CAR_Public/180111.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Thursday, January 11, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 9



                            Headlines

3M CO: Faces Suit Over Non-Functioning Safety Mask
ABM INDUSTRIES: Class Cert Denial in Janitors' Suit Reversed
ACORDA THERAPEUTICS: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Action
ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Faces "Lowy" Suit in E.D. New York
ANTHEM INSURANCE: Suit Over ABA Therapy Coverage to Go to Trial

AQUA METALS: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
AT&T MOBILITY: Arbitration in False Advertisement Suit Affirmed
AUSTRALIA: Attys Considering Class Action Over PFAs Contamination
BANKSIA GROUP: Perpetual Limited Settles Class Action for $64MM
BAY AREA RAPID: Class Action Must Be Amended, Court Says

BROADWAY STORAGE: Faces "Mendizabal" Suit in S.D. of New York
CALIFORNIA SERVICES: Court Certifies "West" TCPA Class
CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Qalipu Enrolment Process
CENTRA TECH: Suit Targets ICO Promoted by Floyd Mayweather
CHESAPEAKE BANK: Faces "Carroll" Suit in Eastern District of Va.

CHINESE BODYWORKS: Faces "Li" Suit in District of New Jersey
COMMUNITY HEALTH: 6th Cir. Revives $891MM Securities Fraud Suit
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Faces "Pedersen" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
CURRY SHACK CORP: Faces "Lawrence" Suit in S.D. of New York
EI DUPONT: Price-Fixing Settlement Obtains Prelim Court Nod

EL TORAZO: Court Grants Conditional Certification in "Perez"
EXACTECH INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Action
EXPEDIA INC: Averts Texas Occupancy Tax Class Action
F&R CLEANING: Faces "Castaneda" Suit in E.D. of New York
FAMILY AND CHILDREN'S: Faces Negligence Suit

FIAT CHRYSLER: In Hot Seat Vacated by VW
FLAT RATE MOVERS: Faces "Mendizabal" Suit in S.D. of New York
FLORISSANT, MO: Loses Bid to Dismiss Unlawful Jailing Suit
FRONTIER AIRLINES: Former FAs Cheated of $40MM Payout
GEICO GENERAL: Faces Class-Action Lawsuit Over Unsafe Repairs

GENERAL MOTORS: Sued Over Defective Power Lift-Gate Struts
GRAIN PROCESSING: Muscatine Residents Can Rejoin Class-Action
HEARST CORP: 2nd Circuit Refuses to Revive Minimum-Wage Claims
HYDRO ONE: Certification Denied in Proposed Class Action
IFINEX: Bitfinex Critic Claims to be Organizing CA Lawsuit

INC RESEARCH: Vincent Wong Files Securities Class Action
INVESTMENT RETRIEVERS: Faces "Barzola" Suit in S.D. of Florida
JIMMY JOHN'S: 7th Cir. Orders Wage Class-Action to Proceed
JOHNSON COUNTY, IN: Suit Over Public Defender Rules Pending
JOHNSON UTILITIES: Accused of Bribery, Fraud

JP MORGAN: Faces Class Action Over Extended Overdraft Fees
JP MORGAN: Court Dismisses "Capozio" FDCPA Claims
LG CHEM: Judge Okays $41.5MM Lithium Ion Battery Settlement
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Lebanon Settlement Entitled to Full Credit
LIBERTY TAX: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit

MACY'S INC: Judge Lets Most Claims Stand in Sale Price Class Suit
MANHATTAN MINI STORAGE: Faces "Mendizabal" Suit in S.D. of NY
MARDI GRAS: Strip Club Denies Keeping Dancers Off-Books
MARK HJELLE: Faces Orion Property Suit in S.D. of Kansas
MIZUHO BANK: Court Reviews Denial of Rule 12 Bid

MOISHES MOVING: Faces "Mendizabal" Suit in S.D. of New York
MORGAN & BROTHER MANHATTAN: Faces "Mendizabal" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
MRI INTERNATIONAL: Time to Seek OK of Class Deal Extended
MRS BPO: Faces "Abrahamov" Suit in Eastern District of New York
NEW YORK: Court Approves $5MM "Parker" Class Action Settlement

NFL: Super Bowl Ticket Pricing Class Action Back in the Game
NIGERIA DEPOSIT: Ex-Bankers to File Suit Over N9.8N Entitlements
NORTHWESTERN POLYTECHNIC: Class Action Seeks Tuition Refund
NRG YIELD: Court Junks Shareholders' Suit Against Board Members
OSI SYSTEMS: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of Lead Plaintiff Date

OSI SYSTEMS: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Class Action Suit
PARC HOTEL: Faces "Zeng" Suit in Eastern District of New York
PARTSSOURCE INC: "Gembarski" Class Certification Affirmed
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action Lawsuit
PIER 1: $3.5MM Class Settlement in "Mathein" Has Prelim Approval

PURDUE PHARMA: Parker County Joins Class Action Opioid Lawsuit
PURDUE PHARMA: Harris County to Sue Over Opioid Epidemic
QUDIAN INC: Kaplan Fox Files Class Action
QUDIAN INC: Scott+Scott Files Class Action Suit
QUDIAN INC: Lawsuits Claiming False IPO Information

QUINCY BIOSCIENCE: Brain Health Supplement Class Certified
R.A. ROGERS: Faces "Leavens" Suit in Eastern District of NY
RAMONA MUNICIPAL: Class Action Over Sewer Service Charge Ongoing
RBM OF CALIFORNIA: Westside Families Sue Over Construction
REVIVE NAILS SPA: Faces "Hsieh" Suit in Eastern District of NY

RJ REYNOLDS: Fla. Court Flips Statute of Limitations Ruling
ROYAL SIAM RESTAURANT: Faces "JinZhong" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
SAMSUNG CORP: Class Action Over Alleged CRT Price-Fixing Settled
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Money Bail Class Action Evidence Inadmissible
SCHNIPPER RESTAURANTS: "Alvarez" Has Conditional Certification

SCHWANS COMPANY: Faces "Leguette" Suit in E.D. of New York
SHREVEPORT, LA: Jan. 22 Water Dep't Class Action Hearing Set
SLATER & GORDON: Australian Ct. Approves Class-Action Settlement
SOUTH AFRICA: Residents Near Coronation Park Consider Suing
STERLING JEWELERS: Faces "Hudson" Suit in C.D. California

TEZOS: Hagens Berman Files Suit to Stop Dissipation of ICO Funds
TEZOS: Lawsuit Seeks Freezing of Foundation Assets
TEZOS: Auditor Resigns Amid Investor Class Action
TIME INC: Shareholders File Class Action Over Meredith Merger
TOSHIBA CORP: Wins Summary Judgment in Price-Fixing Class Action

TOYOTA MOTOR: Class Action Over Soy-Based Wiring Ongoing
UNITED STATES: Veteran Files Class Action Over Radiation
UNITED KINGDOM: Faces Class Action Over Future of NHS Services
UTZ QUALITY: Will Pay $1.25-Mil. to Settle Class-Action
VIRGINIA BEACH, VA: Schools Face Age Discrimination Class Action

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Audi Emissions Fix Under Settlement Approved
VOLTAGE PICTURES: Hollywood to Sue Pirates in Canada
WELLS FARGO: Navajo Nation Sues Over Predatory Sales Practices
WESTJET: Loses Bid to Have Proposed CA Lawsuit Tossed Out

* FCRA Class Action Plaintiffs Must Show Actual Injury


                            *********


3M CO: Faces Suit Over Non-Functioning Safety Mask
--------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that three Kentucky coal miners
with black lung disease claim in state court that dust masks made
by 3M Company, Mine Safety Appliances and American Optical
Corporation failed to protect them from inhaling dangerous
particles.


ABM INDUSTRIES: Class Cert Denial in Janitors' Suit Reversed
------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division
Four, issued an Opinion reversing the judgment of the Trial Court
denying Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification in the cases
captioned IN RE ABM INDUSTRIES OVERTIME CASES, Nos. A132387,
A133077, A133695 (Cal. App.).

On behalf of themselves and similarly situated Californians,
plaintiffs filed their complaint in September 2007, alleging that
ABM violated California labor laws by, among other things,
failing to properly record and compensate employees for meal
breaks; requiring employees to work split shifts without
appropriate compensation; and failing to ensure that employees
were reimbursed for expenses incurred when traveling between work
sites.

After a number of years of discovery and other preliminary
matters, plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification.
The motion sought certification of a general class described as
all non-exempt janitorial employees and former non-exempt
janitorial employees employed by ABM in the State of California
at any time from April 6, 2002 to the present (ABM Workers). This
putative class was estimated as of 2007 to include approximately
35,000 ABM janitorial employees.

Plaintiffs argued that class certification was warranted because,
among other reasons, common legal and factual issues
predominated.  For instance, plaintiffs alleged that ABM applied
a uniform payroll policy which compensated employees according to
anticipated work schedules rather than for hours actually worked,
leading to uncompensated time.

