a short period of time. In efforts to
increase the frequency of causing their cash registers to "ring,"
Defendants made consumers' cellular phones ring by sending
illegal marketing text messages providing different types of
"deals," "discounts" and "savings" for goods sold by Defendants
without first obtaining express written consent to send such
marketing text messages as required to do so under the TCPA.

In sum, Defendants knowingly and willfully violated the TCPA,
causing injuries to Plaintiff and members of the putative class,
including invasion of their privacy, aggravation, annoyance,
intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion.

Chipotle Mexican Grill is an American chain of fast casual
restaurants in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada,
Germany, and France, specializing in tacos and Mission-style
burritos.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott D. Owens, Esq.
          SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A.
          3800 S. Ocean Dr., Ste. 235
          Hollywood, FL 33019
          Telephone: (954) 589 0588
          Facsimile: (954) 337 0666
          E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com


CHOI'S POTISMAN: Torres Seeks Minimum & OT Wages under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
ALBERTO TORRES, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. CHOI'S POTISMAN CLEANER, INC. (d/b/a
POTISMAN CLEANERS), POTISMAN CLEANERS OF NEW YORK, INC. (d/b/a/
POTISMAN CLEANERS), POTISMAN CLEANERS, INC. (d/b/a/ POTISMAN
CLEANERS), HYUN SOOK CHOI and NATHAN BER, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-09963 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 21, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff worked at a full service laundry and cleaner
located at 1476 York Avenue, New York, New York, 10075, where he
ironed clothes. The Plaintiff regularly worked for Defendants in
excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage or
overtime compensation for any of the hours that he worked.

Rather, Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of
his hours worked, failed to pay Plaintiff Torres appropriately
for any hours worked over 40, either at the straight rate of pay,
or for any additional overtime premium. The Defendants' conduct
is extended beyond Plaintiff Torres to all other similarly
situated employees.

According to the complaint, Defendants maintained a policy and
practice of requiring Plaintiff Torres and other employees to
work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum
wage and overtime compensation required by federal and state law
and regulations.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd St., Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317 1200
          E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com


COLMA AUTO: Overcharged Car Buyers, Nour and Jamjoum Claim
----------------------------------------------------------
Fnish Nour and Naim Jamjoum individually; and, on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Colma Auto
Sales/Brokers Inc dba Elite Motors; DOE 1, an individual; DOES
2-6, individuals; and, Santander Consumer, Inc., an active
Illinois corporation; and, Does 1 through 500, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 17CIV05833 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 21, 2017),
allege that the Defendants overcharged them $575 in their
purchase of a used 2009 Mercedes-Benz VIN 4JGBF71E79A460964 for a
price of $19,500, in violation of the Automobile Sales Finance
Act.

The Retail Installment Sale Contract signed by the Plaintiffs,
fees charged them $390.00 for DMV Fees.  The registration card
Plaintiffs found in the glove compartment shows the previous
owner had already paid DMV Fees through November 2017, so only a
$15.00 transfer fee should have been charged to Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs also learned that the Seller paid a $200 referral
fee to a friend of Plaintiffs'(Rafat Abdelghani) for referring
Plaintiffs to Seller.  The RISC does not disclose the $200 charge
for the Bird Dog Fee buried in the sales price.

The Defendant is engaged in the business of buying and selling
automobiles to the general public.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Louis A. Liberty, Esq.
          LOUIS LIBERTY & ASSOCIATES
          553 Pilgrim Drive, Suite A
          Telephone: (650) 341 0300
          Facsimile: (650) 403 1783
          E-mail: lou@carlawyer.com


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Sued in New York Over "Flushable Wipes"
---------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Graf, writing for Law360, reports that major retailers
including Costco Wholesale Corp., Target Corp. and Wal-Mart
Stores Inc. manufacture and sell wipes that are misrepresented as
safe to flush and consequently damage sewage systems, claimed a
proposed class of sewage treatment plant operators on Dec. 4 in
New York federal court.

The Preserve at Connetquot Homeowners Association Inc., a New
York-based homeowners association that operates a sewage
treatment plant, argued the retailers sell "flushable" wipes that
clog or otherwise damage sewage treatment facilities. [GN]


CYAN INC: Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in Securities Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP wrote that on November 28, 2017, the U.S.
Supreme Court heard argument in Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County
Employees Retirement Fund, No. 15-1439, a case addressing whether
state courts have jurisdiction over class actions asserting
exclusively claims under the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities
Act").

The case began in June 2014, when certain purported purchasers of
Cyan's common stock brought a securities class action in
California state court against Cyan, certain of its officers and
directors, and the underwriters of its IPO, asserting violations
of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act.
Defendants argue that the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards
Act of 1998 ("SLUSA") amended the Securities Act's concurrent
grant of federal and state court jurisdiction to divest state
courts of jurisdiction over a putative class action asserting
exclusively Securities Act claims.  Plaintiffs argue that SLUSA
merely precludes certain state law securities class actions.
Acting as an amicus in support of Cyan, the Solicitor General has
taken the position that, under SLUSA, state courts have
concurrent jurisdiction over Securities Act class actions, but a
separate SLUSA provision should be interpreted as allowing
defendants to remove such actions from state court to federal
court.

During argument, the most active questioners were Justices
Sotomayor, Kagan, Breyer, Alito and Ginsburg.  Justices
Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer, and to a lesser extent Justice
Ginsburg, asked questions to Cyan suggesting skepticism of its
statutory interpretation and legislative intent arguments, as
well as of the Solicitor General's removal argument.  Justice
Sotomayor suggested that the aim of SLUSA was to ensure that
claims under federal securities laws or similar state laws be
adjudicated under federal substantive standards but not that they
be adjudicated exclusively in federal courts.  Justice Sotomayor
also observed a tension between the argument that SLUSA gives
exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts but at the same time
permits removal of such actions to federal courts.  Justice Kagan
suggested that Cyan's interpretation of both the jurisdictional
and removal provisions failed to read the statute as a whole, and
also noted that, in contrast to the Securities Act provisions
under review, in the relevant similar provisions affecting the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Congress spoke very clearly to
foreclose state court actions bringing such claims.  Justice
Breyer suggested that Cyan's and the Solicitor General's
arguments regarding the removal provision required the statute to
be read in an "unnatural" way. And Justice Ginsburg noted that if
Congress had intended to give exclusive jurisdiction to federal
courts, it could have clearly said so.

Justices Alito and Gorsuch asked questions challenging
Plaintiffs' interpretation, with Justice Gorsuch appearing to
express the most skepticism.  Both justices described the
relevant SLUSA provisions as "gibberish."  And Justice Alito
asked why, if a state court could not keep an action filed under
a state statute mirroring the Securities Act, Congress would
nevertheless allow a state court to entertain the "real thing" --
i.e., a Securities Act claim.

Finally, Justice Kennedy appeared to raise the possibility of
deciding the jurisdictional question, but deferring decision on
whether such actions can be removed to federal court, given that
the case at bar had not been removed (a point which Justice
Ginsburg had also suggested in questioning).  Plaintiffs
suggested that as a matter of jurisprudence this was "probably
the right thing to do."  Cyan, however, urged the Court to
resolve both issues because they are pressing and important.

A decision is expected before the Supreme Court's current term
ends in June 2018. [GN]


DALEY'S MEDICAL: Faces "Strader" Suit over Medical Records Access
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, GAINES STRADER, individually and as the representative
of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. DALEY'S
MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION INC., d/b/a BUD'S AMBULANCE, the
Defendant, Case No. 2017CH16754 (Cook Cty. Cir. Ct., Ill., Dec.
20, 2017), challenges Defendant's practice of unlawfully
representing that it is authorized to access statutorily
authorized medical record.  The case also balks at copying fees
charged by Defendant.  On behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff brings this case as a Class
action asserting claims of violation of the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, unjust enrichment,
and negligence.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          James M. Smith, Esq.
          BOCK LAW FIRM, LLC
          134 North La Salle Street, Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658-5500
          Facsimile: (312) 658-5555

               - and -

          Richard J. Doherty, Esq.
          LOG CABIN LEGAL SERVICES
          4031 N. Sacramento
          Chicago, IL 60618
          Telephone: (773) 592-4510


EAGLES BROTHERS: "Suazo" Suit Seeks OT Compensation under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
HORACIO SUAZO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. EMMANUEL AGUILAR REYNOSO d/b/a EAGLES
BROTHERS CONSTRUCTORS and OSCAR AGUILAR-REYNOSO d/b/a EAGLES
BROTHERS CONSTRUCTORS, the Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-03843
(S.D. Tex., Dec. 21, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Eagle Brothers Constructors did not
pay Suazo overtime "at a rate not less than one and one-half
times the regular rate at which [he was] employed." Instead,
Eagle Brothers Constructors paid Suazo at his straight time rate
for the hours that he worked over 40 in a workweek.  Eagle
Brothers knew or reasonably should have known that Suazo was not
exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA.  Eagle Brothers
failed to maintain accurate time and pay records for Suazo.

Eagle Brothers Constructors is a construction company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melissa Moore, Esq.
          Curt Hesse, Esq.
          Bridget Davidson, Esq.
          MOORE & ASSOCIATES
          Lyric Center
          440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 222 6775
          Facsimile: (713) 222 6739


EASTWESTPROTO: "Covarrublas" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------
BREANNA COVARRUBLAS, an individual, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. EASTWESTPROTO, INC.,
a California corporation; LIFELINE AMBULANCE, an entity of
unknown form; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. BC687834 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 20, 2017), alleges that
from at least four years prior to filing this lawsuit and
continuing to the present, Defendants have had a consistent
policy of failing to pay all wages fur and owed to Employees at
the time of their termination of within 72 hours of their
resignation, as required by California wage-and-hour laws. The
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, and each of them, violated
various provisions of the California Labor Code, relevant orders
of the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC), and California
Business and Professions Code.

The Plaintiff is a resident of California and, during the time
period relevant to this Complaint, was employed by Defendants as
a non-exempt hourly research coordinator within the State of
California.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff Breanna Covarrublas on behalf of herself
and others similarly situated:

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


EDGREN MOTOR: "Gallegos" Suit Seeks OT Pay under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------
ESTEBAN GALLEGOS, ALAN TUCHTENHAGEN, and DAVID J. ZBOYOVSKY, on
their own behalf and on behalf of all those similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. EDGREN MOTOR CO., INC. d/b/a AUTONATION HONDA
FEEMONT, AUTONATION, INC., and Does 1-10, the Defendants, Case
No. RG17886827 (S.D. Fla., Dec. 20, 2017), alleges that
Defendants compensated Plaintiffs and members of the class based
solely on a "piece rate" system of pay. Defendants assigned an
expected completion time to certain maintenance, repair, or
service tasks performed. Plaintiffs were compensated based on the
expected completion time designated by Defendants regardless of
how long it actually took to complete the task. Mechanics only
accrued hours for compensation when working on a task assigned
completion time, known as "flag hours" by Defendants. Plaintiff
and members of the class have worked overtime hours for
Defendants. They have not received full and correct compensation
for overtime worked.

The Defendants own and operate an automobile dealership that
sells vehicles and services and maintains the same. The Plaintiff
is a former employee of Defendants who had worked as a mechanic
at times relevant to this complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Caren P. Sencer, Esq.
          Caroline N. Cohen, Esq.
          David W.M. Fujimoto, Esq.
          Eric J. Wiesner, Esq.
          WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD
          1001 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 200
          Alameda, CA 94501


ETC INSTITUTE: Williams Seeks Regular & OT Wages under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRUCE WILLIAMS and TONY A HENNESSEY, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ETC INSTITUTE,
A+ STUDENT STAFFING, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. CGC-7-563308 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 22,
2017), seeks to recover wages for all hours worked, regular and
overtime wages, and additional pay for "split shift" work
pursuant to the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, ETC Institute did not provide
Plaintiffs and other surveyors with all promised remuneration and
all such remuneration is not set forth on the wage statements of
Plaintiffs or other similarly situated surveyors. Given this
failure, surveyors' wage statements do not accurately reflect the
regular rate of pay. As a consequence, Defendants did not
accurately reflect the overtime rate of pay on the wage
statements, as this is based on the regular rate of pay. By
failing to include the incentives in the regular rate of pay, and
therefore inaccurately calculating overtime, Defendants did not
properly pay the correct overtime rate in violation of California
Labor Code section.

ETC Institute is a full service call center for surveys.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robin G. Workman, Esq.
          Rachel E. Davey, Esq.
          WORKMAN LAW FIRM, PC
          177 Post Street, Suite 800
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 782 3660
          Facsimile: (415) 788 1028
          E-mail: robin@workmanlawpc.com
                  rachel@workmanlawpc.com


EXACTECH INC: "Rosenblatt" Suit Balks at Osteon Holdings Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN ROSENBLATT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. EXACTECH, INC., JAMES G.
BINCH, ALBERT H. BURSTEIN, W. ANDREW KRUSEN, JR., WILLIAM B.
LOCANDER, DAVID W. PETTY, WILLIAM PETTY, RICHARD C. SMITH, FERN
S. WATTS, OSTEON HOLDINGS, L.P., OSTEON MERGER SUB, INC., and TPG
CAPITAL, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00312-MW-GRJ (N.D.
Fla., Dec. 22, 2017), seeks to enjoin Defendants and all persons
acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating,
or closing a proposed transaction, and in the event defendants
consummate the Proposed Transaction, rescinding it and setting it
aside or awarding rescissory damages.

This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on
October 23, 2017, pursuant to which Exactech, Inc. will be taken
private by TPG Capital and its affiliates. On October 22, 2017,
Exactech's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an
agreement and plan of merger with Osteon Holdings, L.P. and
Osteon Merger Sub, Inc. Pursuant to the terms of the Original
Merger Agreement, shareholders of Exactech would receive $42.00
in cash for each share of Exactech stock they own.

In connection with the Original Merger Agreement, the Company's
founders and certain members of the Company's management entered
into a rollover and voting agreement with Parent, pursuant to
which the Rollover Shareholders agreed to vote all of their
shares of Company common stock, aggregating approximately 23.0%
of the issued and outstanding Company common stock, in favor of
the Proposed Transaction, and agreed to exchange a portion of
their shares for new equity securities in Parent.

On November 7, 2017, the Company received a proposal from a
private equity firm and certain of its affiliates to acquire 100%
of the Company's outstanding common stock for $49.00 per share in
cash - $7.00 per share higher than the merger consideration being
offered by TPG. Party A reaffirmed its proposal on November 14,
2017 and again on December 1, 2017. On December 3, 2017, the
Company entered into an amendment to the Original Merger
Agreement with Parent and Merger Sub, pursuant to which
shareholders of Exactech would now receive $49.25 in cash for
each share of Exactech stock they own.

In connection with the Amended Merger Agreement, the parties to
the Original Rollover Agreement entered into an amendment to the
Original Rollover Agreement pursuant to which the Rollover
Shareholders agreed to contribute to Parent an aggregate amount
of 2,711,584 shares of Company common stock they currently own,
representing approximately 18.8% of the outstanding Company
common stock, for equity securities of Parent. On December 4,
2017, defendants filed a Preliminary Proxy Statement with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection
with the Proposed Transaction.

Defendants also filed a Rule 13E-3 Transaction Statement in
connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Proxy Statement
recommends that the Company's stockholders vote in favor of the
Proposed Transaction. However, as set forth herein, the Proxy
Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed
Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and
misleading. Accordingly, plaintiff alleges herein that defendants
violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 in connection with the Proxy Statement.

Exactech develops, manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells
orthopedic implant devices, related surgical instrumentation, and
biologic services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cullin A. O'Brien, Esq.
          CULLIN O'BRIEN LAW, P.A.
          6541 N.E. 21st Way
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33308
          Telephone: (561) 676 5370

               - and -

          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
          Wilmington, DE 19803
          Telephone: (302) 295 5310

               - and -

          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (484) 324 6800


GENERAL MOTORS: Smith, et al. Sue over Defective Dashboards
-----------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled, James Smith, Robert Slover, Doug Hanson,
Marissa Little, Krista Newble, Valerie Connelly, Michael Strong,
Chris Moebus, Shane Kessinger, Justin Small, Stephen Young,
Andrew Fay, Emily Couch, Bryan Sweeney, Sarah Janke, Kelli
Byrnes, Dirk Homan, Daniel McCarthy, Rob Nestore, Guy Smith, Greg
T. Vallejos, Johnathan Bullard, Steven Conti, Diane Kuczkowski,
Kristy Marshall, Jeremy Peck, Kenneth Sutton, Sr., Peter
Thompson, Jan Byrd, Kacy Garner, Morris Leondar, and Gregory D.
Wiltshire the Plaintiffs, v. General Motors Company, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-14146-LJM-DRG (E.D. Mich., Dec. 22,
2017), concerns GM's campaign to foist vehicles with single panel
dash board installations which are inherently defective, prone to
crack, and create an unreasonable safety hazard on consumers
throughout the United States.

The complaint contends that consumers have paid GM more than a
billion dollars for GM's GMT900 truck platform series vehicles
which it touts as "dependable, longest-lasting," constructed with
"premium precise attention to detail and craftsmanship" GM's
representations were lies.

All GM Vehicles have Defective Dashboards that are designed,
manufactured, and/or installed in such a way that they will
crack. The cracks occur in GM Vehicles stored in all environments
and in substantially uniform locations and presentations on the
instrument panel. GM knew all this when it marketed and sold the
GM Vehicles. To this day, GM is engaged in a systematic campaign
to conceal the Defective Dashboards and the related safety risks-
falsely representing to customers that the cracks are merely
cosmetic.

The lawsuit contends that it comes as no surprise that GM has
hidden the Defective Dashboard from the public as the sale of GM
Vehicles has fueled its post-bankruptcy success. Consumers are
buying more GM Vehicles, pushing GM's 2017 first-quarter net
income to a record $2.6 billion.  GM's average vehicle sale price
is over $34,000, a full $3,000 above industry standard. Wall
Street analysts report that GM makes $10,000 or more on each GM
Vehicle. The Defective Dashboards reduce the GM Vehicles' value
and compromise the safe deployment of the airbags.

The lawsuit says, because GM has not remedied the defects in the
dashboards installed on the GM Vehicles, a customer who replaces
a Defective Dashboard would simply receive another Defective
Dashboard. The cost to replace the Defective Dashboard with
another Defective Dashboard, including parts and labor, can
exceed $2000 for Plaintiffs and class members. Worse still, GM
has failed and refused to cover the necessary repair and
replacement under its warranty. As a result of GM's practices,
Plaintiffs and the other Class members have suffered injury in
fact and have lost money or property, including economic damages.

General Motors, commonly known as GM, is an American
multinational corporation headquartered in Detroit that designs,
manufactures, markets, and distributes vehicles and vehicle
parts, and sells financial services. [BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Classes:

          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
          Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq.
          THE MILLER LAW FIRM, PC
          950 W. University Dr., Suite 300
          Rochester, Michigan 48307
          Telephone: (248) 841 2200
          Facsimile: (248) 652 2852
          E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
                  ssa@millerlawpc.com
                  dal@millerlawpc.com

               - and -

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Caroline F. Bartlett, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI,
          OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, New Jersey 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994 1700
          Facsimile: (973) 994 1744
          E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
                  cbartlett@carellabyrne.com

               - and -

          Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
          David R. Buchanan, Esq.
          Christopher L. Ayers, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          77 Water Street, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 584 0700
          Facsimile: (212) 584 0799
          E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com
                  dbuchanan@seegerweiss.com
                  cayers@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

          Paul J. Geller, Esq.
          Mark J. Dearman, Esq.
          Jason H. Alperstein, Esq.
          Ricardo J. Marenco, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: 561 750 3000
          Facsimile: 561 750 3364
          E-mail: pgeller@rgrdlaw.com
                  mdearman@rgrdlaw.com
                  jalperstein@rgrdlaw.com
                  rmarenco@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667 7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667 7056
          E-mail: jmeltzerk@ktmc.com


GIGAMON INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Notice is hereby given that Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, case No. 3:17-cv-06653, on
behalf of shareholders of Gigamon Inc. ("Gigamon" or the
"Company") (NYSE: GIMO) who have been harmed by Gigamon's and its
board of directors' (the "Board") alleged violations of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act") in connection with the proposed merger of the
Company with Elliott Management Corporation ("Elliott").

On October 26, 2017, Gigamon and Elliott jointly announced they
had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger ("Proposed
Merger") under which each outstanding share of Gigamon common
stock will be exchanged for $38.50 in cash (the "Merger
Consideration"), for a total value of approximately $1.6 billion.

If you wish to obtain information concerning this action, you can
do so by clicking here: www.faruqilaw.com/GIMOnotice.

The complaint alleges that the Preliminary Proxy Statement on a
Schedule 14A (the "Proxy") filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") on November 13, 2017, violates Sections 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act because it provides materially
incomplete and misleading information about the Company and the
Proposed Merger, including information concerning the Company's
financial projections and analysis, on which the Board relied to
recommend the Proposed Merger as fair to Gigamon shareholders.

Take Action

Plaintiff is represented by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a law firm with
extensive experience in prosecuting class actions, and
significant expertise in actions involving corporate fraud.
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, was founded in 1995 and the firm maintains
its principal office in New York City, with offices in Delaware,
California, Georgia, and Pennsylvania.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than 60 days from the date of this notice. Any member of
the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. If you wish to discuss this
action, or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact:

         Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
         James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
         FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
         685 3rd Avenue, 26th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Telephone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330
         E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
                 jwilson@faruqilaw.com [GN]


GLASPRO: Faces "Gomez" Suit over Lack of Meal and Rest Breaks
-------------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO GOMEZ, individually and on behalf of other individuals
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. S JOSEPH GREEN, an
individual; GP MERGER SUB, INC., d.b.a. GlasPro, a Delaware
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. BC687881 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 20, 2017), seeks relief
under THE California law to remedy Defendants' failure to allow
meal and rest period breaks in violation of the Industrial
Welfare Commissions Wage Orders and California Labor Code,
failure to furnish Plaintiff and members of the Class accurate,
itemized wage statements required by Labor Code upon payment of
wages, failure to pay compensation upon termination by the Labor
Code.

GP Merger Sub, Inc. was founded in 1988. The Company's line of
business includes the manufacturing of a range of products made
from glass.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Young W. Ryu, Esq.
          Kelly Kim, Esq.
          Gianna N. Liddy, Esq.
          LOYR, APC
          3130 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 402
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (888) 365 8686
          Facsimile: (800) 576 1170
          E-mail: young.ryu@loywr.com
                  kelly.kim@loywr.com
                  gianna.liddy@loywr.com


GOOGLE INC: Group Urges Court to Scuttle 'Safari Hack' Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for Media Post, reports that the advocacy
group Electronic Privacy Information Center is urging a federal
appellate court to scrap Google's $5.5 million settlement of a
class-action complaint alleging that it violated Safari users'
privacy.

"Under the terms, Google is allowed to continue its unlawful
conduct and the class members receive no monetary relief," EPIC
writes in papers that were accepted by the 3rd Circuit Court of
Appeals. The group adds that the trial judge improperly "rubber-
stamped" the settlement, while discounting legitimate criticisms
of the deal.

The settlement stemmed from allegations that Google circumvented
Safari users' no-tracking settings. Google resolved the class-
action claims by Google agreeing to donate more than $3 million
to six schools and nonprofits -- Berkeley Center for Law &
Technology, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard
University, Center for Democracy & Technology, Public Counsel,
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, and the Center for Internet &
Society at Stanford University. Those groups must agree to use
the money for projects related to online privacy. The lawyers who
brought the case will receive $1.925 million, but individual Web
users will not receive anything.

Class-action activist Theodore Frank challenged that settlement,
arguing that it doesn't provide any benefit to the consumers.
Frank, who founded the Washington-based Center for Class Action
Fairness, recently asked the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals to
vacate the settlement.

Among other arguments, he said the settlement was improper on the
grounds that Google had prior connections with at least four of
the six fund recipients.

Attorneys general from 11 states -- Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, Oklahoma, Rhode Island,
Tennessee, and Wisconsin -- also urged the 3rd Circuit to scuttle
the settlement, arguing that monetary damages should have been
distributed to consumers, not charities.

Google and the class-action lawyers who negotiated the deal urged
the appellate court to uphold the settlement.

"This Court and others have repeatedly approved class settlements
that give no direct monetary benefit to the class and have
recognized that a settlement need not provide direct monetary
benefits to the class to be fair, reasonable, and adequate,"
Google argued.

EPIC argues in its papers that the trial judge should have delved
into the whether the charities receiving settlement funds were
the best candidates for the funds.

"The lower court should not have approved this settlement without
first conducting a rigorous analysis into whether the allocated .
. . funds will actually benefit the class," EPIC argues.

The group also noted that there are other privacy organizations -
- including itself -- that weren't awarded settlement funds,
although they had brought FTC complaints regarding Google's
privacy practices.

The litigation centered on Google's involvement in the "Safari
hack," a privacy scandal that came to light in 2012 when
researcher Jonathan Mayer published a report stating that Google
(and other companies) circumvented Safari's default settings in
order to set tracking cookies. Google was then able to target ads
to those users based on their Web-browsing activity.

Google confirmed Mayer's report when it came out, and said it had
stopped tracking Safari users or would soon do so. News of the
hack also resulted in charges by the Federal Trade Commission and
other officials. Google ultimately agreed to pay $22.5 million to
settle with the FTC, and an additional $17 million to settle with
a group of state attorneys general. [GN]


GOOGLE INC: Judge Dismisses Gender Pay Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Ben Hancock, writing for The Recorder, reports that a state court
judge in San Francisco has dismissed a class action against
Google alleging the search giant placed women in lower-ranking
jobs and paid them less than male counterparts while giving
plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint.

San Francisco Superior Court Judge Mary Wiss ruled in an order on
Dec. 4 that lawyers at Altshuler Berzon and Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein failed to present facts establishing that
there is an "ascertainable" class of women affected by Google's
allegedly discriminatory hiring and pay practices.

"Here, plaintiff's proposed class is defined as 'all women
employed by Google in California,'" Wiss wrote, granting Google's
demurrer to the complaint. "This class definition does not
purport to distinguish between female employees who may have
valid claims against Google based upon its alleged conduct from
those who do not, and is therefore overbroad."

In addition, Wiss said none of the three former female Google
employees presented as lead plaintiffs in the case had adequately
made claims under the California Equal Pay Act. For two of the
plaintiffs -- Kelly Ellis and Kelli Wisuri -- the judge called
their allegations of performing "substantially equal or similar
work" as their male counterparts "conclusory."

Wiss said allegations relating to Ellis, a former software
engineer, wrongly focused on the qualifications and skills
required to perform a job, rather than the job itself.

The judge was also critical of the plaintiffs lawyers' reliance
on an analysis of compensation data by a division of the
Department of Labor that has investigated Google's pay practices,
saying they did not explain whether the study made comparisons
against "men who perform substantially similar work under similar
working conditions."

James Finberg, Esq. -- jfinberg@altshulerberzon.com -- of
Altshuler Berzon, one of the lead attorneys for the plaintiffs,
said in an email on Dec. 5 they intend to file an amended
complaint by Jan. 3 "that addresses the court's concerns and
makes clear that Google violates the California Equal Pay Act by
paying women less than men for substantially equal work in nearly
every job classification."

The lawsuit was filed not long after the release of an internal
memo written by a Google engineer who, among other things, argued
that women are not biologically suitable for work in the
technology industry and decried Google's efforts to level the
playing field. The engineer, James Damore, was fired after the
memo was made public and went viral.

The case, Ellis et al v. Google, accuses the Mountain View
company of paying women at all levels less than men in comparable
positions, assigning women lower-tier jobs with lower pay and
compensation than men, and promoting women less frequently. The
lawsuit also claims Google failed to correct these issues even
after being made aware of them.

Google is represented by Paul Hastings partners Barbara Brown and
Zachary Hutton in the case. They had called the class claims
"generic" and said the number of would-be class members was "a
moving target" in papers moving to dismiss the case.

Gina Scigliano, a spokeswoman for Google, said in a statement:
"As we said before, we work really hard to create a great
workplace for everyone, and to give everyone the chance to thrive
here. If we ever see individual discrepancies or problems, we
work to fix them." [GN]


HARVEY WEINSTEIN: 6 Women Sue in Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Hadas Gold, writing for Local 10 News, reports that a group of
women who have accused Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein of
sexual harassment and abuse filed a class action lawsuit against
the producer, his company Miramax and their board members for
what they allege is organized criminal behavior to cover up
Weinstein's actions for years.

The six women filed the suit in the Southern District of New York
on December 6, saying they are serving as a proxy for the
"hundreds of other women in the entertainment industry who
suffered false imprisonment, rape and other instances of
harassment."

"Harvey Weinstein is a predator. Bob (Weinstein) knew it. The
board knew it. The lawyers knew it. The private investigators
knew it. Hollywood knew it. We knew it. Now the world knows it,"
the plaintiffs said in a joint statement released on December 6.

The defendants, the women said in a statement, "colluded together
to perpetuate and conceal Weinstein's widespread sexual
harassment and assaults." The fourteen counts include "witness
tampering, mail and wire fraud, assault, civil battery, negligent
supervision and retention, and intentional infliction of
emotional distress."

Louisette Geiss, Katherine Kendall, Zoe Brock, Sarah Ann Masse,
Melissa Sagemiller and Nannette Klatt are suing Weinstein, his
company Miramax, his brother Bob Weinstein, and former Weinstein
Company board members Dirk Ziff, Tim Sarnoff, Marc Lasry, Tarak
Ben Ammar, Lance Maerov, Richard Koenigsberg, Jeff Sackman, James
Dolan and Paul Tudor Jones.

The six plaintiffs provided details of Weinstein's alleged
harassment and assault, before going on to cite what they say was
essentially "racketeering" in order to cover up his misdeeds. The
lawsuit cites several media reports that exposed Weinstein's
alleged behavior, including articles from the New Yorker and one
published from the New York Times that detailed how the producer
procured a network of journalists and associates who helped keep
his actions from going public.

Weinstein has denied any instances of "non-consensual" sex and
has denied that there were ever any "acts of retaliation."
Weinstein's representatives did not respond to CNN's request for
comment.

"We hope Mr. Weinstein's legal and PR teams decide to change
their tactics and submit a full mea culpa and admission of the
wrongs perpetrated by both him and his enablers. We hope the
board -- particularly Robert Weinstein -- feels the full weight
of the secrets they kept. It is our fervent hope that these men
will choose to go down in history as redemptive characters, not
as men who helped cover up rape culture," the plantiffs said in a
statement.

Miramax said its current iteration has been independent of the
Weinsteins for more than 10 years.

"Miramax joins the entire film community in condemning Harvey
Weinstein and his unspeakable actions," a spokesperson said.
"Miramax has been completely independent of Harvey -- since he
and Bob Weinstein left The Walt Disney Company to found The
Weinstein Company. Twelve years and two ownership changes later,
Miramax is a very different company. We at Miramax are proud of
that difference."

A spokeswoman for Dolan, who is also the owner of the New York
Knicks, said they were still reviewing the complaint and did not
have a comment except to state that "Mr. Dolan is confident that
he acted appropriately in all matters relating to his time on the
Weinstein board."

Lasry, who is co-owner of the Milwaukee Bucks, declined to
comment on the lawsuit.

A spokesperson for Jones said he had no comment on the lawsuit.
Earlier on December 6, Jones sent a note to his staff, which his
spokesperson shared with CNN, saying he only learned about the
allegations surrounding Weinstein when media reports first came
out.

"They were 100% a surprise to me," Jones wrote. "I joined the
Weinstein Company Board as an unpaid, outside member in late
2015, after the internal company debate about Harvey's contract
renewal. I never knew about those discussions or any of the
revelations until they began to surface publicly, and I resigned
two days later."

Bob Weinstein, Sarnoff, Ben Ammar, Maerov, Koenigsberg, Sackman
or their representatives did not respond to requests for comment.
CNN was unable to reach Ziff. [GN]


HARVEY WEINSTEIN: Law Firms File Sexual Harassment Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys from Hagens Berman and The Armenta Law Firm are
representing a proposed class of hundreds of actresses who
suffered sexual assault, false imprisonment, battery, rape and
other heinous sexual acts at the hands of Harvey Weinstein, in a
class-action lawsuit filed on December 6, 2017.

The plaintiffs bringing the case were lured by Miramax or TWC
employees and isolated with Weinstein at industry events, hotel
rooms, Weinstein's home, office meetings and/or auditions or to
discuss involvement in a project.  The lawsuit filed against
Weinstein, Miramax, The Weinstein Company Holdings and the
members of its Board of Directors states that these entities
colluded together to perpetuate and conceal Weinstein's
widespread sexual harassment and assaults.

The lawsuit's six plaintiffs -- Louisette Geiss, Katherine
Kendall, Zoe Brock, Sarah Ann Masse, Melissa Sagemiller and
Nannette Klatt -- issued a joint statement.

The lawsuit, filed Dec. 6, 2017, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York states that Miramax and The
Weinstein Company (which Weinstein co-founded) facilitated
Weinstein's organized pattern of predatory behavior, equating to
an enterprise that violates the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, commonly referred to as the RICO Act, the same
law brought against members of the Mafia for organized criminal
behavior.

The suit's six plaintiffs serve as a proxy for the proposed class
of hundreds of other women in the entertainment industry who
suffered false imprisonment, rape and other instances of
harassment.  Each of the women was separately and systematically
lured into isolating and intimidating environments by Weinstein,
under false pretenses of industry-related meetings.  They were
assaulted, imprisoned in hotel rooms, airplanes and his home, and
faced career-ending threats if they refused his unwanted advances
and requests.  In the instance of plaintiff, Sarah Ann Thomas,
"Weinstein conducted the interview in his underwear, embraced
Thomas in a sexual manner, and did not give her the job when she
did not take him up on his sexual propositions."

"Weinstein's widespread sexual misconduct did not occur without
the help of others," the suit states.  "Rather, over time,
Weinstein enlisted the aid of other firms and individuals to
facilitate and conceal his pattern of unwanted sexual conduct.
This coalition of firms and individuals became part of the
growing 'Weinstein Sexual Enterprise,' a RICO enterprise."

The lawsuit brings various charges against Weinstein, his
companies, and members of The Weinstein Company's Board of
Directors for violating the RICO Act, witness tampering, mail and
wire fraud, assault, civil battery, negligent supervision and
retention, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

If you were in any way involved in discussions of projects with,
or auditioned for Harvey Weinstein, met with him at industry
events, or your meetings with him were set up by Miramax or The
Weinstein Company employees, find out more about the lawsuit.
Hagens Berman's attorneys achieved a nationwide sexual harassment
settlement on behalf of 16,000 women and also tried the first
ever sexual harassment case in Washington state in 1985.