The trial court found certification inappropriate due to issues
with the subclass definitions.  In particular, the trial court
appeared concerned that the subclasses were defined in terms of
individuals who had been harmed, making class members
unascertainable until the conclusion of the case.  In addition,
the trial court concluded that the plaintiffs had failed to meet
their burden to show that common issues of fact and law
predominated over individual questions, given the employment
structure and the variety of circumstances that each worker finds
him or her under.  The trial court further noted with regards to
predominance that the number of declarations submitted by
plaintiffs disclosing labor code violations was insufficient
standing on its own to establish commonality.

In response, plaintiffs filed a motion pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure section 473, subdivision (b) (the 473(b) motion),
attempting to supplement the evidence previously provided with
respect to the qualifications of their expert. The trial court
denied plaintiffs' 473(b) motion.

Following entry of the trial court's written order denying class
certification, appellants filed a third notice of appeal (case
No. A133695).  By order dated January 26, 2012, the three cases
were consolidated for all future proceedings in the Cal. App. In
addition, at the parties' request, the Cal. App. stayed the
matter pending issuance by the Supreme Court of its decision in
Brinker, supra, 53 Cal.4th 1004.  Once the Supreme Court's
opinion in Brinker was final, a briefing schedule was set, and
the matter is now before the Cal. App. for decision.

As a preliminary matter, the Cal. App. addressed the trial
court's decision to disregard the declarations of plaintiffs'
expert, Woolfson, in making its class certification
determination.  Woolfson's expert declaration additionally
indicated that he had provided "payroll and timekeeping database
analysis for attorneys in Northern and Southern California
involving numerous wage and hour class action cases."  The Cal.
App. reiterated that additional information regarding the
specifics of Woolfson's expertise in matters relevant to this
case would clearly have been preferable.  However, the Cal. App.
concluded that the materials submitted in advance of the April
2011 hearing on class certification in this case were sufficient
to qualify Woolfson as an expert in database management and
analysis, and that the trial court's conclusion to the contrary
was an abuse of discretion.  In particular, the Cal. App. found
that the trial court's emphasis on formal education and
membership in professional organizations was misplaced with
respect to Woolfson's stated expertise, given his clear
familiarity with numerous, highly complex transactions in that
subject matter.

Moreover, although ABM did argue briefly before the trial court
that Woolfson was not qualified to analyze the data at issue and
that certain of his conclusions were overly broad and lacked
sufficient factual foundation, ABM did not challenge the veracity
of any of Woolfson's qualifications as set forth in his
declaration, nor did it contest even a single one of the myriad
factual findings made by Woolfson during the course of his
analysis.

Under these circumstances, plaintiffs' evidence supporting
Woolfson's expert qualifications showed that he had sufficient
skill or experience in the field of database management and
analysis such that his declarations should have been considered
by the trial court.

In sum, it was error for the trial court to completely disregard
plaintiffs' proffered expert evidence of common practice, rather
than accepting it for what it was and weighing it against the
existence of any individualized inquiries that might properly
have defeated plaintiffs' request for class certification.

Plaintiffs contend that the trial court abused its discretion,
both in concluding that their proposed subclasses are not
ascertainable and in determining that common issues do not
predominate over individual inquiries.

The trial court refused to certify this matter as a class action
because, among other reasons, it believed the subclasses proposed
by appellants were not ascertainable. In particular, the trial
court opined that defining the proposed subclasses by reference
to the alleged Labor Code violations sustained was a fatal
defect, because the putative subclass members could not be
identified without a determination on the merits of each class
member's case.

The subclasses are all defined using objective characteristics
and common transactional facts sufficient to allow a potential
class member to identify himself or herself as having a right to
recover pursuant to that subclass. For example, the nonexempt ABM
workers who would receive notice as part of the general class
would all be aware whether they worked though meal periods,
failed to receive reimbursement for their travel expenses between
worksites, or otherwise fell within the articulated subclasses.
Under these circumstances, ABM's speculation that some potential
class members identified in the data may ultimately not be
entitled to relief because, perhaps, they actually took an
otherwise unrecorded meal, or were not entitled to a split shift
premium on a particular day, or did not drive themselves between
job sites goes to the merits of each class member's recovery and,
as such, was an inappropriate focus of the trial court's
ascertainability inquiry.

Having determined that the plaintiffs have proposed ascertainable
classes, the Cal. App. next addressed the trial court's
conclusion that class certification was inappropriate in this
matter because individual inquiries predominate over common
questions.

When analyzing the element of predominance for purposes of class
certification the focus must be on the policy the plaintiffs are
challenging and whether the legality of that policy can be
resolved on a class-wide basis.

Instead of identifying the principal legal issues presented in
this matter and determining whether those operative legal
principles, as applied to the facts of the case, render the
claims susceptible of resolution on a common basis, the trial
court here improperly focused on the minutiae of each individual
janitor's personal situation.  This was a legal error and appears
also to have been the reason the trial court found Woolfson's
evidence irrelevant to the class certification inquiry.

However, when the merits of the ultimate damages issues are set
aside and Woolfson's analysis of ABM's payroll practices is
considered, along with the other evidence submitted by
plaintiffs, it becomes clear that numerous common issues
predominate in this matter, rendering class certification
appropriate.

Given that the classes proposed by plaintiffs in this case were
ascertainable and plaintiffs' allegations presented predominantly
common questions, the trial court's determinations to the
contrary cannot stand. Rather, the Cal. App. concluded that the
trial court's denial of class certification including its
decision regarding the admissibility of the Woolfson materials
rested on improper criteria and erroneous legal assumptions,
amounting to an abuse of discretion. Plaintiffs have made a
showing sufficient to allow them to take the next step in
attempting to prove the merits of their contentions on a class-
wide basis.

The trial court's order denying class certification is reversed
and the matter remanded for certification of classes.

A full-text copy of the Cal. App.'s December 11, 2017 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yd6qvqp8from Leagle.com.


ACORDA THERAPEUTICS: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, disclosed
that a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against
Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's securities between April 18, 2016 and November 14,
2017, inclusive.

Investors who purchased Acorda securities during the Class Period
may, no later than January 18, 2018, seek to be appointed as a
lead plaintiff representative of the class.  For additional
information or to learn how to participate in this action please
visit https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/acorda-therapeutics-inc#join

Acorda shareholders who wish to discuss this action and their
legal options are encouraged to contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq., D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. or
Adrienne Bell, Esq.) at (888) 299-7706 or at info@ktmc.com.

Acorda is a biotechnology company focused on the identification,
development, and commercialization of therapies for neurological
disorders.  On January 19, 2016, Acorda announced an agreement to
acquire Biotie Therapies Corporation ("Biotie") for approximately
$363 million (the "Biotie Acquisition").  In connection with the
Biotie Acquisition, Acorda announced that it would "obtain
worldwide rights to tozadenant, an oral adenosine A2a receptor
antagonist currently in Phase 3 development in Parkinson's
disease (PD)."

Among other things, the shareholder class action complaint
alleges that Acorda and certain of its senior executive officers
made a series of false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose to investors that: (i) tozadenant entailed significant
undisclosed safety risks; (ii) the Company had overstated
tozadenant's approval prospects and commercial viability; and
(iii) for the foregoing reasons, the Company had likewise
overstated the benefits of the Biotie Acquisition.

On November 15, 2017, Acorda disclosed the deaths of several
patients enrolled in final-stage studies of tozadenant. The
Company further disclosed that it had paused new enrollment in
the drug's long-term safety studies pending further discussion
with the independent Data Safety Monitoring Board and the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration.

On this news, shares of Acorda's stock fell $11.20 per share, or
nearly 40%, to close on November 15, 2017 at $17.00 per share, on
heavy trading volume.

Acorda shareholders may, no later than January 18, 2018, seek to
be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class
through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check or other counsel, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.  A lead
plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all
class members in directing the litigation.  In order to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the
class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class
members, and that the class member will adequately represent the
class in the action.  Your ability to share in any recovery is
not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead
plaintiff.  For additional information, or to learn how to
participate in this action, please visit
https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/acorda-therapeutics-inc#join.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check prosecutes class actions in state
and federal courts throughout the country. Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check is a driving force behind corporate governance reform,
and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional
and individual investors from the United States and around the
world.  The firm represents investors, consumers and
whistleblowers (private citizens who report fraudulent practices
against the government and share in the recovery of government
dollars).  The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check.

         Darren J. Check, Esq.
         D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
         Adrienne Bell, Esq.
         Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
         Tel.No.: (888) 299-7706
                  (610) 667-7706
         E-mail: dcheck@ktmc.com
                 skaskela@ktmc.com
                 abell@ktmc.com [GN]


ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Faces "Lowy" Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AllianceOne
Receivables Management, Inc. The case is styled as Shoel Lowy, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
AllianceOne Receivables Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-07574 (E.D. N.Y., December 29, 2017).