"These separate entities all worked in unison to make sure Harvey
Weinstein's unforgivable acts were swept under the red carpet,"
said Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman.  "This
lawsuit seeks to hold Weinstein, his business, his billionaire
friends who posed as Directors, and Miramax accountable for their
actions with the full extent of the law.  We want justice."

"Our clients have bravely chosen to stand up to this organized
pattern of behavior that has tragically damaged the lives and
careers of countless individuals," Berman added.  "Hollywood take
note: Harvey Weinstein is not the only sexual predator. Our
clients are taking a stand to effect industry change."

The suit seeks retribution for class members' loss of work
opportunities and devastating damage to their careers, the
damages for which can be tripled under RICO law.  Plaintiffs also
seek damages for the significant physical and emotional distress
they endured then, and continue to endure now,

The suit highlights that at all times, Weinstein's victims and
those who met to discuss projects or audition for him "operated
under duress and the threat of being blacklisted" by Weinstein
and major producers at Miramax if they refused, or spoke up.

Weinstein's Sexual Harassment Enterprise

The lawsuit states that Weinstein and the companies he co-founded
and their board of directors worked in unison with many other
participants across various industries, and that this enterprise
cover-up grew over time as Weinstein's actions became more
widespread and harder to conceal.  Other participants named in
the lawsuit include corporate risk and intelligence companies,
lawyers and law firms that worked actively to keep news of
Weinstein's sexual harassment from being published, as well as
other members of the entertainment industry.

"We intend to uncover additional entities that were involved in
the continued cover-up of Weinstein's sexual harassment through
the discovery phase of the lawsuit," Berman said.

The suit highlights reports from The New Yorker detailing
"Weinstein's Army of Spies" that Weinstein engaged to harass,
threaten, extort, investigate and mislead his victims and the
media to prevent the prosecution, reporting or disclosure of his
sexual misconduct.  This Army was unleashed just this past summer
to pose as a fake journalist and contact Plaintiff Katherine
Kendall, causing significant additional distress.  These
enterprise members also destroyed and concealed records and other
evidence, the complaint says.

The suit detail's Weinstein's vast power, success and control in
the entertainment industry, protected by an enforced code of
silence and contracts barring criticism of the Weinstein Company
and its leaders.

The power Weinstein wielded and his ability to blacklist
actresses were so legendary that it was the rule in the
entertainment industry that actresses needed to acquiesce to
Weinstein to succeed, the suit states, detailing media accounts
of actresses being "iced out" and blacklisted after denying
Weinstein's advances.  The complaint states: "This uniform
response to those who challenged Weinstein's behavior . . .
actually and reasonably placed class members under duress and
induced them to forebear asserting their legal rights in response
to Weinstein's actions."

Recent news headlines have brought these heinous acts to the
forefront, and many victims have bravely stepped forward to tell
their stories.  Hagens Berman and The Armenta Law Firm continue
the fight, working to help achieve justice for those who have
been victim to sexual harassment, and affect systemic change
throughout the industry.  Tell us about your case.

                        About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- https://www.hbsslaw.com -- is
a consumer-rights class-action law firm with 11 offices across
the country.  The firm has been named to the National Law
Journal's Plaintiffs' Hot List eight times. [GN]


HARVEY WEINSTEIN: Suit Ties Two Law Firms to Sexual Enterprise
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for The American Lawyer, reports that a
newly filed racketeering lawsuit claims several law firms,
including K&L Gates and Boies Schiller Flexner, were key
participants in an alleged scheme to cover up widespread sexual
misconduct on the part of disgraced Hollywood producer Harvey
Weinstein.

Six women, represented by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, filed a
proposed class action in Manhattan federal court on Dec. 6,
accusing Weinstein, the Weinstein Co., the company's board
members, Miramax Film Corp. and others of violating the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.  The complaint
parallels a similar one filed in November in California, with
both complaints alleging that advisers and others in Weinstein's
orbit -- referred to as members of a "Weinstein Sexual
Enterprise" -- helped "facilitate and conceal" a pattern of
unwanted sexual conduct perpetrated by the film producer.

Prominent litigator David Boies and his law firm Boies Schiller
had already been in the public spotlight over his work for
Weinstein following a New Yorker report that the lawyer
contracted with an Israeli private intelligence agency, Black
Cube, as it was trying to derail a potential New York Times story
about Weinstein's predatory behavior toward women.  That scrutiny
continued when Boies' actions came up again in a lengthy New York
Times article looking at people who helped Weinstein keep his
misconduct under wraps.

But the successive RICO suits also suggest that the fallout from
the Weinstein scandal is expanding to include other legal
advisers.

Although it does not specifically name lawyers or law firms as
defendants, the Dec. 6 complaint casts the lawyers and law firms
surrounding Weinstein -- including Boies Schiller, K&L Gates,
U.K.-based BCL Burton Copeland, and Israel-based Gross,
Kleinhendler, Hodak, Halevy, Greenberg & Co. -- as central
figures in the alleged scheme to cover up his misconduct.  The
firms are described as "co-conspirators" along with others that
included Weinstein's business associates and private intelligence
firms.

"The law firm participants provided cover and shield to the
Weinstein participants by contracting with the intelligence
participants on behalf of the Weinstein participants and
permitting the Weinstein participants to protect evidence of
Weinstein's misconduct under the guise of the attorney-client
privilege or the doctrine of attorney work product when that was
not the case," the complaint said.  "The law firm participants
also approved the intelligence participants' 'operational
methodologies,' which were illegal."

Representatives for the law firms did not immediately respond to
requests for comment. Previously, Boies Schiller provided a
statement to affiliate publication The Recorder indicating that
it would refrain from commenting on Weinstein-related matters in
connection with a request from the producer's current defense
lawyer, Benjamin Brafman. [GN]


HNL AUTOMOTIVE: Martins Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
LU1Z FELIPE MARTINS, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. HNL AUTOMOTIVE INC. dba
HOOMAN NISSAN OF LONG BEACH, a Delaware corporation and DOES
1-20, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC687400 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Dec. 20, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages and unpaid
overtime wages in violations of the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have failed to pay overtime
wages for all overtime hours worked, failed to provide paid rest
periods, violated Labor Code, and conducted unfair business
practices.[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@verumla.com

               - and -

          Paul Denis, Esq.
          Ethan Rasi, Esq.
          DENIS & RASI, PC
          38 Corporate Park
          Irvine, CA 92606
          Telephone: (714) 242 4557
          Facsimile: (213) 443 9601


INC RESEARCH: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, reminds investors that a
class action lawsuit has been filed against of INC Research
Holdings, Inc. ("INC Research" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: INCR)
and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired INC Research securities between
May 10, 2017, and November 9, 2017, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case
by visiting the firm's site: http://www.bgandg.com/incr.

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

On August 1, 2017, INC Research and inVentiv Health, Inc.
("inVentiv Health") announced the completion of a merger between
the two companies.  On November 9, 2017, INC Research reported
its first financial results after combining with inVentiv Health.
The Company's combined results were negatively impacted by
merger-related expenses, an impairment charge and increased
amortization expenses.  Following this news, INC Research stock
dropped $16.35 per share, or 28.43%, to close at $41.15 on
November 9, 2017.  The stock price continued to drop over the
next three trading sessions, closing on November 14, 2017 at
$34.35 per share, a total decline of $23.15 per share, or 40.3%.

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

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/incror you may contact Peretz Bronstein,
Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484.  If you
suffered a loss in INC Research you have until February 2, 2018
to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve
as a lead plaintiff.

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


INSTALLED BUILDING: "Arcos" Suit Moved to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jesus Arcos, Martin Arcos, and
Christian Ortiz, as individuals, and on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Installed
Building Products, LLC, a Delaware Corporation; OJ Insulation
Holdings, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; OJ Insulation L.P., a
Delaware limited partnership; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
the Defendants, Case No. 37-02017-00043624-CU-CTL, was removed
from the Superior Court of California, San Diego County, to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San
Diego) on Dec. 20, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:17-cv-02542-BEN-JLB to the proceeding. The case is assigned
to the Hon. Judge Roger T. Benitez.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher Alexander Olsen, Esq.
          OLSEN LAW OFFICES
          1010 Second Ave., Suite 1835
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 550 9352
          Facsimile: (619) 923 2747
          E-mail: caolsen@caolsenlawoffices.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          R. Brian Dixon, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          650 California Street, 20th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108-2693
          Telephone: (415) 677 3194
          Facsimile: (415) 743 6551
          E-mail: bdixon@littler.com


JACKSONVILLE, FL: Fairway Oaks Class-Action Lawsuit to Continue
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Johnson, writing for News 4 Jax, reports that despite an
effort by the city of Jacksonville to have it dismissed, a class-
action lawsuit over broken foundations, rusting doors and mold at
85 HabiJax homes in Northwest Jacksonville will move forward.

More than a dozen people who live in the Fairway Oaks community
showed up at a hearing December 7, saying their homes are
substandard and built on an old dump site. In recent years, the
I-TEAM has documented their complaints, including cracked
foundations, rusted doors and mold.

"My concrete slabs are all cracked up and nails are falling out
of my ceiling, and that was happening to my neighbors," resident
Shirley Dempsey said. "So, we asked Habitat to let us go because
our homes are sinking and because they're sinking. They're not
livable."

Residents said they've been dealing with problems with their
homes for about 10 years and they want money to move out. Not
only are their complaints about the structures, they said there
are health problems with their children.

Judge Karen Cole, who is hearing the case, said she volunteered
on the project and helped hang siding during the build 17 years
ago. Despite that, she said it won't affect her objectivity.

Neither side had an objection to her staying on the case.
Residents said that means she'll know first-hand that these homes
are substandard.

Cole did not throw out the suit December 7, but she did ask the
resident's attorney to amend the lawsuit. While this will delay
the case, the residents said they've waited for a decade and they
are willing to wait a little longer.

"It's been a long time coming. Been a real long time coming,"
resident Nathaniel Borden said of December 7's ruling. "Now we're
hoping this is the start of the justice that is due to us."

The city's attorney said he asked that the case be dismissed
because the residents' lawsuit was filed with many factual
errors. [GN]


KERING BRANDS: Potential Securities Fraud Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
The Fashion Law reports sales may be way up for Kering brands,
thanks, in large part to Alessandro Michele's Gucci, but legal
troubles seem to be closing in on the Paris-based conglomerate,
according to a number of recent reports. In addition to Gucci
being the latest fashion brand to come under the microscope of
Italian tax authorities in connection with claims of tax evasion,
the brand's parent company may soon be on the receiving end of a
class action lawsuit over "concerns [that] Kering and certain of
its officers and/or directors [may] have engaged in securities
fraud or other unlawful business practices" in connection with
that tax scandal.

According to an alert sent out Pomerantz LLP, "On December 2,
2017, Reuters reported that Italian tax police had visited the
offices of Guccio Gucci SpA ("Gucci"), a subsidiary of Kering, in
connection with a tax evasion probe." The New York-based law
firm, which is known for its initiation of class action lawsuits
on behalf of "defrauded investors and consumers," further stated,
"On this news, Kering's American Depositary Receipt price fell
$0.55, or 1.22%, to close at $44.15 on December 4, 2017, the
following trading day."

As a result of the pending tax evasion probe and the subsequent
drop in Kering stock prices, Pomerantz states that it is
"currently investigating claims on behalf of investors of
Kering," which is traded on the Euronext NV European stock
exchange, and is actively soliciting individuals that would like
to act as lead plaintiffs "on behalf of a class of investors who
purchased or acquired Kering securities."

Pomerantz has represented plaintiffs in class action suits
against Etsy, after "numerous news outlets, including Bloomberg
and the Associated Press, reported that Gil Luria, an equity
analyst at Wedbush Securities, issued a note downgrading Etsy to
'Underperform' [in May 2015]. In the note, Luria alleged that
more than 5 percent of merchandise sold on Etsy's platform were
either counterfeit or violated trademark protections." It has
also initiated matters against Skechers, J. Jill, and Lululemon,
among others.

There is no guarantee that the firm's investigation and call for
plaintiffs will definitely result in litigation, but there is
certainly a chance, should any current stockholders take the
bait.

Neither Kering nor Pomerantz LLP responded to a request for
comment. [GN]


LA LIVE THEATRE: Jones Seeks Unpaid OT & Wages under Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------------
MAYRA JONES, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LA LIVE
THEATRE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; L.A. ARENA
COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; ANSCHUTZ
ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC., a Colorado corporation; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC687908 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Dec. 21, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and
unpaid minimum wages under the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants knew or should have known
that Plaintiff and class members were entitled to meal periods in
accordance with the Labor Code or payment of one additional hour
of pay at their regular rates of pay when they were not provided
with timely, uninterrupted, 30 minute meal periods and that
Plaintiff and class members were not provided with all meal
periods or payment of one additional hour of pay at their regular
rates of pay when they did not receive a timely, uninterrupted,
30 minute meal period.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amab Banerjee, Esq.
          Brandon Brouillette, Esq.
          Ruhandy Glezakos, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556 4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943 0396
          E-mail: Arnab.Banerjee@capstonelawyers.com
                  Brandon.Brouillette@capstonelawyers.com
                  Ruhandy.Glezakos@capstonelawyers.com


LENDING BIZ: Scoma Chiropractic Sues over Unsolicited Fax
---------------------------------------------------------
SCOMA CHIROPRACTIC, P.A., a Florida corporation, individually and
as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons,
the Plaintiff, v. EMILY HERNANDEZ d/b/a LENDING BIZ SOLUTIONS, an
individual, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00707-UA-CM (M.D.
Fla., Dec. 20, 2017), alleges that Plaintiff did not give prior
express invitation or permission to Defendant to send fax. The
Defendant faxed the same and other unsolicited facsimiles without
the required opt-out language to Plaintiff and at least 40 other
recipients or sent the same and other advertisements by fax with
the required opt-out language but without first receiving the
recipients' express invitation or permission and without having
an established business relationship as defined by the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991 and its regulations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368 1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368 1501
          E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com


LIBERTY MOVING: Faces "Mendizabal" Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Liberty Moving &
Storage Co. The case is captioned as Maria Mendizabal, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Liberty Moving & Storage Co., Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-
cv-10074 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 22, 2017).

Liberty Moving is a long distance moving company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
          JOSEPH H MIZRAHI LAW PC
          337 Avenue W Suite 2f
          Brooklyn, NY 11223
          Telephone: (917) 299 6612
          Facsimile: (347) 665 1545
          E-mail: jmizrahilaw@gmail.com


LIVE VENTURES: Securities Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Live Ventures Incorporated (Nasdaq:LIVE), a diversified holding
company, on Dec. 6 disclosed that the plaintiff voluntarily
dismissed the securities class action lawsuit against the company
following the company's filing of a motion that the case be
dismissed because it lacked a valid legal and factual basis.

No fees or settlements or other form of payments were made to the
plaintiff in connection with this dismissal whatsoever.

The plaintiff based their complaint on allegations that were cut
and pasted from what the company believes is a bogus internet
article.  The company's motion to dismiss showed, among other
things, that:

   i. the statements of the company alleged to be false by the
plaintiff were in fact all true,

  ii. the company did not engage in any unlawful activity to
promote its stock,

iii. our CEO, Jon Isaac, purchased many shares of the company's
stock on the open market during the time when the plaintiff
alleged that the company was promoting its stock (if the company
had been promoting its stock, one would expect the CEO to have
sold, not bought, during this period),

  iv. the company did not pay the stock analyst discussed in the
internet article to promote or provide coverage of the company,
and

   v. the company did not author the statements made by that
analyst and, therefore, cannot be liable for those statements.

"This is a great victory for the company.  We have been confident
from the outset that plaintiff's case was without merit, and
plaintiff's voluntary dismissal of this baseless lawsuit
validates our position," said Jon Isaac, Live Ventures' President
and Chief Executive Officer.

Live Ventures and the other named defendants are represented by
Doug Greene of Lane Powell PC.  The class action lawsuit
referenced was filed on May 5, 2017 in the United States District
Court for the District of Nevada (case no. 2:17-cv-01258-RFB-
GWF).

               About Live Ventures Incorporated

Live Ventures Incorporated is a diversified holding company with
several wholly owned subsidiaries and a strategic focus on
acquiring profitable companies that have demonstrated a strong
history of earnings power.  Live Ventures Incorporated provides,
among other businesses, marketing solutions that boost customer
awareness and merchant visibility on the Internet.  The company
operates a deal engine, which is a service that connects
merchants and consumers via an innovative platform that uses geo-
location, enabling businesses to communicate real-time and
instant offers to nearby consumers.  Through its subsidiary,
Marquis Industries, the company operates as a specialty, high-
performance yarns manufacturer and hard-surfaces re-seller.
Marquis Industries, which is a top-10 high-end residential carpet
manufacturer in the United States, utilizes its state-of-the-art
yarn extrusion capacity to market monofilament textured yarn
products to the artificial turf industry.  Marquis is the only
manufacturer in the world that can produce certain types of yarn
prized by the industry.  Through its subsidiary Vintage Stock,
Inc., an award-winning entertainment company, the company is a
retailer of movies, classic and new video games, music,
collectible comics and toys.  Vintage Stock has the ability to
special order and ship product worldwide to the customer's
doorstep.  [GN]


MAJOR LEAGUE: Supreme Court Declines to Hear Minor Leaguers' Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the Supreme Court declined to
hear a lawsuit filed by minor league baseball players accusing
Major League Baseball of colluding to suppress wages, leaving
intact a District Court ruling that dismissed the case.