AllianceOne provides debt collection services and contact center
solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ANTHEM INSURANCE: Suit Over ABA Therapy Coverage to Go to Trial
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for Southern District of
Indiana, Indianapolis Division, issued an Opinion granting
Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Order
granting Defendant's Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings
in the case captioned W.P., a minor by and through his parents
and guardians KATHRYN PIERCE and CHESTER PIERCE, on behalf of
themselves and similarly situated individuals, A.B., a minor by
and through his parents and guardians MICHAEL BECK and JOANNE
KEHOE, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiffs, v. ANTHEM INSURANCE COMPANIES, INC., an
Indiana corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-00562-TWP-TAB
(S.D. Ind.).

W.P. is a thirteen year-old who suffers from severe autism.  W.P.
has limited verbal skills, is unable to navigate stairs without
assistance, and frequently exhibits repetitive behaviors
including rocking, flapping his arms and hands, and heavy
breathing.  W.P.'s treating physician prescribed forty hours per
week of ABA therapy to treat his autism.  W.P. began receiving
ABA therapy and his parents observed almost immediate
improvements in his ability to walk, use words, and respond
appropriately to prompts.  W.P.'s repetitive behaviors also
decreased.

W.P. is the beneficiary of a health insurance plan (Plan)
sponsored by his father's employer.  Anthem is the insurer and
claims administrator for the Plan.  Anthem initially covered
W.P.'s forty hours per week of ABA therapy but Anthem reduced the
number of covered ABA therapy hours for W.P. to twenty-five hours
per week.  Anthem further reduced the number of covered hours to
twenty hours per week.

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action asserting that
Anthem's policy and practice of limiting coverage for ABA therapy
for school-aged children with autism violates ERISA because it
fails to comply with Indiana's Autism Mandate, as well as federal
law.

Anthem filed a Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings. The
Court granted Anthem's Motion for Partial Judgment on the
Pleadings.

The Court dismissed Plaintiffs' claim against Anthem for
violation of the Autism Mandate because it found that the plain
language of the statute does not prohibit Anthem from imposing a
cap on the number of ABA therapy hours it covers.

Plaintiffs argue that the Court's failure to explicitly explain
why it gave no persuasive weight to the IDOI's interpretation was
error and that Bulletin 136 has guided insurance coverage in
Indiana for over a decade. The Court's decision rested on the
plain language of the Autism Mandate, which was the reason it
gave Bulletin 136 no persuasive weight.

Additionally, Bulletin 136 prohibits dollar limits and visit
limits, but it does not mention hour limits. Plaintiffs argued
that these were all synonymous, but the Court never reached the
merits of Bulletin 136 because the plain meaning of the Autism
Mandate foreclosed judicial interpretation of the permissibility
of hours caps.

Bulletin 136 speaks on the gray area that hours limitations fall
under. Although the statute allows for hours limitations,
insurers must provide for services that are consistent with the
treatment plan and medical necessity decisions under subsection
(a) of the Autism Mandate. Bulletin 136 resolves the permissible
restrictions insurers may place on coverage, restrictions related
to lack of medical necessity.

Because restrictions in coverage (hours caps) of services
included in a patient's treatment plan as medically necessary may
violate the Autism Mandate, Anthem must still show that its
denial of additional ABA hours rested on considerations of
medical necessity. Anthem contends that it will demonstrate at
trial, that its hours caps were based on medical necessity
criteria which resulted in fewer hours than requested because
mandated services are available in public schools. Further, as
previously discussed, Bulletin 136 prohibits dollar and visit
caps, but makes no mention of caps on the number of covered ABA
therapy hours.

In light of the medical necessity analysis, the Court concedes
that it made an error of apprehension. Under the plain meaning of
the statute, hours limitations are permitted under subsection (b)
of the Autism Mandate. However, hours limitations must comply
with the broad mandate of subsection (a) and Bulletin 136's
interpretation which places an affirmative duty on insurers to
provide coverage for medical necessity treatments proscribed by a
provider in the patient's treatment plan.

Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration is granted for limited
purposes. The alternative request for Certification and
Interlocutory Appeal is denied as moot. The Motion for Partial
Judgment on the Pleadings is granted in part and denied in part.

Counts I and II are reinstated to the extent that Plaintiffs
assert that Anthem wrongfully denied ABA therapy hours for non-
medical reasons in violation of the Indiana Autism Mandate.
Having reinstated the state law claims for violation of the
Autism Mandate, Counts I and II remain for trial.  Count II's
equitable relief claim for wrongful denial and Count III in its
entirety remain dismissed.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 8, 2017 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yagwgczv from Leagle.com.

W. P., Plaintiff, represented by Blythe H. Chandler --
bchandler@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC.
W. P., Plaintiff, represented by Toby J. Marshall --
tmarshall@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
& Syed Ali Saeed -- ali@sllawfirm.com -- SAEED & LITTLE LLP.

A.B., Plaintiff, represented by Blythe H. Chandler, TERRELL
MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC, Syed Ali Saeed, SAEED & LITTLE LLP &
Toby J. Marshall, TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC.

ANTHEM INSURANCE COMPANIES INC, Defendant, represented by
Kristopher N. Kazmierczak -- kkaz@katzkorin.com -- KATZ KORIN
CUNNINGHAM, P.C., Martin J. Bishop -- mbishop@reedsmith.com --
REED SMITH LLP, pro hac vice, Rebecca R. Hanson --
rhanson@reedsmith.com -- REED SMITH LLP, pro hac vice, Sally F.
Zweig -- szweig@katzkorin.com -- KATZ KORIN CUNNINGHAM, P.C. &
Timothy R. Carwinski -- tcarwinski@reedsmith.com -- REED SMITH
LLP.


AQUA METALS: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California (Docket Number 3:17-cv-07142) on behalf of persons and
entities that acquired Aqua Metals, Inc. ("Aqua Metals" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: AQMS) securities between February 9, 2017 and
November 9, 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 Aqua Metals 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 Aqua Metals case page on
our website at www.glancylaw.com/case/aqua-metals-inc.

On May 9, 2017, Aqua Metals held a conference call to discuss its
Q1 2017 results. On the call, Defendant Stephen R. Clarke
("Clarke"), the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") of
Aqua Metals, stated that "it took longer than we planned to get
the breaking and separation up and running." On this news, the
Company's stock price fell $4.34 per share, or 26%, to close at
$12.31 per share on May 10, 2017, thereby injuring investors.

Thereafter, on August 9, 2017, the Company held a conference call
to discuss its Q2 2017 results. On the call, Clarke disclosed
that the Company had made and installed improvements such that
"breaking and separation is now operational," and "breaking and
separation is operating reliably." On this news, the Company's
stock price fell $2.56 per share, or 23.6%, to close at $8.31 per
share on August 10, 2017, thereby injuring investors.

On October 23, 2017, the Company issued a press release entitled
"Aqua Metals Provides Update on Plant's Operations." Therein, the
Company disclosed that Aqua Metals had only "produced small
quantities of AquaRefined lead during the commissioning process"
and that "under certain conditions, the operators would need to
periodically assist the lead removal." On this news, the
Company's stock price fell $0.96 per share, or 17.9%, to close at
$4.41 per share on October 23, 2017, thereby injuring investors.

Finally, on November 9, 2017, after the market closed, Aqua
Metals issued a press release entitled "Aqua Metals Provides
Third Quarter 2017 Corporate Update." Therein, the Company
revealed that it "faced . . . many challenges as [it] worked to
ramp up production." On this news, the Company's stock price fell
$0.08 per share, or 2.1%, to close at $3.71 per share on November
10, 2017, thereby further 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
Aqua Metals' breaking and separating process was facing
substantial obstacles due to AquaRefining's need for a much
higher degree of separation than is normal in the industry; (2)
that the Company's breaking and separating process was not
operating reliably or efficiently; (3) that the breaking and
separating obstacles and issues were negatively impacting the
Company's output; (4) that the Company's four "operating modules"
were being used primarily for experimentation, rather than
production; (5) that module operators were assisting with lead
removal; (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, the ramp up of
the Company's recycling process was being significantly hindered
and delayed; and (7) that, as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' statements about Aqua Metals' business, operations,
and prospects, were materially false and/or misleading and/or
lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased Aqua Metals 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]


AT&T MOBILITY: Arbitration in False Advertisement Suit Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, issued an
Opinion affirming the District Court's Order granting Defendant's
Motion to Compel Arbitration in the case captioned MARCUS A.
ROBERTS; KENNETH A. CHEWEY; ASHLEY M. CHEWEY; JAMES KRENN, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AT&T MOBILITY LLC, Defendant-Appellee,
No. 16-16915 (9th Cir.).

Marcus Roberts, Ashley and Kenneth Chewey, and James Krenn appeal
an order compelling arbitration of their putative class action
claims against AT&T Mobility LLC.

Plaintiffs allege that AT&T falsely advertised their mobile
service plans as unlimited when in fact it intentionally slowed
data at certain usage levels. AT&T moved to compel arbitration,
and Plaintiffs opposed on First Amendment grounds. The district
court compelled arbitration, holding as a threshold matter that
there was no state action.

On appeal, Plaintiffs raise two arguments. First, they claim
there is state action whenever a party asserts a direct
constitutional challenge to a permissive law under Denver Area
Educational Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC, 518 U.S.
727 (1996).  Second, Plaintiffs contend that the Federal
Arbitration Act (FAA)  including judicial interpretations of the
statute, "encourages" arbitration such that AT&T's actions are
attributable to the state.