In a one-sentence announcement on Dec. 4, the Supreme Court said
it would not accept Miranda v. Selig, a suit filed by four minor
leaguers in December 2014 alleging MLB's hiring and employment
policies violated antitrust laws by restraining competition among
teams and illegally depressing minor league salaries.

U.S. District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. dismissed the case the
following September, citing the antitrust exemption granted
professional baseball by the Supreme Court in 1922 and the
failure of Congress to alter it for minor leaguers in the Curt
Flood Act of 1998

Judge Gilliam's decision was upheld this June in a unanimous
decision by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals: Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas, Ferdinand F. Fernandez and
Mary H. Murguia.

Another federal lawsuit brought by a group of minor leaguers,
Senne v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, could go to
trial in the next few years.  That case has been certified as a
class action for minor leaguers who played in a California
league, instructional league or extended spring training since
February 2011 and argues MLB has violated minimum wage laws.  MLB
is appealing the class-action certification. [GN]


MDL 2800: "Peters" Suit vs. Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Christopher Peters, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Equifax Information Services, LLC and Does 1 through 10
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-01634, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia (Atlanta) MDL 2800, on Dec. 22, 2017. The
Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-
cv-05381-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: "Appel" Suit vs. Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Dawn Appel, Jody Burgstahler,
Kevin Burgstahler, Robert Etten, Jennifer Harris, and Glenn
Jaspers, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Equifax Inc., a Georgia corporation,
the Defendants, Case No. 0:17-cv-04488, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta), on
Dec. 22, 2017. The Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05378-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: "Astor" Suit vs Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Timothy Astor, Allan Rozenzweig,
Carolyn Killings, and Sharon Souza, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Equifax, Inc.,
Equifax Information Services, Inc., and Equifax Information
Services LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 6:17-cv-01653, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia (Atlanta) MDL 2800, on Dec. 22, 2017. The Northern
District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05368-
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: "Baker" Suit vs Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jason Baker, on behalf of himself
and all those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Equifax Inc.,
a Georgia corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 0:17-cv-04655,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia (Atlanta), on Dec. 22, 2017. The Northern District of
Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05380-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: "Cadwallader" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Brian A. Cadwallader and Marty
Super, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. Equifax, Inc. and Equifax Information Services
LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 0:17-cv-04640, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
(Atlanta), on Dec. 22, 2017. The Northern District of Georgia
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05379-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: "Henderson" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Joseph Henderson, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Equifax, Inc. and Equifax Information Services LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 0:17-cv-04289, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta), on
Dec. 22, 2017. The Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05377-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: "Gibson" Suit vs Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Troy K. Gibson and Kamel Khaddar
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Equifax, Inc. and Equifax Information Services LLC,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00466, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) MDL
2800, on Dec. 22, 2017. The Northern District of Georgia Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05358-TWT to the proceeding. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. The lead
case is Case No. 1:17-cv-05004-TWT.

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


MDL 2800: "House" Suit vs. Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jesse House, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Equifax,
Inc. and Equifax Information Services LLC, Case No. 4:17-cv-
00392, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Iowa, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) MDL 2800, on Dec. 22,
2017. The Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:17-cv-05376-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: "Irwin" Suit vs. Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Michael Irwin, Individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated California citizens,
the Plaintiff, v. Equifax Inc., a Georgia corporation, the
Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-05735, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
(Atlanta) MDL 2800, on Dec. 22, 2017. The Northern District of
Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05360-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: "Mobbs" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Robert Mobbs, On behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Equifax Inc., a Georgia corporation, and Equifax Information
Services LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-05815, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) MDL 2800, on Dec. 22,
2017. The Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:17-cv-05361-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: "Prejean" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Brett N.J. Prejean and Theresa M.
Galpin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Equifax Inc., a Georgia corporation,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00468, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) MDL
2800, on Dec. 22, 2017. The Northern District of Georgia Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05367-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: "Taenzer" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled York Taenzer, Marilyn Dorsey,
Nicole Grafton, and Michael Nehring, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Equifax Inc., a
Georgia corporation and Equifax Information Services LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00349, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) MDL
2800, on Dec. 22, 2017. The Northern District of Georgia Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05375-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: "Branch" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Michael Branch, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Equifax Inc., a Georgia corporation, the Defendants, Case No.
5:17-cv-05429, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) MDL 2800, on Dec.
21, 2017. The Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:17-cv-05343-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:

          Cadio Zirpoli, Esq.
          Richard Alexander Saveri, Esq.
          SAVERI & SAVERI
          111 Pine Street, Suite 1700
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 217 6810
          Facsimile: (415) 217 6813


MDL 2800: "Crow" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Andrew Crow, Jennifer Saavedra,
Lauren Hoffman Taylor, Stephanie Patrick, John Kennedy Bailey,
Regional Manager Kevin O'Brien, Sarah O'Brien, Lorraine Plante,
and Stephen Plante, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Equifax Inc., a Georgia
corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-05355, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) MDL 2800, on Dec. 21,
2017. The Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:17-cv-05340-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:

          Cari C. Laufenberg, Esq.
          Derek W. Loeser, Esq.
          Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
          Matthew J. Preusch, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK, L.L.P
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623 1900
          E-mail: claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com
                  dloeser@kellerrohrback.com


MDL 2800: "Goldweber" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Asha Goldweber, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Equifax Inc., a Georgia corporation, the Defendants, Case No.
5:17-cv-05586, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) MDL 2800, on Dec.
21, 2017. The Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:17-cv-05347-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:

          Noah M. Schubert, Esq.
          Robert C. Schubert, Esq.
          Willem Frans Jonckheer, Esq.
          SCHUBERT JONCKHEER KOLBE & KRALOWEC LLP
          3 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 788 4220
          E-mail: nschubert@sjk.law
                  rschubert@schubert-reed.com
                  wjonckheer@schubertlawfirm.com


MDL 2800: "Jones" Suit vs. Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Beronica Jones and Michael
Saucier, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Equifax, Inc. and Equifax
Information Services LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00211,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Mississippi, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta), on Dec. 21, 2017. The
Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-
cv-05325-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:

          Amber Griffin Shaw, Esq.
          GORDON SHAW LAW GROUP, PLLC
          P.O. Box 846, Suite 300
          114 W. Liberty Avenue
          Covington, TN 38019
          Telephone: (901) 476 7100
          Facsimile: (901) 476 3537

               - and -

          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: "Kemp" Suit vs. Equifax Moved Northern Dist. of Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Michael Kemp, Individually and on
behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
Equifax, Inc. and Equifax Information Services LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00147, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
(Atlanta) MDL 2800, on Dec. 21, 2017. The Northern District of
Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05323-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: "Feied" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Malcolm B. Feied, an individual,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Equifax, Inc. a corporation, the Defendant, Case
No. 5:17-cv-05524, was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) MDL 2800, on
Dec. 21, 2017. The Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05345-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:

          Gordon M. Fauth, Jr., Esq.
          LITIGATION LAW GROUP
          1801 Clement Avenue, Suite 101
          Alameda, CA 94501
          Telephone: (510) 238 9610
          Facsimile: (510) 337 1431
          E-mail: gmf@classlitigation.com


MDL 2800: "Martin" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Daniel Martin, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Equifax Inc., a Georgia corporation, the Defendants, Case No.
3:17-cv-00174, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Mississippi, to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) MDL 2800, on Dec.
21, 2017. The Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:17-cv-05324-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: "Napier" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled BARRY NAPIER, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Equifax, Inc., and EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00372, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maine, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) MDL 2800, on
Dec. 21, 2017. The Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05327-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:

          Andrew Melzer, Esq.
          Kevin H. Sharp, Esq.
          SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP-NY
          1350 Avenue of Americans, 31st Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 402 5650
          Facsimile: (646) 402 5651
          E-mail: amelzer@sanfordheisler.com
                  ksharp@sanfordheisler.com


MDL 2800: "Williams" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Carl Williams, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Equifax, Inc., and Equifax Information Services LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02803, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) MDL 2800, on
Dec. 21, 2017. The Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05308-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:

          Andrew Melzer, Esq.
          Kevin H. Sharp, Esq.
          H. Vincent McKnight, Esq.
          SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP-NY
          1350 Avenue of Americans, 31st Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 402 5650
          Facsimile: (646) 402 5651
          E-mail: amelzer@sanfordheisler.com
                  ksharp@sanfordheisler.com


MDL 2800: "Zribi" Suit vs. Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Mary L. Zribi, On behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Equifax, Inc. and Equifax Information Services LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-01710, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta), on
Dec. 21, 2017. The Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05328-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:

          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: "Benway" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Patricia M. Benway, for herself
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Equifax Inc., a Georgia corporation, the Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-03360, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the District of Maryland, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta), on Dec. 21, 2017. The
Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-
cv-05309-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: "Meyers" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Scott Meyers, Jody Meyers, and
Karl Gordon Eikost, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Equifax Information Services LLC,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-06652, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
(Atlanta), on Dec. 20, 2017. The Georgia Northern District of
Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05275-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: "White" Suit vs Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Amanda Janaye White and Robert
Honanian, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Equifax Inc., a Georgia corporation,
the Defendant, v. Equifax Inc., a Georgia corporation, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-07991, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
(Atlanta) MDL 2800, on Dec. 20, 2017. The Northern District of
Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05291-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:

          Robert William Finnerty, Esq.
          Thomas V. Girardi, Esq.
          Christopher T. Aumais, Esq.
          GIRARDI & KEESE
          1126 Wilshire Blvd
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-1904
          Telephone: (213) 977 0211
          Facsimile: (213) 481 1554
          E-mail: tgarardi@girardikeese.com
                  caumais@girardikeese.com


MDL 2800: "Amuial" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Adi Amuial, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Equifax
Inc., a Georgia corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
23405, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) MDL 2800, on Dec. 20,
2017. The Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:17-cv-05285-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:

          Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq.
          Jeffrey Miles Ostrow, Esq.
          Jonathan Marc Streisfeld, Esq.
          Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq.
          Robert Cecil Gilbert, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW
          FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
          2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 625
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 529 8858
          E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Melissa Anne Campbell, Esq.
          JONES WALKER LLP
          Miami Center
          201 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2600
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 679 5700
          Facsimile: (305) 679 5710


MDL 2800: "Trevino" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Barbara Trevino, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Equifax, Inc. and Does 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-07180,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) MDL 2800, on Dec. 20,
2017. The Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:17-cv-05268-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:

          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          Bradley K. King, Esq.
          Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
          Theodore Walter Maya, Esq.
          AHDOOT AND WOLFSON, APC
          1016 Palm Avenue
          West Hollywood, CA 90069
          Telephone: (310) 474 9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474 8585
          E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
                  bking@ahdootwolfson.com
                  tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com


MDL 2800: "Domino" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Barbara J Domino, Miriam Cejas,
and Daniel E Almeida, Florida consumers individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
Equifax Inc., a Georgia corporation, the Defendants, Case No.
0:17-cv-61936, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) MDL 2800, on Dec. 20,
2017. The Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:17-cv-05284-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:

          Joseph Zager, Esq.
          ZAGERLAW, P.A.
          500 E. Broward Blvd., Suite 1820
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
          Telephone: (954) 888 8170
          Facsimile: (954) 565 7713


MDL 2800: "Eppy" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Samuel Eppy, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Equifax Inc., a Georgia corporation, the Defendants, Case No.
0:17-cv-61833, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) MDL 2800, on Dec. 20,
2017. The Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:17-cv-05283-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:

          Michael James Pascucci, Esq.
          Joshua Harris Eggnatz, Esq.
          THE EGGNATZ LAW FIRM
          5400 South University Drive, Suite 413
          Davie, FL 33328
          Telephone: (954) 889 3359
          E-mail: mpascucci@eggnatzlaw.com


MDL 2800: "Fail" Suit vs Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jonathan Fail and Leon Beard, the
Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs v. Equifax Inc. and Equifax Information
Services LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-03581, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia (Atlanta) MDL 2800, on Dec. 20, 2017. The
Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-
cv-05290-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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jayna Morse Cacioppo, Esq.
          TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP (INDIANAPOLIS)
          One Indiana Square, Suite 3500
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 713 3582
          Facsimile: (317) 713 3699


MDL 2800: "Geller" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Andrew C. Geller and Jody L.
Geller, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated
persons, the Plaintiff, v. Equifax Inc., a Georgia corporation,
the Defendants, Case No. 9:17-cv-81056, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
(Atlanta) MDL 2800, on Dec. 20, 2017. The Northern District of
Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05288-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:

          Marc A. Wites, Esq.
          Wites & Kapetan, Esq.
          4400 North Federal Highway
          Lighthouse Point, FL 33064
          Telephone: (954) 570 8989
          Facsimile: (954) 354 0205
          E-mail: mwites@wklawyers.com


MDL 2800: "Klavans" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jerry Klavans on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Equifax Inc. and Equifax Information Services LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01346, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta), on Dec. 20,
2017. The Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:17-cv-05273-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: "Schifano" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Maria Schifano, LA Sohn Smith,
Dr. Heather Waitman, and Bob Helton, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Equifax Inc., a
Georgia corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-06996, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia (Atlanta) MDL 2800, on Dec. 20, 2017. The
Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-
cv-05267-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: "Martinez" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jacqueline Martinez and Barron
Libasci, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Equifax Inc., a Georgia corporation,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-23510, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
(Atlanta) MDL 2800, on Dec. 20, 2017. The Northern District of
Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05287-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: "Melrath" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jason Melrath, Individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Equifax, Inc. and Equifax Credit Information Services, Inc., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01324, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta), on Dec. 20,
2017. The Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:17-cv-05270-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: "Podalsky" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Gregg Podalsky and Eileen Sue
Samilow, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Equifax Inc., a Georgia corporation,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-23465, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
(Atlanta) MDL 2800, on Dec. 20, 2017. The Northern District of
Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05286-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: "Hamilton" Suit vs Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Sarah Hamilton, Jesse Hamilton,
and Michelle Marie LaMontagne, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Equifax Inc., a
Georgia corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-06899, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia (Atlanta) MDL 2800, on Dec. 20, 2017. The
Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-
cv-05266-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:

          James Robert Noblin, Esq.
          Robert S. Green, Esq.
          GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C.
          2200 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 101
          Larkspur, CA 94939
          Telephone: (415) 477 6700
          Facsimile: (415) 477 6710


MEDICREDIT INC: DePaulo Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ruth DePaulo, 6519 Hamden Rd., Parma Heights, OH 44130-4024, the
Plaintiff, v. Medicredit, Inc. 3620 I-70 Dr. SE Suite C Columbia,
MO 65201, the Defendant, Case No. CV 17 890672 (Common Pleas
Cuyahoga County, Ohio, Dec. 20, 2017), relates that Plaintiff is
an individual residing in Parma Heights, Ohio, who received a
debt collection notice from Medicredit. DePaulo is a consumer
under both the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and
Consumer Sales Practices Act (CSPA). The debt in question arose
out of a transaction that was for personal purposes. This class
action seeks equitable and monetary relief to remedy Medicredit's
regular and repeated violation of the FDCPA and the CSPA in
sending out debt collection notices on debts not owed.

Medicredit, Inc. is a debt collector for medical providers. The
company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Outsource Group, Inc.
The Outsource Group, Inc. is a medical debt collector. Medicredit
is a large collections agency focused exclusively on medical and
healthcare debts.

Parallon completed the acquisition of The Outsource Group, Inc.
in July 2013. Parallon collects more than $41 billion and
interacts with 37 million patients annually.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James S. Wertheim, Esq.
          JAMES S WERTHEIM LLC
          24700 Chagrin Blvd., Suite 309
          Beachwood, OH 44122
          Telephone: (216) 225 6663
          E-mail: wertheimjim@gmail.com


MERCEDES-BENZ: 3rd Cir. Affirms Cracked Wheel Class Action Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tina Bellon at Reuters reports that a federal appeals court on
Dec. 5 affirmed a trial court's decision to grant summary
judgment to Mercedes-Benz USA in a proposed class action lawsuit
alleging the carmaker's wheels were overly susceptible to
cracking.

In a unanimous decision, Circuit Judges Theodore McKee,
Thomas Vanaskie and Marjorie Rendel of the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court
of Appeals said the New Jersey district court was correct to deny
class certification and toss the lawsuits. [GN]


MERCK & CO: Seeks Dismissal of Gender Discrimination Case
---------------------------------------------------------
Bill Wichert, writing for Law360, reports that Merck & Co. Inc.
urged a New Jersey federal court on Dec. 4 to knock down a class
certification bid from female former sales representatives in
their $250 million gender discrimination suit against the
company, saying their actual claims have nothing to do with the
purported class theory.

That theory is based on allegations that four compensation
policies foster and perpetuate gender disparities within the
pharmaceutical giant, but Merck said the record shows that the
plaintiffs are challenging specific decisions by their managers,
not general policies or practices. [GN]


MOMENTUM CHARTERS: Sorrells-Wright Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Debbie Sorrells-Wright, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Momentum Charters, L.L.C.,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01187 (W.D. Tex., Dec. 20, 2017),
seeks to recover overtime compensation for all unpaid hours
worked in excess of forty hours in any workweek at the rate of
one-and-one-half times their regular rates under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked as a charter
driver for Defendant and was paid straight time for all the hours
he worked including over 40 in a week, which violates the FLSA.