There is no state action here. First, AT&T's conduct must be
fairly attributable to the state, and Denver Area did not hold
otherwise. Second, AT&T is not a state actor under the
encouragement test. The FAA merely gives AT&T the private choice
to arbitrate, and does not encourage arbitration such that AT&T's
conduct is attributable to the state.

AT&T's actions must be attributable to the government for state
action to exist. Denver Area did not broadly rule that the
government is the relevant state actor whenever there is a direct
constitutional challenge to a permissive statute, and does not
support finding state action here.

AT&T's actions must be attributable to the government for state
action to exist. Denver Area did not broadly rule that the
government is the relevant state actor whenever there is a direct
constitutional challenge to a permissive statute, and does not
support finding state action here.

Under Lugar, 457 U.S. at 937, AT&T's conduct must be attributable
to the state.  Plaintiffs try to circumvent this requirement by
bringing a direct First Amendment challenge to the FAA and its
Supreme Court interpretations. They assert state action exists
because the government is the relevant state actor as to
Plaintiffs' direct challenge, not AT&T.

But the Supreme Court already rejected that argument in American
Manufacturers.  There, the plaintiffs sued private insurers for
withholding disputed medical treatment payments, as permitted by
a state workers' compensation law. The plaintiffs perhaps hoping
to avoid the traditional application of our state-action cases
framed their challenge as direct. They claimed the identity of
the defendant' or the act or decision by a private actor or
entity who is relying on the challenged law was irrelevant.
Just as the plaintiffs in American Manufacturers and Flagg Bros.
had to show the private defendants were state actors, AT&T's
conduct must be fairly attributable to the state. 526 U.S. at 50-
51; 436 U.S. at 157. Plaintiffs cannot convert AT&T into a state
actor simply by framing their FAA challenge as direct. If every
private right were transformed into a governmental action just by
raising a direct constitutional challenge, the distinction
between private and governmental action would be obliterated.
Plaintiffs argue Denver Area's implicit edict changed this
established state action framework and made proving private
arbitration clause drafters to be state actors unnecessary.
The 9th Circuit disagrees.

As an initial matter, Plaintiffs' reading must be incorrect, as
Denver Area did not overrule Flagg Bros., decided eighteen years
earlier; nor was Denver Area overruled by American Manufacturers,
decided three years later.

Plaintiffs unsuccessfully attempt to distinguish Flagg Bros. and
American Manufacturers as section 1983 lawsuits that sought money
damages from private parties for harm caused by the alleged
constitutional violations. This distinction, drawn from a
dissenting opinion, lacks binding legal authority.

Plaintiffs argue that, even if their Denver Area argument fails,
they can still show state action under Lugar because the
government sufficiently encourages AT&T to arbitrate. They reason
the FAA's mandate and the Supreme Court's corresponding
enforcement of consumer adhesion forced arbitration contracts
have sufficiently encouraged the drafting of such contracts,
particularly in the mobile phone industry, so as to hold the
State fairly responsible for their burgeoning use.

For a private party to be a state actor, there must be a
sufficiently close nexus between the State and the challenged
action of the private entity. Whether such a close nexus exists
depends on whether the State has exercised coercive power or has
provided such significant encouragement, either overt or covert,
that the choice must in law be deemed that of the State. Conduct
by private entities with the mere approval or acquiescence of the
State is not state action.

Permission of a private choice cannot support a finding of state
action and private parties do not face constitutional litigation
whenever they seek to rely on some statute governing their
interactions with the community surrounding them. Plaintiffs
must, but cannot, show AT&T's conduct is attributable to the
state. Because there is no state action, the 9th Circuit affirms.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's December 11, 2017 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9uvmp2g from Leagle.com.

Alexander H. Schmidt -- Schmidt@whafh.com -- (argued), Colts
Neck, New Jersey; Michael Liskow -- liskow@whafh.com -- Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, New York, New York; Rachele
R. Rickert -- rickert@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman
& Herz LLP, San Diego, California; Michael W. Sobol --
msobol@lchb.com -- and Roger N. Heller -- rheller@lchb.com --
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, San Francisco,
California; John A. Yanchunis -- JYanchunis@ForThePeople.com --
and Rachel Soffin -- rsoffin@forthepeople.com -- Morgan & Morgan
Complex Litigation Group, Tampa, Florida; Jean Sutton Martin --
jean@jsmlawoffice.com -- Law Office of Jean Sutton Martin PLLC,
Wilmington, North Carolina; Daniel M. Hattis -- dan@hattislaw.com
-- Hattis Law, Clyde Hill, Washington; D. Anthony Mastando --
teri@mastandoartrip.com -- and Eric J. Artrip --
artrip@mastandoartrip.com -- Mastando & Artrip LLC, Huntsville,
Alabama; Douglas C. Martinson II -- dougii@martinsonandbeason.com
-- Martinson & Beason PC, Huntsville, Alabama; for Plaintiffs-
Appellants.

Andrew J. Pincus -- apincus@mayerbrown.com -- (argued), Archis A.
Parasharami -- aparasharami@mayerbrown.com -- Kevin Ranlett,
kranlett @mayerbrown.com  and Daniel E. Jones --
djones@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, Washington, D.C.;
Donald M. Falk -- dfalk@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, Palo
Alto, California; for Defendant-Appellee.

Karla Gilbride -- kgilbride@publicjustice.net -- and F. Paul
Bland Jr. -- pbland@publicjustice.net -- Washington, D.C.; Brian
Hardingham, Oakland, California; as and for Amicus Curiae Public
Justice P.C. 555 12th Street, Suite 1230. Oakland, CA 94607
Adam G. Unikowsky -- aunikowsky@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP,
Washington, D.C.; Kater Comerford Todd -- ktodd@uschamber.com --
and Warren Postman, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, Washington,
1615 H Street, NW. Washington, DC 20062; Deborah R. White --
deborah.white@rila.com -- Retail Litigation Center Inc.,
Arlington, Virginia; for Amici Curiae Chamber of Commerce of the
United States of America and Retail Litigation Center, Inc.


AUSTRALIA: Attys Considering Class Action Over PFAs Contamination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ellen Ebsary, writing for The Border Mail, reports that Shine
Lawyers is considering a class action for Wodonga residents
against environmental PFAS contamination from the Bandiana
Military Area.

Similar cases are running in four other areas, including
Katherine, where residents are not using bore water and signs
have been erected warning against the consumption of river fish.

The Australian Defence Force and other agencies used firefighting
Aqueous Film-Forming Foam, containing per- and poly-fluoroalkyl
substances (PFAS), from the 1970s to mid-2000s.

The presence of PFAS, particularly PFOA and PFOS, in Wodonga is
currently being investigated by Defence.

Environmental consultant Golder Associates was commissioned in
July to review the historical use of the foam, identify pathways
for migration off-site and to sample soil, water and potentially
plants and animals.

Shine Lawyers special counsel Joshua Aylward, Esq. thinks the
results of this investigation will 'send shock-waves through
Wodonga'.

"Defence used these chemicals on a 70 to 80-year basis and have
identified the bases where they used those chemicals the most,
and they became the highest priority," he said.

"Wodonga is one of those 18 sites, and that's concerning because
it means they think they will find levels off the base.

"At the very first community meeting in Oakey, Defence called it
'the new asbestos', which sends shivers down your spine.

"They now say that is not their official position, but they were
forced to admit that was said, at a senate inquiry.

"People don't know what PFAS are, but they know what asbestos
is."

A preliminary report based on limited testing was prepared for
Defence in 2016, which prompted the need for further
investigation.

Seven water samples were collected in June 2016 -- three within
army grounds; one in Bonegilla; and two others; at Whytes Road
Killara and Jack in the Box Creek, near Victoria Cross Parade.

At the time, acceptable levels of PFAS in drinking water as
outlined in 'Defence Directive Number Eight' were used to analyse
results, but since then Food Standards Australia New Zealand has
developed health-based guidance values, deeming 0.07 micrograms
of PFAS per litre as acceptable.

When using these new guidelines to assess the samples collected
in 2016, two sites exceed 0.7 ug/L.

The sample collected from Jack in the Box Creek, which is not a
water supply source, was seven times higher than the recommended
PFOS level for drinking water and three-and-a-half times higher
for PFHxS.

The surface water collected from a creek that runs under Whytes
Road, adjacent to East Bandiana, was almost double the level for
PFOS and PFHxS.

Both samples do not exceed ecological freshwater levels, and if
water from those creeks enters into the Murray and Kiewa rivers
concentration of PFAS would significantly drop.

Only a detailed study spanning several locations and dates will
show the true representation of the chemicals in the environment.

A Defence spokeswoman said North East Water was 'regularly
testing the Wodonga water supply and has not detected PFAS to
date'.

"The community's health and safety is Defence's primary concern,"
she said.

"Defence is committed to being open and transparent about the
progress and findings of the investigation at Bandiana.

"Defence has held two community walk-in sessions in Bandiana to
provide the community with preliminary findings and an
opportunity to speak with representatives from Defence, the
contracted investigation team and other relevant government
agencies."

Mr Aylward said the residents most likely to be impacted by PFAS
would be those using contaminated bore water for drinking, or
consuming produce grown with impacted water.

"Even outside the investigation area in Townsville, there are
unacceptable levels coming out of bores and Defence has had to
redraw their investigation footprint," he said.

"In Oakey it spread nine kilometres in a particular direction, in
Katherine 18 kilometres, and there were still high levels at that
distance.

"It's not just affecting people close to the base; it's been used
for decades and had a long time to spread.

"People in these towns want to get out from the contamination
because it's going to be there for generations, and there are
elderly people who can't sell their devalued properties so they
can go into a home."

State and federal governments maintain there is no conclusive
evidence that PFAS are harmful to human health and the science is
still developing around the chemicals.

In an interim position statement from November, the Environment
Protection Authority Victoria stated environmental contamination
was of growing concern as 'PFAS have been shown to have adverse
impacts on fish and some animals', and that 'as a precaution
human exposure to PFAS should be minimised'.

An everyday person will already have been exposed to the
chemicals in some form, as EPA chief executive Nial Finegan
explained.

"As they have heat, water and stain-repelling properties, PFAS
have been widely used in a range of industrial and consumer
products both in Australia and internationally, including in fire
retardants, water-proofing, food preparation, food packaging,
furnishings, clothing and recreational equipment," he said.

"The EPA works closely and cooperatively with Commonwealth
agencies to ensure their environmental investigations meet
appropriate standards."

An editorial published in 2016 in the Environmental Science and
Technology journal referenced contamination in America as 'old
news'.

"Since 2002, close to 300 papers published in ES&T have
documented the presence of these compounds in water supplies,
wildlife, and humans," it read.

"The voluntary end of production of PFOA in the U.S. did not
occur until 2015 and industry has continued to use chemicals that
can be transformed to PFOA and PFOS in the environment.

"It is time for EPA and other agencies to treat unregulated
chemicals more seriously."

The most extensive contamination in Australia has been detailed
by the ABC and Four Corners, including the case of a four-year-
old Oakey girl whose PFOS blood levels were 23 times higher than
the state average.

A senate committee recommended in 2015 that Defence fund annual
blood tests for Oakey residents, and that the federal government
'commit to voluntarily acquire property and land which is no
longer fit for purpose due to PFOS/PFOA contamination' in the
town.

A Defence spokeswoman said blood testing programs were running in
Oakey, Williamtown and Katherine 'because the extent of
contamination and exposure pathways at these sites is well
understood'.

"Once further investigations of other areas have been completed,
and the extent of the contamination and exposure pathways are
better understood, the Australian government will be in a
position to consider whether it would be appropriate to expand
the voluntary blood testing program, epidemiological study and
additional mental health and support services to these
investigation areas," she said.

The spokeswoman said defence had 'not identified any residents
within the investigation area that require alternative water
supplies'.

"Defence is currently conducting the second stage of the detailed
environmental investigation process, a detailed site
investigation, at Bandiana," she said.

"The DSI involves the sampling of soil, sediment, surface water,
groundwater, on and near Bandiana to further assess the nature
and extent of PFAS contamination."

Mr Aylward said if he was living in Wodonga, 'he would want to be
having blood testing done'.

"Around the world these levels are totally unacceptable -- in
America they are blood testing all communities affected by these
chemicals," he said.

"Rural people grow their own food and have livestock, and they
are concerned because they rely heavily on their own water
sources.

"A couple moths ago I was contacted by people in Wodonga as they
had heard from Defence.

"They are really concerned about being in an investigation area
and the messages they are getting from Defence seem to contradict
what they find online."

Mr Aylward is in contact with six Wodonga residents and said
potential legal action would be guided by further PFAS results.

"I will be in Wodonga in the first quarter to talk about what can
be done for the town," he said.

Indi MP Cathy McGowan said she would follow the issue.

"I encourage those with concerns to get in touch with my Wodonga
office to discuss their situation -- their questions and comments
will be passed on to the appropriate ministers for a response,"
she said.

North East Water and Wodonga Council both declined to comment on
the issue. [GN]


BANKSIA GROUP: Perpetual Limited Settles Class Action for $64MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Hemphill, writing for The Weekly Times, reports that the
trustee of failed Kyabram finance company Banksia Group will pay
out $64 million to settle a class action brought by depositors.

The payout brings a lengthy battle to resolve one of rural
Victoria's biggest financial collapses closer to completion.

The Banksia Group collapsed in October 2012, owing about $660
million mostly to 16,000 depositors from around the state.

The trustee was The Trust Company (Nominees) Limited, which was
bought by Perpetual Limited in 2013 for $350 million.

Kyabram investor Laurie Bolitho was the representative plaintiff
in a class action brought by debenture holders, or depositors,
against TTC.

Mr Bolitho appointed litigation funder BSL Litigation Partners to
back the class action.

The case against TTC was settled by Perpetual but has to go
before the Honourable Justice Clyde Croft of the Supreme Court of
Victoria on January 30 for approval.

Class action committee member Don McKenzie, of Kyabram, said the
$64 million settlement would add about eight cents in the dollar
in returns to debenture holders.

Mr McKenzie said the investors had already received about 82
cents in the dollar and there was scope to pick up one or two
cents more through outstanding litigation against Banksia's
insurer and some tax rulings being sought from the Australian
Taxation Office.

He said debenture holders were initially told they might receive
50-60 cents in the dollar through a winding up of Banksia.

"We hope we will end up getting 92 or 93 cents in the dollar," Mr
McKenzie said.

"We are happy but so frustrated the process has taken so long.

"So, yes, we are very happy with the end result." [GN]


BAY AREA RAPID: Class Action Must Be Amended, Court Says
--------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a
woman who accuses the Bay Area Rapid Transit District of using
the BART Watch mobile app, intended to let commuters communicate
with police, to spy upon its customers must amend her class
action, a federal judge ruled.


BROADWAY STORAGE: Faces "Mendizabal" Suit in S.D. of New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Broadway Storage
LLC. The case is styled as Maria Mendizabal, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Broadway Storage
LLC doing business as: Gotham Mini Storage LLC d/b/a GOTHAM MINI
STORAGE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-10236 (S.D. N.Y.,
December 31, 2017).

Broadway Storage LLC is an affordable storage unit located
Appleton, WI North-Side.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CALIFORNIA SERVICES: Court Certifies "West" TCPA Class
------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification in the case captioned SANDRA WEST, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. CALIFORNIA SERVICES BUREAU, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 16-cv-3124-YGR (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs Sandra West and Hector Membreno bring the putative
class action against defendant California Services Bureau, Inc.
(CSB) alleging that defendant called plaintiffs without consent,
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

Plaintiffs moves to certify that following class:

   Cell Phone Wrong Number Class: All persons within the United
States who, within the four years prior to the filing of the
complaint in this action, through the date of class notice (the
Class period), Defendant or its agent/s or employee/s caused to
be made at least 2 telephone calls using its Global Connect
dialer to said person's cellular telephone through the use of any
automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or pre-
recorded voice, where such person was not listed in Defendant's
records as the intended recipient of the calls.

Commonality and Predominance

According to plaintiffs' expert, the reverse lookup service will
identify the users for each of the phone numbers which appear in
defendant's call log databases, not merely the account holder.
Stated differently, a reverse lookup will generate a list of all
individuals who customarily use each phone number. This list
would necessarily include family members who use the cell phone
number and arguably have authority to consent to be called at
that number. As noted, this list can be compared to defendant's
call log databases to determine on a class-wide basis whether
consent was given with respect to each class member.

Therefore, the Court finds that plaintiffs satisfy the
requirement that questions common to the class predominate over
other questions under Rule 23(b)(3).

Numerosity

The Court finds that plaintiffs need not rely on the Kopel
Declaration to establish numerosity. The record reflects that CSB
made 32 million calls through Global Connect during the class
period. Plaintiffs' call records expert Anya Verkhovskaya
analyzed these calls in defendant's call log databases and
determined that CSB placed two or more calls to 635,096 unique
phone numbers during the class period.

Accordingly, applying common sense assumptions and reasonable
inferences, the Court finds that plaintiffs have satisfied the
numerosity requirement.

Typicality

Defendant challenges typicality only as to West.  CSB's argument
hinges on the fact that West's claim is not typical of the
proposed class because it is possible she "authorized her son to
use her [cell phone] number and therefore consented to the phone
calls to that number."  However, defendant overlooks the fact
that West testified during her deposition that that (i) the cell
phone number in question was never the number for her son, and
(ii) she never authorized her son to use or provide that number
as an emergency contact.

Therefore, the Court finds defendant's argument speculative and
insufficient to defeat typicality. Accordingly, the Court finds
that plaintiffs have satisfied the adequacy requirement under
Rule 23(a)(4) with regard to West and Membreno.