Momentum Charters, L.L.C, is a bus charter service company
located in Austin, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC
          1340 N. White Chapel, Suite 100
          Southlake, TX 76092-4322
          Telephone: (817) 416 5060
          Facsimile: (817) 416 5062
          E-mail: chris@crmlawpractice.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Ragland Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
DOROTHY RAGLAND, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-02919 (E.D. Mo, Dec. 22, 2017), seeks
compensatory damages as a result of Plaintiff's use of, and
exposure to, Roundup which caused or was a substantial
contributing factor in causing Plaintiff to suffer from cancer,
specifically NHL, and Plaintiff suffered severe and personal
injuries which are permanent and lasting in nature, physical pain
and mental anguish, including diminished enjoyment of life.

This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct
and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing
the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Plaintiff's
injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated
victims across the country, were avoidable. Despite Defendant
knowledge that Roundup was associated with an elevated risk of
developing cancer, Defendant promotional campaigns focused on
Roundup's purported "safety profile."

Defendant's failure to adequately warn Plaintiff resulted in (1)
Plaintiff using and being exposed to glyphosate instead of using
another acceptable and safe method of controlling unwanted weeds
and pests; and (2) scientists and physicians failing to warn and
instruct consumers about the risk of cancer, including NHL, and
other injuries associated with Roundup. Defendant failed to seek
modification of the labeling of Roundup to include relevant
information regarding the risks and dangers associated with
Roundup exposure. The failure of Defendant to appropriately warn
and inform the EPA has resulted in inadequate warnings in safety
information presented directly to users and consumers. The
failure of Defendant to appropriately warn and inform the EPA has
resulted in the absence of warning or caution statements that are
adequate to protect health and the environment. The failure of
Defendant to appropriately warn and inform the EPA has resulted
in the directions for use that are not adequate to protect health
and the environment.

Monsanto Company is a publicly traded American multinational
agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation. It is
headquartered in Creve Coeur, Greater St. Louis, Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222 2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421 0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com


MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: Faces Ramco Suit over LMR Solutions Monopoly
----------------------------------------------------------------
RAMCO COMMUNICATIONS, INC., individually and on behalf of all
those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS,
INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-13522 (D.N.J., Dec. 22,
2017), seeks to recover damages, costs of suit, injunctive relief
and other relief as may be just and proper against Motorola, for
its illegal monopolization of the domestic market for so-called
"LMR Solutions," which includes hardware, software, and
integration and maintenance services for two-way land-mobile
radio communications.

According to the complaint, MSI has restricted competition in the
sale of the digital hand-held and vehicular radio communications-
known in the industry as land-mobile radios ("LMRs") -- to users
in government, transportation, business and industry. LMRs are
sophisticated digital two-way radios that operate over radio
spectrum dedicated to the customer. LMRs are used by what MSI
calls mission-critical and business-critical communications
customers. MSI's two-way push-to-talk radios are "specifically
tailored to meet the requirements of a mission-critical
communications customer base that spans many layers of
government, public safety, and first responders, as well as
commercial and industrial customers in a number of key
verticals." These are MSI's "core markets"-the markets MSI has
monopolized, in which MSI reaps billions of dollars on sales at
supracompetitive prices, in which its potential competitors are
substantially foreclosed from competing with superior LMRs.

Motorola Solutions, Inc. is an American data communications and
telecommunications equipment provider that succeeded Motorola,
Inc., following the spinoff of the mobile phone division into
Motorola Mobility in 2011.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN,
            BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994 1700
          E-mail: JCecchi@carellabyrne.com
                  LTaylor@carellabyrne.com

               - and -

          Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
          Bart D. Cohen, Esq.
          NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10036-8718
          Telephone: (917) 438 9189
          E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
                  bcohen@nussbaumpc.com

               - and -

          Arthur N. Bailey, Esq.
          Marco Cercone, Esq.
          RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF
          CUNNINGHAM, LLC
          1600 Liberty Building
          424 Main Street
          Buffalo, New York 14202
          Telephone: (716) 664 2967
          E-mail: bailey@ruppbaase.com
                  cercone@ruppbaase.com


MV TRANSPORTATION: Fails to Provide Rest Breaks, Sanchez Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
CRISTA SANCHEZ, an individual, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MV TRANSPORTATION, INC.;
and DOES 1 thru 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. HF17886784
(Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 20, 2017), tells the Court that the
Defendant has had a consistent policy of failing to inform
Proposed Class Members of their right to take rest periods by way
of a lawful policy and of failing to provide Proposed Class
Members within the State of California, including Plaintiff, rest
periods of at least 10 minutes per four hours worked or major
fraction thereof and failing to pay such employees one and one
half hour of pay at the employees' regular rate of compensation
for each workday that the rest period was not provided, as
required by California state wage and hour laws.

MV Transportation, based in Dallas, Texas, is the largest private
provider of paratransit services and the largest privately owned
transportation contracting firm in the United States.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and all aggrieved employees:

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

               - and -

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


NASSAU, NY: CCK Plus Files Class Suit over Assessment Reviews
-------------------------------------------------------------
CCK PLUS FIVE LLC, and all other Petitioners similarly situated,
the Petitioners, v. THE COUNTY OF NASSAU & THE NASSAU COUNTY
ASSESSMENT REVIEW COMMISSION, the Respondents, Case No. 2017-
00271214 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Dec. 21, 2017), seeks an order and
judgment directing that the AR-70 offers issued by the Nassau
County Assessment Review Commission be "deemed approved" and
directing that the Assessment Review Commission issue "AR-90"
forms for the approved offers signifying that those settlements
have been deemed approved by operation of the Assessment Review
Commission Rules and have the same effect as an order of a court
of competent jurisdiction pursuant to Real Property Tax Law.

The Petitioners were owners, net lessees, or other aggrieved
parties of certain real property located within the County of
Nassau.

New York State created ARC in the late 1990's to allow the County
to better address the backlog of overassessment claims and
litigation surrounding the County's assessment roll. By statute,
ARC is charged with reviewing and correcting all assessments of
real property made pursuant to the provisions of Title 1, Article
5 of the RPTL. RPTL section 523-b(2)(d). ARC's jurisdiction goes
beyond pending administrative claims.

ARC is further empowered to recommend its own necessary
regulations, rules of procedure, and rules for conduct. RPTL
section 523-b(3)(b). Any rules and regulations proposed by ARC
must first be adopted by the Nassau County Legislature before
they can be enforced. RPTL section 523-b(3)(b).

Nassau County is a suburban county comprising much of the western
half of Long Island in the state of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew G. Cangemi, Esq.
          HERMAN KATZ CANGEMI & CLYNE, LLP
          538 Broadhollow Road, Suite 307
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 501 5011
          Facsimile: (631) 501 5012


NEW KO SUSHI: Fabian Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCISCO VILLANUEVA FABIAN, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NEW KO SUSHI JAPANESE
RESTAURANT INC. (D/B/A KO SUSHI), GREAT LAKES NY, NY, INC. (D/B/A
KO SUSHI), JIM CAI WANG (A/K/A "TOMMY"), MAI JIANG ZHU (A/K/A
"JIMMY" CHEN), and DAO LIN, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
09954 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 20, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum
and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 and the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a Japanese Restaurant,
located at 1329 Second Avenue, New York, NY 10021 under the name
"Ko Sushi."

The Plaintiff was employed as a delivery worker at the restaurant
located at 1329 Second Avenue, New York, NY 10021. 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 Villanueva appropriately for any hours
worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional
overtime premium. Further, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff
Villanueva the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in
which he had to work over 10 hours a day.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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


NEW ORLEANS, LA: Faces Class Action Over Debtor's Prison
--------------------------------------------------------
WGNO reports that a new lawsuit claims the Gretna "Mayor's Court"
functions as a modern day debtor's prison.

The Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center filed the
federal class action suit on behalf of Tamara G. Nelson and
Timothea N. Richardson.

Ms. Nelson and Ms. Richardson represent all the pending cases
before the Mayor's Court and the defendants who cannot afford the
diversion program, according to the Justice Center.

The Mayor's Court deals with violations of the Gretna Municipal
Code, and violators are brought before magistrates and
prosecutors who are appointed by the Gretna City Council and
serve at the pleasure of Mayor Belinda C. Constant.

"This is a staggering miscarriage of justice," Eric Foley, an
attorney with the MacArthur Justice Center's New Orleans office,
said.  "Individuals come before the court only with petty
citations, distributed for their fee-generating potential.  These
individuals are then prosecuted by an employee of the Mayor in a
court overseen by an employee of the Mayor and then made to pay a
fee, collected by the Police Department at the direction of the
Mayor, in order help fund the same system and its actors."

A defendant in the Mayor's Court can pay a fee, typically $250
per offense, to enter a diversion program, and after a "suitable
period of time," the charges are dropped, according to the
lawsuit.

However, if the defendant fails to make a payment or to pay the
amount in full, they forfeit all money paid up to that point, and
their case goes directly to trial.

"This is equivalent to holding people hostage," Mr. Foley said.
"The Mayor's Court is blatantly funding itself and the City of
Gretna on over-enforcement of traffic tickets and nonviolent
misdemeanors. This isn't justice. It's profit."

Misdemeanor offenses like traffic violations, disturbing the
peace, and public drunkenness make up most of the offenses sent
before the Mayor's Court, according to the Justice Center.

The rate of arrests for those offenses rose by 480 percent
between 2000 and 2014.

In 2015, nearly 3,500 cases went before the Mayor's Court, and
fines and fees from the Mayor's Court generated over 13 percent
of the Gretna General Fund.

"There is no neutral party here," Mr. Foley said. "Instead every
key actor within the Mayor's Court is beholden to the shared goal
of generating revenue for the City's -- and their own --
financial advantage." [GN]


NORTHWESTERN POLYTECHNIC: Kalakanti Sues over ACICS Accreditation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROHIT KALAKANTI, an individual, on behalf of himself, the general
public and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
NORTHWESTERN POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY, PETER HSEIH, PAUL CHOI, and
DOES 1-50, the Defendants, Case No.RG17886977 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Dec. 21, 2017), seeks to recover damages as result of Defendants'
violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition
Law, and False Advertising Law.

According to the complaint, Northwestern Polytechnic University
held itself out as an "accredited" educational institution under
U.S. law. In reality, NPU knew that its accreditation was under
federal investigation and in serious jeopardy of being revoked.
NPU failed to disclose this fact to its students or prospective
students, nearly all of 13 whom were from India. NPU and its
principals knew that its students and prospective students relied
on its accreditation representation because without it, the
students could not obtain visas to work in the United States
after graduation, and thus would be unable to afford to repay
their student loans.

On December 12, 2016, the U.S. Department of Education concluded
its investigation and revoked federal recognition for NPU's
accrediting agency, the Accrediting Council for independent
Colleges and Schools ("ACICS"). As a result, NPU immediately lost
its federally-recognized accreditation, making its students
ineligible for visa extensions. The loss of accreditation also
made the students' NPU degrees worthless if they wanted to pursue
advanced study at other institutions. NPU refused to refund any
of the tuition or fees 'paid by its students.

Although holding itself out as a not-for-profit educational
institution, NPU is run as a private business enterprise by the
Hsieh family. The members of the Hseih family have personally
directed and benefitted from NPU's misconduct, living lavishly in
NPU-owned properties, at the expense of its defrauded
students.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam J. Gutride, Esq.
          Seth A. Safier, Esq.
          Kristen G. Simplicio, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 271 6469
          Facsimile: (415) 449 6469


NOVAN INC: Robbins Arroyo LLP Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP announces that a
class action complaint was filed against Novan, Inc. (NasdaqGM:
NOVN). The complaint is brought on behalf of stockholders who
purchased Novan securities pursuant to the company's initial
public offering on September 26, 2016 (the "IPO"), and between
September 26, 2016 and August 1, 2017, for alleged violations of
the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 by Novan's officers and directors. Novan, a clinical-stage
drug development company, develops nitric oxide-based therapies
in dermatology. The company's lead product candidate, known as
SB204, was designed for the treatment of acne vulgaris.

View this information on the law firm's Shareholder Rights Blog:
www.robbinsarroyo.com/shareholders-rights-blog/novan-inc

Novan Accused of Lying About its Clinical Trials

According to the complaint, Novan officials represented that the
company performed two identical Phase 3 clinical trials for
SB204. Based on Novan's subsequent optimistic projections for
SB204, Novan's stock climbed significantly above the IPO price of
$11.00 per share, reaching a high of $29.09 per share on December
7, 2016. Not long after that, on January 27, 2017, Novan
announced the results of the two trials -- while the NI-AC302
trial hit all of its goals, the NI-AC301 trial failed to beat a
placebo. Following the disclosures, the company's Chief Medical
Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and Chief Executive Officer
left the company, and Novan revealed that it was laying off 20%
of its workforce. On August 2, 2017, Novan disclosed that the
company would be retreating from SB204 and refocusing on its
other products. As a result of Novan's disclosures, Novan's stock
fell over 84% from its class period high to close at $4.54 per
share on August 2, 2017.

Novan Shareholders Have Legal Options

Concerned shareholders who would like more information about
their rights and potential remedies can contact attorney Leonid
Kandinov at (800) 350-6003, LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com, or via
the shareholder information form on the firm's website.

Robbins Arroyo LLP is a nationally recognized leader in
shareholder rights law. The firm represents individual and
institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities
class action lawsuits, and has helped its clients realize more
than $1 billion of value for themselves and the companies in
which they have invested.

         Leonid Kandinov
         Robbins Arroyo LLP
         Tel.No.: (619) 525-3990 or Toll Free (800) 350-6003
         Website: www.robbinsarroyo.com
         Email: LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com [GN]


NPI MANUFACTURING: Pichardo Seeks Minimum & OT Wages under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
JELFFRY PICHARDO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. NPI MANUFACTURING LTD d/b/a NPI
MANUFACTURING, and ISRAEL BERKOWITZ, the Defendants, Case No.
17 CIV 7469 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 22, 2017), seeks injunctive and
declaratory relief against Defendants' unlawful actions and to
recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, spread-of-hours pay,
liquidated damages, statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New York
State Wage Theft Prevention Act.

According to the complaint, Pichardo worked at NPI Manufacturing
as a factory line worker and a machine operator for almost two
and a half years. Throughout his employment, NPI Manufacturing, a
box manufacturing company in Hicksville, New York, paid Pichardo
at a straight-time rate for all hours worked, including those
over forty, even though Pichardo regularly worked between 64 and
78 hours per workweek. NPI Manufacturing also failed to provide
Pichardo with a wage notice at the time of his hiring and paid
his wages without providing accurate wage statements at the end
of each pay period.

NPI Manufacturing is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and
trucking company running freight hauling business from
Hicksville, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Louis Pechman, Esq.
          Gianfranco Uadra, Esq.
          Catalina Cadavid, Esq.
          PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC
          488 Madison Avenue, 11th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 583 9500
          E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com
                  cuadra@pechmanlaw.com
                  cadavid@pechmanlaw.com


OCERA THERAPEUTICS: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., disclosed that it has filed a class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of holders of Ocera
Therapeutics, Inc. ("Ocera") (Nasdaq:OCRX) common stock in
connection with the proposed acquisition of Ocera by Mallinckrodt
plc and its affiliates ("Mallinckrodt") announced on November 2,
2017 (the "Complaint").  The Complaint, which alleges violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Ocera, its Board
of Directors (the "Board"), and Mallinckrodt, is captioned
Franchi v. Ocera Therapeutics, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-06636 (N.D.
Cal.).

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please
contact plaintiff's counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra
at Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120,
Wilmington, DE 19803, by telephone at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail
at info@rl-legal.com, or at http://rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/.

On November 1, 2017, Ocera entered into an agreement and plan of
merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Mallinckrodt.  Pursuant to
the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of Ocera will
receive $1.52 in cash and one contingent value right per Ocera
share (the "Proposed Transaction").

Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to
secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction,
defendants issued materially incomplete disclosures in a
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement (the "Solicitation
Statement") filed with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission.  The Complaint alleges that the Solicitation
Statement omits material information with respect to Ocera's
financial projections and the analyses performed by Ocera's
financial advisor.  The Complaint seeks injunctive and equitable
relief and damages on behalf of holders of Ocera common stock.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than February 5, 2018.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  Any member of the proposed class may
move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of
their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent
class member.

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., with offices in Wilmington, Delaware and
Garden City, New York, regularly prosecutes securities fraud,
shareholder corporate, and shareholder derivative litigation on
behalf of shareholders in state and federal courts throughout the
United States.

         Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
         Gina M. Serra, Esq.
         Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
         Tel.No.: (888) 969-4242, (302) 295-5310
         Fax: (302) 654-7530
         Email: sdr@rl-legal.com
                gms@rl-legal.com [GN]


ORGANIGRAM HOLDINGS: Wagners Law Firm Files Marijuana Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Lau, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that a
Nova Scotia law firm leading a proposed class action lawsuit
against a New Brunswick medical marijuana producer is expanding
its claim.

Wagners Law Firm initially filed a class action in March against
OrganiGram, alleging the company breached its contract with
customers by using unauthorized pesticides in their product.