Adequacy

The record before the Court indicates that plaintiff West has
been an active participant in the litigation.  Additionally,
plaintiffs' counsel, Bursor & Fisher, P.A., have experience
litigating class action claims in both federal and state courts,
and appear to have been prosecuting this action vigorously.
Defendant raises no arguments to the contrary.

The Court finds that plaintiffs have satisfied the adequacy
requirement under Rule 23(a)(4) with regard to West and her
counsel.

Superiority

Defendant argues that plaintiffs' claims lack superiority due to
the difficulties in managing the class action. Specifically,
defendant asserts that plaintiffs lack a comprehensive list of
call recipients who did not consent and that putative class
members cannot be identified using the Global Connect call
records due to the frequency of cell phone turnover.

Such manageability concerns are alone insufficient to defeat
superiority of the proposed classes here. The Ninth Circuit has
specifically noted that it was not clear why requiring an
administratively feasible way to identify all class members at
the certification stage is necessary to protect defendant's due
process rights.

The Court finds that a class action is superior to individual
adjudication.

Rule 23(b)(2) allows a Court to certify a class when the
requirements of Rule 23(a) are satisfied and the defendant has
acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the
class, so that final injunctive or corresponding declaratory
relief is appropriate respecting that class as a whole.
Here, the large amount of potential liability undermines the
proposition that declaratory or injunctive relief is primary to
plaintiffs' action. However, in cases where a plaintiff seeks
both declaratory and monetary relief, courts may certify a
damages-seeking class under Rule 23(b)(3), and an injunction-
seeking class under Rule 23(b)(2). The Court finds that
certifying the classes here as both damages-seeking classes under
Rule 23(b)(3) and injunctive relief only classes under Rule
23(b)(2) is appropriate and promotes judicial efficiency.
The Court finds that plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements
for certification under Rule 23(b)(2).

Plaintiffs' motion for class certification under both Rule
23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3) is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 11, 2017 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ydygbwbj from Leagle.com.

Sandra West, Plaintiff, represented by G. Thomas Martin, III --
tom@mblawapc.com -- Martin & Bontrager, APC.

Sandra West, Plaintiff, represented by Lawrence Timothy Fisher-
ltfisher@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A., Yitzchak Kopel --
ykopel@bursor.com -- Bursor Fisher & Nicholas J. Bontrager --
Nick@mblawapc.com -- Martin & Bontrager, APC.

Hector Membreno, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Lawrence
Timothy Fisher, Bursor & Fisher, P.A., Nicholas J. Bontrager,
Martin & Bontrager, APC, Annick Marie Persinger, Bursor & Fisher,
P.A., Thomas A. Reyda, Burosr and Fisher, P.A., Yeremey O.
Krivoshey, Bursor Fisher, P.A. &Yitzchak Kopel, Bursor Fisher.

California Service Bureau, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Charles Robert Messer --  messerc@cmtlaw.com -- Carlson & Messer
LLP, David J. Kaminski  -- kaminskid@cmtlaw.com -- Carlson &
Messer LLP & Stephen Albert Watkins WatkinsS@cmtlaw.com --
Carlson and Messer LLP.


CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Qalipu Enrolment Process
--------------------------------------------------------
Gary Kean, writing for The Western Star, reports that one of the
four legal actions centered around the controversial Qalipu
Mi'kmaq First Nation Band enrolment process has been hit by a
major legal blow.

The lawsuit filed by former lawyer Douglas Doucette in the
Federal Court of Canada has been dismissed, though he says he is
appealing the decision.

Doucette filed a statement of claim against Qalipu, the
Federation of Newfoundland Indians (FNI) and the federal
government in March.

He had asked the court to strike down both the 2008 agreement-in-
principle between the government and the FNI to create the Qalipu
band and the 2013 supplemental agreement that introduced stricter
criteria for band membership.

This past summer, Doucette encountered some legal snags and
indicated he wished to submit an amended statement of claim.

On Nov. 3, the court dismissed Doucette's statement of claim with
no chance of him amending it.

He said an appeal of that decision was filed Nov. 13.

The three other court actions filed in relation to the Qalipu
enrolment process are at various stages of the legal process.

Related stories:

Mi'kmaq assembly needs more time to file Qalipu enrolment
judicial review application

Lawsuit to strike Qalipu enrolment process hits legal road bumps
in Federal Court

Former Corner Brook resident Jerry Brake puts his name on class
action against Qalipu enrolment

One filed has former Corner Brook resident Jerry Brake as the
representative plaintiff in a potential class-action lawsuit.
That legal action is against the federal government and seeks to
invalidate the 2013 supplemental agreement that led to some
80,000 people being rejected from inclusion on the Qalipu
founding members list.

Brake's lawsuit on behalf of all rejected applicants is at a
procedural stage that precedes a hearing being set.

Both Doucette and Brake had been seeking financial compensation
for their claims of wrongdoing.

The other two court cases challenging the legalities of the
enrolment have been jointly filed by the Mi'kmaq First Nation
Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador, an entity established to
support those who feel disenfranchised by the Qalipu enrolment
process.

Those claims are seeking to have the process used to determine
Qalipu membership declared null and void and for the entire
process of enrolment to start afresh.

According to the Federal Court of Canada, one of those legal
battles, which names Sandra Frances Wells as a plaintiff, is also
still at the case-management phase.

The other, which names assembly chairperson David Robert Wells as
its plaintiff, has completed all the procedural steps necessary
leading up to a hearing to request a judicial review of the
enrolment process.

Dave Wells told The Western Star on Dec. 13 that both of the
assembly's jointly filed cases are awaiting a hearing date and
will be heard together, but no hearing date has yet been set.

The difference between the two jointly filed applications is that
one group, including David Wells, involves applicants who never
found out they had indigenous ancestry until after the Sept. 22,
2011 deadline imposed by the enrolment process. The scenario
being challenged in the group that includes Sandra Wells, who is
of no relation to David Wells, involves people who knew of their
ancestry but were having trouble proving it before Sept. 22,
2011.

The assembly is also trying to raise money to pay for its legal
battles. A social media funding effort to raise $10,000 has
raised a little more than $2,000 so far.

In the meantime, there is talk of another court action being
launched. The Facebook group Friends of Qalipu Applicants has
posted that it has a legal opinion supporting pursuing litigation
against the enrolment process, including seeking an injunction to
have it halted until the legal challenges have been sorted out.
[GN]


CENTRA TECH: Suit Targets ICO Promoted by Floyd Mayweather
----------------------------------------------------------
Stan Higgins, writing for Coin Desk, reports that an initial coin
offering (ICO) promoted by boxing champion Floyd Mayweather, Jr.,
is at the center of a newly filed class-action complaint.

Dated Dec. 13, the lawsuit names Sohrab Sharma, Raymond Trapani,
Robert Farkas and William Hagner, as well as Centra Tech, Inc.,
as defendants, accusing them of violating U.S. securities law
through a token sale that ultimately raised $30 million for the
development of a cryptocurrency-focused debit card.

The filing comes more than a month after two of the firm's
founders left the startup. According to an Oct. 31 blog post from
Centra, both Sharm and Trapani exited the project following the
sale's completion, as well as a profile of them and the ICO by
The New York Times.

In the complaint, lawyers for the plaintiff alleged that the
Centra sale constituted an unregistered offering and sale of
securities.

They wrote:

". . . . in connection with Centra Initial Coin Offering (the
"Centra ICO"), Defendants raised over $30 million in digital
cryptocurrencies by offering and selling unregistered securities
in direct violation of the Securities Act."

The complaint also accused the defendants of misleading investors
about the nature of its relationship with card networks Visa and
Mastercard, as well as listing fake team members on its website.

In a statement posted to its blog, the Centra team disputed the
lawsuit filed by "an alleged purchaser of Centra Tokens."

"This lawsuit, which for the most part, appears to repeat
unfounded claims regarding Centra Tech, alleges that Centra
Tech's initial coin offering of Centra Tokens was an unregistered
sale of securities. The plaintiff's complaint attempts to mimic
claims and allegations the Securities and Exchange Commission has
lodged against other cryptocurrency offerors," the startup wrote,
adding:

"Centra Tech disputes the allegations in the complaint."

The Centra ICO was notably promoted by Mayweather as well as
music producer DJ Khaled prior to its completion. Though the
timing is currently unclear, the original posts by Mayweather on
Instagram and Facebook that promoted the sale appear to have been
deleted, and a post on Instagram by DJ Khaled is also unavailable
as of press time.

Neither Mayweather or Khaled were named in the suit.

Jacob Zowie, the plaintiff, is being represented by Komlossy Law
and Levi & Korinsky LLP in the suit. A representative for
Mayweather did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
[GN]


CHESAPEAKE BANK: Faces "Carroll" Suit in Eastern District of Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chesapeake Bank.
The case is styled as Keith Carroll, an individual and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v Chesapeake Bank,
Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00860-HEH (E.D. Va., December 29,
2017).