Wagners now says the products have caused "physical harm to
clients" and has amended that claim.

"[We have] received several reports from clients of negative
health effects that began after consuming the recalled product.
Commonly reported effects are vomiting, dizziness and nausea,"
the law firm said in a news release.

Wagners alleges roughly 2,000 people purchased cannabis products
containing myclobutanil and bifenazate from the Moncton-based
company last year.

The law firm says both chemicals are considered toxic and are not
authorized for use on medical cannabis, and says users are
worried about the health effects.

In January, Health Canada advised there was a voluntary recall by
OrganiGram of dried marijuana and cannabis oil.

In response, OrganiGram issued a statement to Global News.

"At this time, OrganiGram cannot comment on ongoing litigation
but as of this date the company can confirm that it has not been
provided any medical evidence documenting any adverse health
reaction," it reads. [GN]


OSI SYSTEMS: Glancy Prongay & Murray Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California (Docket Number 2:17-cv-08841) on behalf of persons and
entities that acquired OSI Systems, Inc. ("OSI" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ:OSIS) securities between August 21, 2013 and December 6,
2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"), asserting claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.-
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") announces that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California (Docket Number 2:17-cv-08841) on
behalf of persons and entities that acquired OSI Systems, Inc.
("OSI" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:OSIS) securities between August
21, 2013 and December 6, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"),
asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

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

Investors suffering losses on their OSI investments are
encouraged to contact Lesley Portnoy of GPM to discuss their
legal rights at 310-201-9150 or by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit the OSI case page on our
website at www.glancylaw.com/case/osi-systems-inc.

On December 6, 2017, Muddy Waters Research published a report on
OSI entitled "OSIS: Rotten to the Core." Therein, Muddy Waters
alleges that there was corruption in the 2013 award of OSI's
Albania concession. Muddy Waters claims that while the concession
"has an estimated top line lifetime value of $150 million to $250
million," OSI "likely bribed somebody by giving half of it away
for $4.50" since "[t]here was an unannounced transfer of 49% of
OSIS's project company, S2 Albania SHPK, to a holding company
owned by an Albanian doctor, for consideration of less than
$5.00." Muddy Waters also alleges that "investigators' interviews
with former employees yielded numerous anecdotes indicating OSIS
is rotten to the core," including "knowledge of improper sales,
cash payments to government officials, fraud in a significant
contract, and that OSIS had narrowly avoided being debarred from
doing business with the U.S. government."

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $24.55 per share, or
29.2%, to close at $59.52 per share on December 6, 2017, on
unusually heavy trading volume, thereby injuring investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose: (1) that
OSI acquired the Albania concession through bribery or other
illicit means; (2) that OSI transferred 49% of its project
company associated with the Albania concession, S2 Albania SHPK,
an entity purportedly worth millions, for consideration of less
than $5.00; (3) that OSI engaged in other illegal acts, including
improper sales and cash payments to government officials; (4)
that these practices caused the Company to be vulnerable to
potential civil and criminal liability, and adverse regulatory
action; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
statements about OSI's business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

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

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

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


PACIFIC COAST: "Tappin" Suit Seeks OT Compensation under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
TOQUATA TAPPIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. PACIFIC COAST MANAGEMENT,
LLC; COLUMBUS BROWN IV, M.D., individually and d/b/a ARKANSAS
RHEUMATOLOGY CENTER, P.L.L.C.; and ALONZO WILLIAMS, SR., M.D.,
individually and d/b/a ARKANSAS DIAGNOSTIC CENTER, P.A., the
Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00860-BRW (E.D. Ark., Dec. 22,
2017), seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties and costs,
including reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

This case is a hybrid class action and collective action brought
by Plaintiff on behalf of herself and on behalf of other
administrative staff employed by Defendants at any time within a
three-year period preceding filing of this Complaint. The
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and
other administrative staff lawful overtime compensation for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per week and lawful compensation for
all hours worked.[BN]

Pacific Coast offers services and expertise for Homeowners'
Associations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PACIFIC DIE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Ortiz" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOSE ANTONIO ORTIZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. PACIFIC DIE CASTING CORPORATION, a
California corporation; JOE ORLANDIN1, an individual; JEFF
ORLANDINI, an individual; and DOES 120, inclusive, the Defendant,
Case No. BC687401 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 20, 2017), seeks to
recover overtime pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and
California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, with regard to Class Members, the
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have failed to properly pay
overtime compensated as mandated by federal law; failed to
properly pay overtime compensated as mandated by California law;
failed to pay the proper rate of overtime for all overtime hours
worked; failed to provide meal periods or compensation in lieu
thereof; failed to provide rest breaks or compensation in lieu
thereof; failed to timely furnish accurate itemized wage
statements; violated Labor Code; and conducted unfair business
practices.

Pacific Die Casting Corporation is a full service die caster in
Commerce, California offering design, mold making, SLA models,
die casting, and more. Our low pricing on die casting molds and
die cast parts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


PALATINE, IL: Kilpatrick Townsend Discusses 7th Cir Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Reynolds, Esq. -- JReynolds@kilpatricktownsend.com -- of
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, in an article for Lexology,
wrote that in Collins v. Village of Palatine, Ill., -- F.3d --,
2017 WL 5490819, at *1 (7th Cir. November 16, 2017), the Seventh
Circuit announced a "simple and uniform" rule for determining
when a once-tolled statute of limitations starts running again:
"Tolling stops immediately when a class-action suit is dismissed
-- with or without prejudice -- before the class is certified."
Applying this rule in Collins, the Seventh Circuit upheld the
district court's dismissal of the class representative's claim as
time-barred (as well as its summary denial of class
certification).  The Seventh Circuit's ruling brings clarity to
this oftentimes confusing area of class action practice.

In August 2010, Jason Senne filed a class action against the
Village of Palatine, after the Village issued him a parking
ticket displaying his personal information.  The suit alleged the
parking ticket and disclosures on it violated the Driver's
Privacy Protection Act ("DPPA").  In September 2010, the district
court granted the Village's motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim, but in 2012 the Seventh Circuit reversed.  On
remand, the district court deferred ruling on Senne's motion for
class certification and instead invited the Village to file a
motion for summary judgment.  The Village obliged and the
district court granted its motion, further ruling the class
certification motion had been "terminated" as moot. This time,
the Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment, and the Supreme Court
denied certiorari (on November 2, 2015).

But Senne's attorney filed a successor class action the same day
the Supreme Court denied certiorari (naming himself as the class
representative).  He filed the suit simply as a "placeholder" to
preserve the claims of the class.  He then filed another,
independent class action naming another individual (Michael
Collins) as the class representative.  Like Senne, Collins
claimed that a parking ticket issued by the Village violated the
DPPA.  The Village then moved to dismiss Collin's claim as time-
barred by DPPA's four-year statute of limitations, since Collins'
parking ticket issued on June 14, 2007. In response, Collins
argued that the limitations period was tolled from the time Senne
filed his original suit in August 2010 until the time the Supreme
Court denied Senne's petition for certiorari in November 2015.
Rejecting this argument, the district court dismissed the
complaint as time-barred and summarily denied Collins's motion
for class certification (without stating any reason for the
denial of certification).

The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The court observed that under
American Pipe tolling (see American Pipe & Construction Co. v.
Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974) and Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker,
462 U.S. 345 (1983)), "the filing of a proposed class action
immediately pauses the running of the statute of limitations for
all class members." Collins, 2017 WL 5490819, at *3.  The court
then observed that these cases do not address whether tolling
continues during the pendency of an appeal.  After surveying the
law in other circuits, the Seventh Circuit held that the
"consensus view" is that the limitations clock immediately
resumes once certification has been denied or upon "other
procedural intervals," such as when a class member opts out or
the court dismisses a suit for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. Id. Finding no difference between these situations
and the dismissal of an action with prejudice, the court held
that American Pipe tolling does not continue during the pendency
of an appeal of an action that has been dismissed with prejudice.
[GN]


PAYPAL HOLDINGS: February 5 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC on Dec. 6 notified investors
that a class action lawsuit has been filed against PayPal
Holdings, Inc. ("PayPal" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: PYPL) and
certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased
or otherwise acquired PayPal securities between February 14, 2017
and December 1, 2017, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the
firm's site: http://www.bgandg.com/pypl

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

PayPal operates as a technology platform company that provides
online payment systems through a variety of services on behalf of
consumers and merchants.  On February 14, 2017, PayPal announced
an agreement to purchase TIO Networks Corp. ("TIO") for $233
million (the "TIO Acquisition").  TIO is a bill-pay management
company that processed roughly $7 billion in bill payments on
behalf of 14 million customers in 2016.  On July 18, 2017, PayPal
announced the completion of the TIO Acquisition.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) TIO's data security program was
inadequate to safeguard the personally identifiable information
of its users; (2) the foregoing vulnerabilities threatened
continued operation of TIO's platform; (3) PayPal's revenues
derived from its TIO services were thus unsustainable; (4)
consequently, PayPal had overstated the benefits of the TIO
Acquisition; and (5) as a result, PayPal's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On November 10, 2017, PayPal suspended its TIO services, pending
a security review, stating that it had discovered security
vulnerabilities on the TIO platform and that the TIO data
security program did not meet PayPal's standards.

On December 1, 2017, post-market, PayPal disclosed that
personally identifiable information -- including names,
addresses, bank-account details, and Social Security numbers --
for roughly 1.6 million TIO users had potentially been
compromised as a result of the previously announced security
vulnerabilities.  Following this news, PayPal stock dropped $4.33
per share, or 5.75%, to close at $70.97 on December 4, 2017, the
following trading day.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.  If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/pyplor you may contact Peretz Bronstein,
Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484.  If you
suffered a loss in Katanga you have until February 5, 2018 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve
as a lead plaintiff.

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


PETROBRAS: Law Professors File Amicus Brief in Supreme Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that two highly
influential securities law professors, Adam Pritchard of the
University of Michigan and Todd Henderson of the University of
Chicago, filed an amicus brief on Dec. 4 at the U.S. Supreme
Court, backing a petition for review (2017 WL 5127301) by the
Brazilian oil and gas company Petrobras and its underwriters.
Petrobras wants the justices to overturn a decision from last
July in which the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed
certification of a class of investors suing the company for
securities fraud.  Mr. Pritchard and Henderson join an array of
Petrobras amici, including the Securities Industry and Financial
Markets Association and nearly two dozen other law and economics
professors urging the Supreme Court to grant review of the 2nd
Circuit decision.

They have an uphill fight.

There's a lot of talk in the Petrobras petition and the amicus
briefs about uncertainty in the lower courts on what evidence
investors must offer in order to invoke the presumption of
reliance on alleged corporate misstatements.  As you surely
recall, the Supreme Court established that presumption -- and
provided the foundation for securities fraud class actions -- in
1988's Basic v. Levinson (108 S.Ct. 978). In its 2014
reconsideration of Basic, Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund (134
S.Ct. 2398), the court left the presumption intact but said
defendants have a right to rebut it before the shareholder class
is certified by showing the market for their shares does not meet
the Supreme Court's definition of efficiency.  Petrobras and its
amici argue that trial judges, in particular, need more help from
the Supreme Court to understand the evidentiary standard for
disproving market efficiency.

But as Petrobras shareholders pointed out in their brief opposing
Supreme Court review, there is no conflict among the federal
circuits on the particular issue Petrobras has raised, whether
class certification requires investors to present empirical
evidence that a company's share price fell in response to the
exposure of previous misrepresentations.  Even Petrobras admitted
there's not much of a circuit split, though the company and its
underwriters said that's because circuit court rulings
interpreting the Supreme Court's precedent in Basic and
Halliburton are rare.

So Petrobras and its amici are relying on the argument that the
2nd Circuit has gone rogue, disregarding Supreme Court precedent
and, as the SIFMA brief put it, "substantially lowering the bar"
for securities class action plaintiffs.  The Petrobras investors
can't credibly deny that: Their law firm of record, Pomerantz,
put out a statement after the 2nd Circuit elaborated on its
Petrobras standard in a subsequent decision in a securities class
action against Barclays that said the 2nd Circuit had provided "a
far easier . . . path for securities class action plaintiffs
going forward." (Pomerantz was also counsel to the Barclays
investors.)

That Barclays decision (875 F.3d 79), issued in November,
features prominently in arguments by Petrobras and its amici that
the 2nd Circuit has essentially made it impossible for large,
publicly traded companies to defeat class certification in
shareholder fraud cases.

Typically, as the new brief by Messrs. Pritchard and Henderson
explains quite lucidly, shareholders rely on empirical "event
studies" -- complex regression analyses -- to isolate the impact
of any particular event on a company's share price.  If
shareholders dump stock after a corporation discloses
misrepresentations, an event study should be able to show the
share price fell in response to the disclosure and not to market
forces unrelated to fraud.  Event studies, the law profs wrote,
are the gold standard for establishing the alleged fraud's price
impact.

Event studies often come into play at the class certification
stage of shareholder fraud litigation if defendants attempt to
rebut the Basic v. Levinson fraud-on-the-market presumption.  The
presumption is grounded in the idea that an efficient market
reacts rationally to information like a corrective disclosure.
Corporations whose shares are widely traded on U.S. exchanges can
only contest market efficiency by arguing that investors did not
react to new information.  Plaintiffs' lawyers typically use
event studies to prove shareholders bought or sold in response to
particular news events.

In the Petrobras case, the defendants contested shareholder event
studies as proof of market efficiency because, they said, the
investors' economic analyses did not establish a direct
connection between bad news and a drop in Petrobras's share
price. (They showed the market responded to news, but not
necessarily in expected ways.) The 2nd Circuit said indirect
evidence can also prove market efficiency.  "Event studies offer
the seductive promise of hard numbers and dispassionate truth,
but methodological constraints limit their utility in the context
of single-firm analyses," the appeals court said.

The 2nd Circuit pushed that interpretation to its logical limit
in the Barclays case, in which the appeals court said not only
that shareholders don't even have to provide an event study in
order to invoke the Basic v. Levinson presumption but also that
defendants bear the heavy burden of proving by a preponderance of
the evidence that the market for their shares is not efficient.
Barclays, as I've reported, claimed in a motion for rehearing
that the 2nd Circuit opinion skews the balance of power in
securities litigation so unfairly that it undermines the very
integrity of U.S. capital markets.

Petrobras and its amici don't go that far.  But they do say the
Barclays decision shows the 2nd Circuit is entrenched in its
shareholder-friendly standard for establishing market efficiency.
Put another way, the appeals court has made it very, very tough
for defendants to rebut the Basic presumption that allows
shareholders to win class certification.

"Prior to the (Petrobras) decision and the court's subsequent
decision in Waggoner v. Barclays, courts throughout the nation
held that to draw an inference of reliance, plaintiffs in
securities fraud cases must prove -- at a bare minimum -- that
the price of a security reacted favorably to good news (and
unfavorably to bad news)," the Petrobras reply brief said.  "Now,
fundamentally misinterpreting Halliburton II, the 2nd Circuit has
held that plaintiffs are entitled to an inference of reliance on
a misrepresentation -- and can shift the burden to defendants to
disprove reliance -- based solely on proof that the defendant has
characteristics shared by all large companies: high trading
volume, coverage by many analysts, multiple market makers, and
eligibility to file simplified registration statements."

The Supreme Court is scheduled to conference on the Petrobras
petition on Jan. 5. Petrobras is represented by Cleary Gottlieb
Steen & Hamilton.  Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom represents
the underwriters. [GN]


PHILIP MORRIS: Violates Securities Exchange Act, Rubenstahl Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM RUBENSTAHL, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PHILIP MORRIS INTERNATIONAL
INC., ANDRE CALANTZOPOULOS, and JACEK OLCZAK, the Defendants,
Case No. 2:17-cv-13504 (D.N.J., Dec. 21, 2017), seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons and entities, other than
Defendants, who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly
traded securities of Philip Morris from July 26, 2016 through
December 20, 2017, inclusive.

Philip Morris International Inc. is an American multinational
cigarette and tobacco manufacturing company, with products sold
in over 180 countries outside the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          609 W. South Orange Avenue, Suite 2P
          South Orange, NJ 07079
          Telephone: (973) 313 1887
          Facsimile: (973) 833 0399
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


PIONEER GENERAL: Lincoln Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT under Labor Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN LINCOLN, Individually and on Behalf of All Putative Class
Members, the Plaintiff, v. PIONEER GENERAL CONSTRUCTION
Defendants' CO., L.L.C., PIONEER CONSTRUCTION GROUP INC., AKHAK
CHOUDHARY, BABER CHOUDHARY and "JOHN DOE," Jointly and Severally,
the Defendants, Case No. 657533/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Dec. 22,
2017), seeks to recover unpaid prevailing wages, daily overtime
and supplemental benefits under the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a laborer who worked
for Defendants on certain public works projects throughout New
York City. For his work, Defendants paid Plaintiff an hourly rate
that did not include prevailing wages or supplemental benefits
when he performed work on public projects, including at the
Eastchester Gardens housing project for the New York City Housing
Authority.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the putative class:

          Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
          Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
          Alison L. Mangialordi, Esq.
          PELTON GRAHAM LLC
          111 Broadway, Suite 1503
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 385 9700
          Facsimile: (212) 385 0800


PLANNED BUILDING: "Hunter" Suit Seeks OT Wages under Labor Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Hunter, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Planned Building Services, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 715053/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Dec. 21, 2017),
seeks to recover maximum liquidated damages, overtime wages and
non-overtime wages, costs and attorneys' fees, pursuant to the
New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was an hourly employee
of Defendant and was paid at an hourly rate of about $19.10 an
hour. The Plaintiff worked about 40-50 hours a week for
Defendant. The Plaintiff and the putative class members were paid
on a biweekly basis in violation of NYLL.

Planned Building is janitorial company.[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


PLATINUM AUTO: Oseguera Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------
MOISES OSEGUERA, individually and on behalf of other individuals
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. TAE SOO KIM, an individual;
PLATINUM AUTO TRENDS, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1
through 25, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC687830 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Dec. 20, 2017), seeks to recover relief for himself
and the Class under California law to remedy Defendants' failure
to allow rest period breaks in violation of Industrial Welfare
Commissions Wage Orders and California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly require its
employees to work without compensation and depriving the
Plaintiff and members of the Class of many hours' worth of wages
per week.

Platinum Auto Trends is an independent importer and distributor
of OE collision parts for Korean and Japanese vehicles in USA.
Our mission at PAT is to provide customers the highest quality
parts while minimizing the time taken between placing an order
and installation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Young W. Ryu, Esq.
          Kelly Kim, Esq.
          Gianna N. Liddy, Esq.
          LOYR, APC
          3130 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 402
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (888) 365 8686
          Facsimile: (800) 576 1170
          E-mail: young.ryu@loywr.com
                  kelly.kim@loywr.com
                  gianna.liddy@loywr.com


QUIET CANYON: "Arce" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under Labor Code
-------------------------------------------------------------
SONIA ARCE, an individual; NOEL GUZMAN, an individual and DAVONNA
LEE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. QUIET CANYON MONTEBELLO, INC., a California
Corporation; DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case
No. BC688126 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 22, 2017), seeks to recover
overtime pay, pre-judgment interest, attorney fees, and costs
under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants consistently
administered a uniform company policy, practice and procedure
regarding payment of wage to the members of the Overtime Class;
Schedule to work and required the first and second Overtime Class
to work in excess of eight hours per work day and/or in excess of
40 hours per workweek without paying the overtime rate which
resulted in failure to pay members of the Overtime Class overtime
compensation at the overtime rate for work in excess of eight
hours a day and/or 40 hours per week.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ebby S. Bakhtiar, Esq.
          LIVINGSTON & BAKHTIAR
          3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1669
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 632 1550
          Facsimile: (213) 632 3100


SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Wants Covington to Pay $1.9MM
-----------------------------------------------------
Debra Cassens Weiss, writing for ABA Journal, reports that
SeaWorld contends in a sanctions motion that Covington & Burling
should pay more than $1.9 million in attorney fees incurred by
the park for defense of a "frivolous" class action brought for
alleged improper purposes.

The Dec. 1 motion claims Covington lawyers worked with an
advocacy group to find "puppet plaintiffs" for the suit claiming
consumers were duped into making SeaWorld purchases based on
false claims that its orcas are well-treated. The Recorder (sub.
req.) covered the development.

In reality, none of the plaintiffs relied on any specific
statements by SeaWorld and none had any intent to make future
SeaWorld purchases, according to the motion by SeaWorld's lawyers
with Norton Rose Fulbright.  As a result, none of the plaintiffs
had standing, the motion said.

The motion says the suit was "brought for the improper purposes
of harassing SeaWorld, gaining media attention, and gathering
information for an anti-SeaWorld campaign."  Confidential
information gained in the suit was channeled to an anti-SeaWorld
advocacy group, Earth Island Institute, the motion alleged.

"As typically happens when allegations have no factual basis,
Plaintiffs could not 'stick to the script,' and the entire
scaffolding supporting this frivolous case collapsed," the motion
says.

Covington & Burling previously argued that SeaWorld was relying
"on selective and misleading excerpts of deposition testimony" to
try to avoid resolution of issues in the case. [GN]


SECURITY INDUSTRY: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The San Francisco labor law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug &
Bhowmik filed a class action lawsuit against Security Industry
Specialists, Inc., alleging that the company failed to properly
calculate overtime compensation for their hourly employees.
Furthermore, the complaint alleges that Security Industry
Specialists, Inc., failed to provide mandatory meal and rest
breaks to its employees.  The Security Industry Specialists, Inc.
lawsuit, Case No. 17CV320059, is currently pending in the Santa
Clara County Superior Court for the State of California.

The class action complaint claims that the company paid their
non-exempt employees a non-discretionary incentive wage based
upon their performance for the company.  The complaint further
claims that the company also allegedly failed to provide
Plaintiffs and the other members of the California Class with
complete and accurate wage statements which failed to show, among
other things, the correct overtime rate for overtime worked,
including, work performed in excess of eight (8) hours in a
workday and/or forty (40) hours in any workweek, and the correct
penalty payments or missed meal and rest periods. Cal. Lab. Code
Sec 226 provides that every employer shall furnish each of his or
her employees with an accurate itemized wage statement in writing
showing, among other things, gross wages earned and all
applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the
corresponding amount of time worked at each hourly rate.

According to the class action complaint, the company's non-exempt
employees were also allegedly unable to take off duty meal breaks
due to their rigorous work schedules.  California labor laws
require an employer to provide an employee required to perform
work for more than five (5) hours during a shift with, a thirty
(30) minute uninterrupted meal break prior to the end of the
employee's fifth (5th) hour of work and a second uninterrupted
meal break when employees are required to work ten (10) hours.
The complaint claims that the company did not provide their
employees who forfeited meal breaks additional compensation.

If you think your company is violating the California Labor Code
and would like to know if you qualify to make a claim, please
contact attorney Nicholas J. De Blouw today by calling (858) 952-
0354.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik is an employment law firm with
offices located in San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco,
Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago that dedicates its practice to
helping employees, investors and consumers fight back against
unfair business practices, including violations of the California
Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards Act. [GN]


SEQWATER: Savage Drought Resulted to 2011 Queensland Floods
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Madigan, writing for The Courier-Mail, reports that the
savage drought which gripped Queensland at the start of the
century left the State Government reluctant to release water from
dams, contributing to a major flood disaster in 2011, a court
heard.

The culture of saving water -- combined with a refusal by dam
engineers to take into account Bureau of Meteorology forecasts --
contributed to the massive flooding which swept the southeast in
early 2011, peaking on January 13, the Sydney hearing was told.

Maurice Blackburn has brought one of Australia's largest civil
actions against the Queensland Government and Seqwater, with 6000
Queensland individuals and businesses seeking hundreds of
millions of dollars in damages as a result of the floods.

Maurice Blackburn lawyer Julian Sexton, SC, told the hearing in
the NSW Supreme Court that on December 1, 2010, a Seqwater flood
engineer and a dams operations manager discussed in an email the
possibility there might be public "embarrassment" if water was
released from Wivenhoe Dam and forecast rains did not eventuate.

"Major embarrassment is not one of the objectives in the flood
manual, nor is concern about media reporting or public
relations," he said.

Mr Sexton spent the second day of the hearing portraying Wivenhoe
Dam engineers as being preoccupied with holding back water to
keep downstream rural bridges open as weather worsened in early
January 2011.

That preoccupation came against a backdrop of community anxiety
about the southeast's water supply, which developed during the
first decade of the century in the midst of fierce drought.

Mr Sexton said both Wivenhoe and Somerset dams were first and
foremost flood-mitigation dams, not water providers.

"The point of this is that there has never been the approach that
drought considerations outweigh flood considerations," Mr Sexton
said.
He also repeatedly attacked dam engineers for not taking into
account rain forecasts when deciding when to release water from
dams.

Had water been released after the BOM forecast heavy rains, the
dams would not have been forced to release large volumes at the
peak of the flood, he said.

Mr Sexton said Maurice Blackburn did not accept that there was
significant difference between forecast rain and the actual rain
that fell during the first half of January 2011.

But even if there was a major difference, it did not imply that
BOM forecasts should not have been taken into account by those in
charge of dam operations.

"(It) doesn't derogate from the proposition that the systems
which the Bureau had were capable of forecasting those types of
weather system on a timescale of two to three days." [GN]


ST. BERNARD HOSPITAL: Faces "Heard" Suit over Biometric Info
------------------------------------------------------------
COREY HEARD, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. ST. BERNARD HOSPITAL, ST. BERNARD
HEALTH NETWORK, LE ROYER FOUNDATION, d/b/a ST. BERNARD
FOUNDATION, the Defendants, Case No. 2017-CH-16828 (in the
Circuit Court, Cook Cty., Ill., Dec. 21, 2017), asks the Court to
declare that Defendants' conduct violates Biometric Information
Privacy Act; require Defendants to cease their unlawful
activities; and award statutory damages to Plaintiff and the
proposed Class.

St. Bernard Hospital is a community hospital in the State of
Illinois and in this Circuit. St. Bernard Health Network and the
Le Royer Foundation, d/b/a/ St. Bernard Foundation, are the
hospital's parent companies.  When St. Bernard hires an employee,
he or she is enrolled in an employee database. St. Bernard uses
the employee database to monitor the time worked by each of its
hourly employees.

While most retail establishments use conventional methods for
tracking time worked (such as ID badge swipes or punch clocks),
St. Bernard employees are required to have their fingerprints
scanned by a biometric timekeeping device. Unlike ID badges or
time cards -- which can be changed or replaced if stolen or
compromised -- fingerprints are unique, permanent biometric
identifiers associated with each -- employee. This exposes St.
Bernard employees to serious and irreversible privacy risks. For
example, if a fingerprint database is hacked, breached, or
otherwise exposed -- such as in the recent Equifax and Uber data
breaches -- employees have no means by which to prevent identity
theft, unauthorized tracking, and other improper or unlawful use
of this information.

Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from situations like
these, Illinois enacted the BIPA to regulate companies that
collect and store Illinois citizens' biometrics, such as
fingerprints.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Haley R. Jenkins, Esq.
          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          205 N. Michigan Avenue Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 6060
          E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                  hjenkins@stephanzouras.com


STEIL CORPORATION: Refuses to Pay OT Compensation, Volk Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Volk, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. George A. Steil and Barbara Steil,
individually, and as husband and wife; Jennifer Steil and John
Doe Steil, individually, and as husband and wife; Steil
Corporation, an Arizona corporation; G.G. & B, Inc., an Arizona
corporation; Sub Three Inc., an Arizona corporation; ABC entities
1-20; and John and Jane Does 1-20, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-
cv-04737-DGC (D. Ariz., Dec. 21, 2017), seeks to recover overtime
compensation and minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff brings wage claims on behalf of herself and all
similarly situated employees who work or who have worked for
Defendants and who elect to opt into the FLSA claims asserted in
this action and who fall within the definition of the proposed
class for purposes of the state law wage claims.

According to the complaint, the Defendants are liable under the
FLSA for, inter alia, failing to properly compensate Plaintiff
and similarly situated employees. Defendants' failure to pay
Plaintiff and similarly situated employees the applicable minimum
wage for all hours worked and failure to pay overtime
compensation at the required rate of pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek results from Defendants'
standard policy and business practices.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Susan Martin, Esq.
          Daniel Bonnett, Esq.
          Jennifer Kroll, Esq.
          Michael Licata, Esq.
          MARTIN & BONNETT, P.L.L.C.
          4647 N. 32nd Street, Suite 185
          Phoenix, AR 85018
          Telephone: (602) 240 6900
          Facsimile: (602) 240 2345
          E-mail: smartin@martinbonnett.com
                  dbonnett@martinbonnett.com
                  jkroll@martinbonnett.com
                  mlicata@martinbonnett.com


SUPERIOR ENERGY: "Nichols" Suit Seeks OT Wages under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
RUSTY NICHOLS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. SUPERIOR ENERGY SERVICES, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-03871 (S.D. Tex., Dec. 22, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under Fair Labor Standards
Act.

According to the complaint, Superior Energy violated the FLSA by
employing Nichols and other similarly situated nonexempt
employees "for a workweek longer than forty hours [but refusing
to compensate them] for [their] employment in excess of 40 hours
at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate
at which [they are or were] employed. The Superior Energy
violated the FLSA by failing to maintain accurate time and pay
records for Nichols and other similarly situated nonexempt
employees.

Superior Energy Services, Inc. is an oilfield services company.
In 2014 it ranked 534 on the Fortune 1000.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melissa Moore, Esq.
          Curt Hesse, Esq.
          MOORE & ASSOCIATES
          Lyric Center
          440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 222 6775
          Facsimile: (713) 222 6739


TAKE-TWO: Plaintiff Can't Establish Injury in BIPA Case
-------------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Kozimor, Esq. -- Michael.Kozimor@jacksonlewis.com --
of Jackson Lewis PC, in an article for Lexology, wrote that on
November 21, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit held that a plaintiff bringing a putative class action
under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA")
could not establish an injury-in-fact and therefore lacked
Article III standing, further adding to the legacy of the U.S.
Supreme Court's holding in Spokeo v. Robins and providing
companies with additional firepower to fight against claims of
bare procedural statutory violations of privacy statutes where
individuals suffer no actual harm or risk of real harm. (Santana
v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.)

Take-Two, the developer of the video game series NBA 2K, has
included a feature in several of its recent releases that allows
players to scan their face into the video game to create a
personalized avatar basketball player for use in the game.

Prior to scanning their face and creating an avatar, players are
required to agree that "Your face scan will be visible to you and
others you play with and may be recorded or screen captured
during gameplay."  The lawsuit alleged that this disclaimer did
not provide sufficient notice under the BIPA.

BIPA requires that individuals are given written notice that
biometric identifying data is being collected and are informed of
the organization's purpose and length of time for which the data
will be collected, stored, and used.  BIPA also requires that the
organization make publicly available a written policy identifying
the length of time that the organization will retain biometric
identifying data and its rules regarding the destruction of such
data.

The plaintiff alleged that Take-Two failed to inform him of the
purpose and duration for which his data would be stored, failed
to make a publicly available written policy regarding its
retention/destruction schedule, and, as a result, collected and
disseminated his biometric identifying data without his informed
consent.

The Circuit Court affirmed the District Court's dismissal for
lack of Article III standing, holding that the alleged procedural
violations failed to raise a material risk of harm that
plaintiff's biometric data would be misused, disclosed, or
accessed by third parties.  The Court held that, under Spokeo,
plaintiff failed to show a "risk of real harm sufficient to
confer injury-in-fact."  The Court also found plaintiff's
argument that he was deterred from using biometrics in the future
insufficient to establish a risk of future harm.

The Court also took note that plaintiff was well-aware that Take-
Two was collecting his biometric data.  As a result, this
decision may have limited application in cases where the
individual may be unaware that his or her biometric data is being
collected and stored.  Nonetheless, this decision further
prevents individuals from asserting procedural statutory
violations that are completely divorced from actual harm or risk
of real harm. [GN]


TFS OILFIELD: "Sandoval" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
PABLO SANDOVAL, MARCUS WALKER, JUSTIN GARZA, CORY TROTTER, and
BRANDON MOORE, Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the PLAINTIFFS v. TFS OILFIELD SERVICES, LLC,
TEXAS FUELING SERVICES, INC., HANAN TUCHSHNIEDER and DANNY
SHEENA, the DEFENDANTS Case No. 5:17-cv-01282-DAE (W.D. Tex.,
Dec. 20, 2017), seeks to recover declaratory judgment, monetary
damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil
penalties and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees as a
result of Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiffs and other Frack
Fuel Technicians, Dispatchers, and Helper/Operators overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

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

TFS Oilfield Services is a licensed and bonded freight shipping
and trucking company running freight hauling business from
Houston, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


THC NORTH SHORE: Heard Sues over Collection of Biometric Data
-------------------------------------------------------------
COREY HEARD, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. THC - NORTH SHORE, INC. d/b/a KINDRED
CHICAGO LAKESHORE, the Defendant, Case No. 2017-CH-16918 (Circuit
Court of Cook County, Ill, Dec. 22, 2017), seeks to stop
Defendant's unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of
Plaintiffs and the proposed Class's sensitive biometric data.

Kindred Chicago Lakeshore is a community hospital in the State of
Illinois and in this Circuit. When Kindred hires an employee, he
or she is enrolled in an employee database. Kindred uses the
employee database to monitor the time worked by each of its
hourly employees. While many private entities use conventional
methods for tracking time worked (such as ID badge swipes or
punch clocks), Kindred employees are required to have their
fingerprints scanned by a biometric timekeeping device.

Unlike ID badges or time cards -- which can be changed or
replaced if stolen or compromised -- fingerprints are unique,
permanent biometric identifiers associated with each employee.
This exposes Kindred employees to serious and irreversible
privacy risks. For example, if a fingerprint database is hacked,
breached, or otherwise exposed -- such as in the recent Equifax
and Uber data breaches -- employees have no means by which to
prevent identity theft, unauthorized tracking, and other improper
or unlawful use of this information.

Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from situations like
these, Illinois enacted the Biometric Information Privacy Act,
specifically to regulate companies that collect and store
Illinois citizens' biometrics, such as fingerprints.

Despite this law, the complaint says, Kindred disregards its
employees' statutorily-protected privacy rights and unlawfully
collects, stores, uses and disseminates their biometric data in
violation of BIPA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq.
          HALEY JENKINS STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          205 N. Michigan Avenue Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 60601
          E-mail: lawyers@stephanzouras.com


TIVITY HEALTH: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP disclosed that a
class action complaint was filed against Tivity Health, Inc.
(NasdaqGS: TVTY). The complaint is brought on behalf of all
purchasers of Tivity securities between February 24, 2017 and
November 3, 2017, for alleged violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by Tivity's officers and directors. Tivity
provides fitness and health improvement programs to people aged
50 and older in the United States.

View this information on the law firm's Shareholder Rights Blog:
https://www.robbinsarroyo.com/shareholders-rights-blog/tivity-
health-inc/

Tivity Accused of Downplaying Competitive Risks to its Business

According to the complaint, despite acknowledging the risk that
health plan customers could offer services that compete directly
with Tivity's offerings, Tivity officials projected an optimistic
outlook for the company in its public filings. Tivity stated, "We
are confident of our long-term opportunity to produce profitable
growth and to increase shareholder value." However, Tivity
officials failed to disclose that they were aware of a plan by
one of the company's major customers, United Healthcare, to
expand its senior fitness benefits program, which would represent
direct competition to Tivity's SilverSneakers program. On
November 6, 2017, United Healthcare issued a press release
announcing the expansion of its fitness benefits to Medicare
Advantage plans in Austin, Texas. On this news, Tivity's stock
fell $16.45 per share, or approximately 34%, to close at $31.60
per share on November 6, 2017.

            Tivity Shareholders Have Legal Options

Concerned shareholders who would like more information about
their rights and potential remedies can contact attorney Leonid
Kandinov at (800) 350-6003, LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com, or via
the shareholder information form on the firm's website.

Robbins Arroyo LLP is a nationally recognized leader in
shareholder rights law. The firm represents individual and
institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities
class action lawsuits, and has helped its clients realize more
than $1 billion of value for themselves and the companies in
which they have invested.

         Leonid Kandinov, Esq.
         Robbins Arroyo LLP
         Tel.No.: (619) 525-3990 or Toll Free (800) 350-6003
         Website: www.robbinsarroyo.com
         Email: LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com [GN]


TRIANGLE CAPITAL: Arons & Arons File Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Arons & Arons, LLC, on Dec. 5 notified investors
of Triangle Capital Corporation (NYSE: TCAP) that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of those who purchased or
otherwise acquired shares between May 7th, 2014 and November 1st,
2017 (the "Class Period").

If you are a member of the class described above, you must apply
no later than January 22nd, 2018 to serve as the lead plaintiff
of the class. For more information please contact Arons & Arons,
LLC. (Jeffrey S. Arons, Esq.) at (973) 762-0795 or (877) 512-
7667, or by email at info@aronslaw.net.

According to the complaint, Triangle and certain officers
violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and
misleading statements and failing to disclose material
information concerning Triangle's business prospects.  It is
alleged, in part, that Triangle used an aggressive form of fair
value accounting where it recognized loan income before the
income was actually paid to the Company.  As a result, Triangle's
business prospects and ability to maintain a dividend level were
materially impaired.  However, throughout the class period,
Triangle continued to make false statements and omissions which
caused the Triangle stock price to become artificially inflated.
Ultimately the truth about Triangle's misconduct was released and
the value of the of the stock declined significantly.

If you are investor and interested in serving as a lead plaintiff
to act on behalf of the other class members in directing this
litigation please contact Arons & Arons, LLC. as soon as
possible. To expedite our review of your claim please complete
the online information form found here;
https://www.aronslaw.net/triangle
Upon completion of this form, you will be contacted. For more
information about serving as a lead plaintiff, please visit,
https://www.aronslaw.net/faq

Arons & Arons, LLC. is a family oriented law firm that provides
representation for investors who have been victimized by
securities fraud. [GN]


UNITED PARCEL: Delivery Drivers Mull Suit Over Work-Hours Hike
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Liedle, writing for KATU News, reports that UPS delivery
drivers unions are taking legal actions against the global
shipping company unless it suspends its decision to institute
70-hour work weeks around the holidays.

UPS announced on Dec. 1 that the change in drivers' hours was
needed to meet shipping demands between Dec. 1 and Jan. 5, when
daily delivery volumes are near double the normal level.

Under federal Department of Transportation regulations, drivers
are limited to 60 hours worked in a seven-day period or 70 hours
worked in an eight-day period.

UPS told KATU it made a similar decision in 2016.

"Our employees' work schedules are in compliance with Department
of Transportation requirements," Vice President of Public Affairs
Steve Gaut wrote in an email."  Union-represented employees are
paid time and one-half for work above 8 hours per day and they
receive the industry's most attractive compensation and benefits
program."

The Teamsters Locals unions says UPS "is forcing a 70-hour week
for drivers," which is "a nationwide issue jeopardizing the
safety of drivers and the general public."

Local Teamsters 162 President Mark Davison says he's filing a
charge with the National Labor Relations Board and a class action
grievance on behalf of the UPS drivers in Oregon.

"If they have a problem staffing, they have a process to work
with us," Mr. Davison said.  "They decided that they are going to
do what they want to do, and it's disappointing."

Mr. Davison says drivers on average make 200 deliveries a day,
racking up 400 trips in and out of the delivery vehicle,
sometimes up flights of stairs and through inclement weather.

"It is a draining job," Mr. Davison said.  "[The drivers']
families want them to come home safe.  Working 14 hours a day for
five days is inappropriate."

Some drivers on the East Coast have demonstrated before shifts.

UPS says it does not believe demonstrations will impact
deliveries.

A driver who asked to remain anonymous says they feel like they
are "being set up to fail" and says some packages are a day or
more delayed.

The company says it hired approximately 95,000 temporary
employees to help during the holiday season.

Postal Place owner Jacob Sanchez told KATU he hasn't noticed any
delay in UPS deliveries.

"Everything someone does elsewhere has a trickle-down effect,"
Sanchez said.

He says his delivery driver is very reliable and works extremely
hard.

"We have drivers make attempts as early as 8 a.m., and then they
are working out until 9 p.m., sometimes," Mr. Sanchez said.  "Our
guy here, I have seen him for the past 8-plus years, he's working
Monday through Saturday every week." [GN]


UNITED STATES: ICE Can't Detain Immigrant Teens' w/o Due Process
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Kang, writing for ACLU, reports that after five months
locked up in detention, F.E.* returned home to Brentwood, New
York.  "I thought I'd never see my 'Mami' again," the 17-year-old
said.

His offense? Scribbling "503," the calling code for El Salvador,
in his school notebook and allegedly hanging out with the "wrong
people" at his high school.  Local police, along with Immigration
and Customs Enforcement officers, claimed this implicated F.E. as
a gang member, which meant that ICE could arrest him, send him
away across the country, and detain him for months -- all without
notifying his family or giving him a hearing.

They were wrong.

The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Northern
California, Cooley LLP, and the law offices of Holly S. Cooper
recently won a federal court ruling that prevents the federal
government from detaining juveniles like F.E. without showing
that their detention is justified.  The case, Saravia v.
Sessions, is a class-action lawsuit on behalf of immigrant minors
who were living with their families and sponsors when they were
arrested on allegations of gang membership.  Like F.E., all of
the juveniles in our class were arrested by ICE and scattered in
detention centers throughout the country -- often thousands of
miles away from their communities -- based on unproven
accusations that they were gang members.

The district court in Northern California recognized that ripping
juveniles from their homes and locking them up deprives them of
their most basic freedoms.  The court put reasonable procedures
in place to prevent that from happening unfairly.  Now, each
juvenile in our class must be given a prompt post-arrest hearing
before a neutral decision-maker.  The government must present
evidence to justify the minor's detention, and that hearing has
to take place before the minor is sent to a faraway detention
center.

The government's treatment of teenagers like F.E. is part of a
larger effort to spread fear and misinformation about immigrants
in order to justify its harsh enforcement practices.  Local
police in Suffolk County -- where many of our class members are
from -- have admitted that when they can't come up with evidence
that a juvenile they're targeting has committed a crime, they
accuse the minor of being a gang member so that ICE can arrest
him and put him in immigration detention.

"There are times when we know someone is an MS-13 gang member,
and we know someone is an active MS-13 gang member, but we're not
in a position to make a criminal arrest," Timothy Sini, the
Suffolk County police commissioner, told The New York Times.  "So
another tool in our toolbox is to work with the Department of
Homeland Security to target active known MS-13 gang members for
violation of civil immigration laws, which is another way to
remove dangerous individuals from our streets."

But these accusations often fail to hold water.  The day after
the Saravia court issued its order, F.E. had a hearing in front
of an immigration judge, who evaluated the paltry evidence that
he was a "dangerous" gang member.  The judge found that evidence,
which included the scribbled El Salvador country code, lacking.
He ordered F.E. released back to his family.

Over a dozen other class members have similarly been ordered
released since the Saravia ruling.  This proves what we knew all
along: If these minors are given a fair shot at challenging the
evidence against them, they'll show that there's no reason to
keep them locked up.

* Plaintiff is identified by initials to protect his identity.
[GN]


VIRGO CAPITAL: Faces "Bostic" Suit over LR Credit Judgments
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, GLADYS BOSTIC, CIMERON DuBOSE, GERALD DYCHA, and
HEYWARD COLLINS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. VIRGO CAPITAL, LLC; AQUARIUS
CAPITAL, LLC; GOTHAM COLLECTION SERVICES CORP.; HK RECOVERY
GROUP, INC.; HOUSLANGER & ASSOCIATES PLLC; TODD E. HOUSLANGER;
and DOE COMPANIES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 161300/2017
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., Dec. 21, 2017), alleges that the Plaintiffs, who
are struggling New Yorkers, were harmed by Defendants' continued
collections of judgments similar to those challenged as
fraudulent in Sykes, et al. v. Mel S. Harris and Associates, LLC,
et al., 09 Civ. 8486 (S.D.N.Y.). These judgments, obtained by
numerous debt buying entities, are known as the "LR Credit
Judgments." Sykes ended in a class action settlement under which
the Sykes defendants stopped collecting all the LR Credit
Judgments they owned, and this Court subsequently vacated those
judgments. But approximately 25,000 Sykes class members did not
have collections stopped or their LR Credit Judgments vacated
because the Sykes defendants had sold those judgments to other
third-party debt buyers before settling Sykes.  This action is
brought on behalf of those Sykes class members whose sold
judgments remain outstanding and have not been vacated.[BN]

Attorneys for Bostic, DuBose, Dycha, Collins and the Putative
Class:

          Matthew D. Brinckerhoff, Esq.
          Debra L. Greenberger, Esq.
          Elizabeth S. Saylor, Esq.
          Jessica Clarke, Esq.
          EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF & ABADY LLP
          600 Fifth Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 763 5000

               - and -

          Carolyn E. Coffey, Esq.
          Ariana Lindermayer, Esq.
          Jeanette Zelhof, Esq.
          MOBILIZATION FOR JUSTICE
          100 William St., 6th Fl.
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 417 3701

               - and -

          Claudia Wilner, Esq.
          NATIONAL CENTER FOR LAW AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE
          275 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1506
          New York, NY 10001-6708
          Telephone: (212) 633 6967

               - and -

          Susan Shin, Esq.
          NEW ECONOMY PROJECT
          121 W 27th Street, Suite 804
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 680 5100


* Poland Ministry Proposes Amendment to 2009 Class Action Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Karolina Szmit-Faderska (Associate) -- karolina.szmit@cms-
cmno.com -- and Zofia Nejthardt (Trainee) -- zofia.nejthardt@cms-
cmno.com -- of CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP, in an
article for Lexology, wrote that the Ministry of Development has
proposed an amendment to the Act dated 17 December 2009 on
Pursuing Claims in a Class Action.  The draft is a part of the
Plan for Responsible Development "100 Changes for Companies --
Facilitation Package for Undertakings" and was entered into the
list of legislative and programme works for the Council of
Ministers. The objective of the proposed amendment is to create a
procedure that is less costly, less formal and which shortens
court proceedings.

The government's proposals include the introduction of an opt-out
model for minor cases concerning, among other things, violations
of consumer rights or Competition Law.  The opt-in option would
thus remain as the basic model and the opt-out solution would
only be allowed to a limited extent.  Furthermore, the
introduction of a criterion of minor claims is proposed, i.e. a
statutory determination of the maximum value of individual claims
pursued in the opt-out model up to the amount of the equivalent
of EUR 200 in the case of consumer claims and up to the
equivalent of EUR 500 for undertakings.

The difference between the planned model and the current
regulation concerns how the group of entities (the class) on
whose behalf the proceedings are conducted is created.

Under the currently applicable opt-in model, in order to become a
class member and to pursue your claim together with the class,
you need to express a wish to participate in the class action --
therefore, only persons who submit a written representation on
joining the class within a relevant time period become its
members and the class action may be conducted only for such
members.  The participation in a class action in the opt-in model
thus requires a proactive approach from entities that wish to
become class members and also involves meeting a number of
formalities.

In turn, under the opt-out model proposed in the draft, which is
applied in the United States, Belgium, Denmark and the United
Kingdom, by operation of law entities that meet the given
criteria (e.g. participated in a given event) would be included
in the class action. Such entities automatically become class
members (unless they declare that they wish to be excluded from
the class and not be subject to the effects of the judgment).
The proposal also stipulates the possibility for one person to
institute a class action. In such case all consumers that were in
a similar situation and incurred a loss due to the defendant's
activities will become claimants.

Furthermore, consumers will be informed of being a potential
class member via the internet or through the press.  The proposal
assumes developing, under the Act, clear procedures of notifying
the institution of a case and creating a central list of pending
class actions (e.g. in the Public Information Bulletin of the
Ministry of Justice).

Another change is the possibility for the class to be represented
by the Ombudsman, the Financial Ombudsman and a national
organisation with a statutory objective to protect the interests
of undertakings.

The draft also introduces a procedure on the distribution of
compensation awarded from the defendant between the class
members. An entity performing a profession of public trust,
specialising in fiduciary estate management for the benefit of
creditors (e.g. administrator, receiver, trustee) and supervised
by a court will be responsible for such distribution. [GN]


* US-Style Class Actions Expected in UK Following Data Breaches
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nichola Jenkins, Esq. -- nichola.jenkins@shoosmiths.co.uk -- of
Shoosmiths LLP, wrote that the High Court ruled a large retail
company to be vicariously liable for a leak of its employees'
data, in the first US-style class action in the UK involving a
personal data breach.

The data breach, which happened in 2015, was caused by a senior
employee of the company. Having a grievance against his employer,
he used his position to steal personal data, (including names,
addresses, dates of birth, bank account details, salaries and
national insurance numbers) of nearly 100,000 of his colleagues.
He subsequently published the information on the internet and
sent it to a number of newspapers. He was found guilty of fraud
in 2015, and was sentenced to eight years in prison.

The company acted quickly following the breach to get the data
taken down, and spent a considerable sum of money to provide
protection for the affected employees.  In fact the judge in the
case, Langstaff J, agreed that the company was not necessarily at
fault in the way it protected the personal data of its employees.
However, he did find that the law held the company responsible
for the actions of its employee, on the basis the company
deliberately entrusted him with access to confidential
information (including the leaked payroll data) on a daily basis,
and took the risk that they might be wrong in placing trust in
him.

Langstaff J said in his ruling "There is a sufficient connection
between the position in which Skelton was employed and his
wrongful conduct, put into the position of handling and
disclosing the data as he was by [the company] (albeit it was
meant to be to KPMG alone), to make it right for [the company] to
be held liable 'under the principle of social justice which can
be traced back to Holt CJ'. This conclusion would be the same
irrespective of whether a breach of duty under the DPA, a misuse
of private information, or a breach of the duty of confidence was
concerned, for the essential actions constituting a legal wrong
in each case were the same."

The High Court trial focused only on establishing liability, and
the company has already confirmed that it intends to appeal the
decision. If the appeal is unsuccessful, a second trial will
determine what the company will have to pay in damages.  The
claimants' lawyers expect that each individual could receive
thousands of pounds in compensation.

The case has potential implications for every organisation in the
country which collects and processes personal data about
individuals.  The ruling strengthens the position that
individuals affected by a data breach may claim compensation for
the "upset and distress" caused.  In fact, the right for
individuals to claim compensation for material and non-material
damage (even where little or no financial loss has occurred) is
specifically written into the new EU General Data Protection
Regulation (GDPR) which will come into force from 25 May 2018.

The landmark ruling in this recent case means that we should
expect to see more US style class actions against companies
following data breaches.  It was reported that Google faces a US
style class action by a group calling itself "You owe us Google"
who may ultimately act on behalf of up to five million iPhone
users alleging that Google bypassed privacy settings to
unlawfully collect and use their personal information.

Going forward, organisations which collect and use personal data
about individuals should:

   -- ensure they take data protection seriously, particularly in
the light of the forthcoming GDPR which attracts fines of up to
#20million (or 4% global turnover), whichever is the higher, as
well as compensation claims under individual and class actions.

   -- Those have not yet started their GDPR readiness programme
should do so as soon as possible (and we can help with this);

   -- consider limiting employees' access to personal data about
employees, customers and other individuals -- particularly where
this data is sensitive or involves financial information, or
there are concerns about individuals' trustworthiness or are in
disciplinary proceedings or similar;

ensure they have in place a robust data breach response plan in
place to deal with the consequences of a data breach quickly, and
limit any financial damage or distress of individuals concerned;
and

   -- review insurance policies to ensure they will cover
liability under any class or collective action, including claims
for emotional harm such as distress or hurt feelings. [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  * * *