Chesapeake Bank is a banking institution.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Thomas Eugene Strelka, Esq.
   Strelka Law Office PC
   119 Norfolk Avenue SW, Suite 330
   Roanoke, VA 24011
   Tel: (540) 283-0802
   Email: thomas@strelkalaw.com

      - and -

   Linda Leigh Rhoads Strelka, Esq.
   Strelka Law Office PC
   119 Norfolk Avenue SW, Suite 330
   Roanoke, VA 24011
   Tel: (540) 283-0802
   Email: leigh@strelkalaw.com


CHINESE BODYWORKS: Faces "Li" Suit in District of New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chinese Bodyworks
Inc. The case is styled as Xin Li, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Chinese Bodyworks Inc,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-13863 (D. N.J., December 31, 2017).

Chinese Bodyworks Inc. is a massage parlor.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: 6th Cir. Revives $891MM Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ayla Ellison, writing for Becker's Hospital Review, reports that
on December 13, the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals revived a
shareholder class-action lawsuit against Franklin, Tenn.-based
Community Health Systems, alleging the for-profit hospital
operator deceived shareholders by keeping secret that its profits
were based on Medicare fraud.

Here are eight things to know about the lawsuit.

   1. Shareholders sued CHS in 2011, claiming the company
followed a policy that encouraged physicians to admit Medicare
patients to the hospital instead of treating them in less
lucrative outpatient settings.

   2. Those allegations first surfaced in an April 11, 2011,
complaint filed by Dallas-based Tenet Healthcare, which sued CHS
to avoid a hostile takeover bid. Immediately after Tenet sued,
CHS issued a press release stating Tenet's allegations were
meritless. However, Larry Cash, who then served as CHS' CFO,
allegedly admitted the company's hospitals did use the Blue Book,
a guide CHS created that prompted physicians to provide inpatient
services for many conditions other hospitals would treat as
outpatient cases. Mr. Cash said 30 of CHS' hospital had already
quit using the Blue Book, and the rest would do so by the end of
2011, according to court documents.

   3. CHS' stock fell 35 percent after Tenet sued. However,
shareholders did not immediately take legal action against CHS.

   4. In October 2011, CHS released weaker-than-expected
earnings. On an earnings call, Mr. Cash said inpatient admissions
had declined at 75 percent of its hospitals after physicians
phased out the Blue Book. On that same call, CHS Chairman and CEO
Wayne Smith said, "there's no question we've had some adverse
impact related to issues . . . . around the Tenet lawsuit,"
according to court documents.

   5. After the admissions by executives, CHS' stock price
dropped another 11 percent. Shareholders subsequently sued CHS,
claiming they lost a combined $891 million in the little more
than six months between April 11, 2011, when Tenet sued, and Oct.
27, 2011, the day after the earnings call and the executive
admissions.

   6. Although CHS continued to deny Tenet's allegations, the
company entered into a $98.15 million settlement with the
Department of Justice in 2014 to resolve allegations it knowingly
billed government payers for inpatient services that should have
been billed as outpatient or observation services.

   7. The district court dismissed the lawsuit filed by
shareholders in 2016. The court said the shareholders failed to
show Tent's lawsuit caused CHS' stock to drop and triggered their
losses.

   8. On December 13, an appeals panel revived the shareholder
suit, finding that CHS executives' public admissions combined
with the fraud allegations were enough to keep the shareholders'
lawsuit alive. [GN]


CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Faces "Pedersen" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Convergent
Outsourcing, Inc. The case is styled as Heather M. Pedersen,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-07595 (E.D. N.Y., December 30, 2017).

Convergent provides a wide range of customer contact management
services which help to lower cost, manage uneven call volumes,
deal with specific call types and prepare for unexpected outages
or natural disasters.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CURRY SHACK CORP: Faces "Lawrence" Suit in S.D. of New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Curry Shack, Corp.
The case is styled as Leo Chad Lawrence, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Curry Shack, Corp.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-10250 (S.D. N.Y., December 31, 2017).

Curry Shack, Corp is engaged in the restaurant business.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


EI DUPONT: Price-Fixing Settlement Obtains Prelim Court Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal judge preliminarily approved an undisclosed settlement on
Dec. 13 on class-action claims that Dupont conspired to fix the
price of titanium dioxide, a key ingredient in white paint.  A
fairness hearing is set for Aug. 16, 2018.

The case is JAN HARRISON; LEE RANALLI; MORGAN TANNER; SPENCER
HATHAWAY; TODD TURLEY; DEBBIE HALE; KELI ANNO; JOHN ZULLO;
CHRISTOPHER KUON-TSEN LEE; JIM BUCKINGHAM; TANDA SAXTON; JOHN
WOZNIAK; JEROME SHERMAN; BEVERLY JENKINS; DA VID PETERSEN; TOM
STEVER; BRIAN BAWOL; RANSOME FOOSE; and, STACY FRANKLIN,
Plaintiffs, v. E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; HUNTSMAN
INTERNATIONAL, LLC; KRONOS WORLDWIDE, INC.; and, MILLENNIUM
INORGANIC CHEMICALS, INC.; Defendants, Case No. 5:13-cv-01180-BLF
(N.D. Calif.).

A full-text copy of the Order is available at
https://is.gd/CMZoDt


EL TORAZO: Court Grants Conditional Certification in "Perez"
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Kentucky, Louisville Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and
Order granting Plaintiff's Conditional Class Certification in the
case captioned FELIPE CRUZ PEREZ and MARLIN PALMA, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. EL
TORAZO MEXICAN RESTAURANT, INC.; and GUSTAVO ORTIZ, Defendants,
Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-00545-GNS (W. D. Ky.).

This action is brought to recover unpaid compensation in the form
of unpaid wages and overtime allegedly owed to Plaintiffs, who
are former employees of Defendants, El Torazo Mexican Restaurant,
Inc., and Gustavo Ortiz pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) and the Kentucky Wage and Hour Act (KWHA).

Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of servers, waiters,
waitresses, and other tipped employees (Tipped Employees)
employed by Defendants from August 24, 2013 on.

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' declarations are speculative,
self-serving, and reliant on inadmissible hearsay, and are
therefore not sufficient to establish a class of similarly
situated plaintiffs. Defendants further allege that the proposed
class is overbroad.

This Court has found similar declarations relating to
observations of FLSA violations in the workplace as sufficient
evidence to find a similarly situated class of plaintiffs in the
first phase of certification.  These declarations are sufficient
to meet the modest showing needed to find a similarly situated
class.  As to Defendants' argument of overbreadth, the Court has
previously certified a class under situations where a uniform
corporate policy applied to similar, but not identical, types of
employees.

Thus, a class may be certified regardless of the differing
categories of employees in the proposed class.

At a minimum, Plaintiffs have offered a modest showing sufficient
to meet their burden under the fairly lenient standard to
establish a similarly situated class. The Court finds such
similarity within the Tipped Employees to conditionally certify
the class.

Defendants have not objected to Plaintiffs' proposed notice or
consent forms as offered.  The Court finds that the proposed
notice form is largely adequate, but will modify it to reflect
that the state law claims being pursued arise under the law of
Kentucky rather than Ohio. The modified notice, as attached,
should be provided in both English and Spanish, as proposed.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 11, 2017
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y7qzp7z2 from Leagle.com.

Felipe Cruz Perez, Plaintiff, represented by Robert E. DeRose, II
-- bderose@barkanmeizlish.com -- Barkan Meizlish Handelman Goodin
DeRose Wentz.

Felipe Cruz Perez, Plaintiff, represented by Trent R. Taylor --
ttaylor@barkanmeizlish.com -- Barkan Meizlish Handelman Goodin
DeRose Wentz.

Marlin Palma, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Robert E. DeRose, II, Barkan
Meizlish Handelman Goodin DeRose Wentz & Trent R. Taylor, Barkan
Meizlish Handelman Goodin DeRose Wentz.

El Torazo Mexican Restaurant, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Mitzi Denise Wyrick, Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs, LLP & Roosevelt J.
Stennis, Jr., Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs, LLP, 500 West Jefferson
Street, Suite 2800 '. Louisville, Kentucky 40202-2898.

Gustavo Ortiz, Defendant, represented by Mitzi Denise Wyrick,
Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs, LLP &Roosevelt J. Stennis, Jr., Wyatt,
Tarrant & Combs, LLP.


EXACTECH INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, notified investors that a
class action lawsuit has been filed against Exactech, Inc.
("Exactech " or "the Company") (NASDAQ: EXAC) for alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the proposed sale
of the Company to affiliates of private equity firm TPG Capital
("TPG").  Such investors are encouraged to learn more about this
case by visiting the firm's site: http://www.bgandg.com/exac.

On December 4, 2017, the Exactech and TPG announced the signing
of an amended merger agreement pursuant to which TPG will acquire
Exactech in a merger deal valued at $737 million. Pursuant to the
merger agreement, Exactech shareholders will receive $49.25 per
share in cash for each share of Exactech.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you are a
Exactech shareholder and wish to review a copy of the Complaint
you can visit the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/exac. You may also
contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst,
Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-
6484 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.  Our 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.

         Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
         Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
         Email: peretz@bgandg.com [GN]


EXPEDIA INC: Averts Texas Occupancy Tax Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Dee Thompson, writing for Southeast Texas Record, reports that in
a class action brought by 173 Texas municipalities, a federal
appellate court has ruled that the cost of occupancy tax on a
hotel reservation in Texas need not be included in the fees
charged by online travel companies like Expedia and Orbitz.

The Nov. 29 U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals order explains that
in regard to the Texas online occupancy tax on  hotel rooms, "The
OTC retains its service fee as compensation for its  online
services.  Therefore, although the hotel determines the
discounted room rate, an OTC decides the total amount the
traveler pays when booking through the OTC's website.  The OTC
later forwards the amount of the discounted room rate and
applicable taxes to the hotel, which remits the taxes to the
taxing authority.  The OTC is the merchant of record in the
transaction with the traveler."

Because the lower court judgment was vacated, the 173 Texas
cities lost the years-long court battle to collect unpaid Texas
online occupancy taxes on hotel rooms booked through online
travel websites.

The city of San Antonio, Texas, on behalf of itself and all other
similarly situated Texas municipalities filed the class action
against Hotels.com LP; Hotwire Inc.; Trip Network Inc., doing
business as Cheaptickets.com; et al.

As explained in the order issued by the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court
of Appeals on Nov. 29, "When a traveler chooses to book a room
through an OTC [online travel company], it requests a reservation
on the traveler's behalf. If the hotel chooses not to make a
reservation available, the OTC cannot make the reservation. If
the hotel issues the reservation, it does so in the traveler's
name, and the OTC forwards a confirmation to the traveler."

In July 2011 a jury determined that ". . . the retail rate paid
the OTC by the traveler, rather than the discounted room rate the
OTC pays the hotel, is subject to the hotel occupancy tax,"
according to the order.

The cities appealed that ruling and the court battle continued.
In 2013, $55,146,489 in unpaid taxes, interest and penalties were
awarded to the cities.

According to the order, the "OTCs then pursued a renewed motion
for judgment as a matter of law, or alternatively, motion for new
trial; the court denied both motions on 20 February 2014.  Two
years later, the court issued an amended final judgment of
$84,123,089 to include increased penalties, as well as the taxes
and interest that had accrued since the first judgment in April
2013."

The appellate court vacated that judgment and found in favor of
the travel companies, explaining that "Cities concede OTCs have
been collecting taxes on the discounted room rate paid to the
hotel, and the hotels have been remitting them.  Because the only
monetary amounts at issue in this class action are those not
included in the scope of the hotel occupancy tax base, as limited
by our above holding, OTCs are not liable."

The case was heard before judges James Dennis, Rhesa Barksdale
and Edith Brown Clement. [GN]


F&R CLEANING: Faces "Castaneda" Suit in E.D. of New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against F&R Cleaning
Services Corp. The case is styled as Nilda J Suarez Castaneda and
Maria Caridad Calle, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. F&R Cleaning Services Corp, Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-07603 (E.D. N.Y., December 31, 2017).

F & R Cleaning Services Corporation is in the Cleaning Services
business.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE.


FAMILY AND CHILDREN'S: Faces Negligence Suit
--------------------------------------------
Sabrina Bedford, writing for The Recorder and Times, reports that
an alleged privacy breach at Family and Children's Services of
Lanark, Leeds and Grenville (FCS) has led to the agency being
sued for negligence, invasion of privacy and a breach of the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

A multi-million-dollar class action lawsuit was filed in April
2016 against the agency as a result of a security breach that
allegedly allowed for the names of 285 local children's aid
clients being published on Facebook, an offense made illegal
under the Child and Family Services Act.

Lawyers for the plaintiff, named only as M.M., confirmed they
filed a notice of motion in a Toronto courtroom to pursue claims
of negligence, intrusion upon seclusion (invasion of personal
privacy) and a breach of section 7 of the Charter (life, liberty
and security of person) against FCS.

The suit initially alleged that someone hacked into the website
to find the list, but lawyers for the plaintiff say an affidavit
from Kelley Denham, the person who allegedly posted the location
of the client list to Facebook and one of the defendants in the
case, changed their course of action.

"We initially believed, based on quotes from (FCS executive
director) Raymond Lemay and news reports, that this was a case of
hacking of the secured FCSLLG website intended only for members
of its board of directors," Sean Brown, a lawyer with Flaherty
McCarthy LLP who represents the plaintiff, told The Recorder and
Times in an email.

"It now appears that this is not the case. Rather, it appears
that the FCSLLG website was completely unsecured between February
and April 2016, with the full knowledge of FCSLLG."

The suit seeks $25 million in general damages, $25 million in
special damages and $25 million in punitive, aggravated and
exemplary damages.

According to the suit, the personal information of the 285
clients was compiled into an electronic file, prepared for the
service's board of directors on new cases arising between April
and November of 2015, but was not properly secured on the
agency's network.

This made the list publicly available to anyone, they said, and
in her affidavit Denham explained how she came into possession of
the sensitive and confidential documents.

She said she found and clicked on an unrelated document on the
website intended for the public. She deleted a portion of the
URL, and she was taken to a directory of folders with documents,
within which she found the document with the names of local
families.

She said she was never asked a user name or password and was
never faced with any security measures that impeded her ability
to access the documents.

She said she attempted multiple times to advise the agency the
confidential documents were available on the public website,
beginning in February 2016, but the documents were still publicly
available by late April 2016. This is when she decided to post
the location of the report on the Facebook group where she claims
she posted an image of a hyperlink, which was deleted by the
group's administrator within hours.

She said she did not hack any secure portals, rather the site was
completely unsecured and she was able to access the files
unimpeded.

She is listed in the lawsuit as a defendant and is being charged
with intrusion upon seclusion.

According to her own website kelleyandderek.com, she is also
being charged criminally for matters in relation to this case
that are still before the court, including: Theft under $5,000,
mischief over $5,000, mischief to data, unauthorized use of a
computer, traffick in identity information, and publication of
identifying information.

Brown said the evidence offered by Denham voluntarily in support
of their notice of motion "directly contradicts the narrative
pushed by FCSLLG at the time of this alleged breach."

"Our own client, M.M., was not previously aware of the facts as
alleged by Ms. Denham," he said.

"She believed and accepted the version of events offered by
FCSLLG. She was both surprised and upset to read Ms. Denham's
Affidavit and learn that the version of events offered by FCSLLG
at the time may not be true."

M.M., the plaintiff in the case representing the class action,
wrote in an affidavit her family was the subject of a FCSLLG
investigation for a brief period in April 2015. She said her file
was soon closed and no action was taken against her family, and
that the investigation was short-lived and found no wrongdoing on
the part of her or her partner.

"I did not expect to hear from FCSLLG again," she wrote in the
affidavit.

But her name was included as one of the 285 made publicly
available during the security breach, according to the suit.

"The knowledge that my name was disclosed in the breached report
has caused me distress, anxiety and humiliation. I fear that the
fact my family was the subject of an FCSLLG investigation will
brand both myself and my partner as child abusers, when this is
categorically and unequivocally not true."

None of the allegations have been proven in court.

The plaintiff will be in court Dec. 21 seeking an order to move
forward with the class action suit in a Toronto courtroom.

Multiple requests for comment to the executive director of FCSLLG
were not returned before deadline. [GN]


FIAT CHRYSLER: In Hot Seat Vacated by VW
----------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that with lengthy settlement talks on the horizon, Fiat Chrysler
sought to fight off the same emissions cheating claims that cost
Volkswagen billions of dollars in fines and settlements over the
last two years.

Fiat Chrysler attorney Robert Giuffra Jr., Esq. --
giuffrar@sullcrom.com -- who also defended Volkswagen in its
dieselgate scandal, told U.S. District Judge Edward Chen that
consumers cannot sue his client for emissions cheating because
only U.S. regulators can enforce those rules under the Clean Air
Act.

"Any attempt to enforce emission standards is preempted,"
Giuffra, of Sullivan & Cromwell in New York, told Judge Chen.

But class attorneys say their clients are not suing for Clean Air
Act violations. They seek damages for a conspiracy to trick them
into paying more for "EcoDiesel" cars that Fiat Chrysler claimed
were environmentally superior to other diesels.

"These were not environmentally friendly diesels, and they never
have been," class attorney Stacey Slaughter with Robins Kaplan in
Minneapolis said.

The class accuses Fiat Chrysler of installing emissions cheating
software in nearly 104,000 Grand Jeep Cherokees and Ram 1500
EcoDiesel trucks between 2014 and 2016.

Like Volkswagen, Fiat Chrysler used defeat devices created by
German auto parts maker and codefendant Robert Bosch to mask
nitrogen dioxide pollution during emissions tests, the class
claims. The cars spew up to seven times more pollution on the
road than when hooked up for tests, according to a 378-page class
action complaint.

The parties will spend several days hammering out a potential
settlement in January, according to court-appointed settlement
master Kenneth Feinberg, a veteran who also handled claims from
victims of the Sept. 11 terror attacks and the BP oil spill.

On December 19, the two sides spent more than two hours arguing
over Fiat Chrysler's motion to dismiss the consumer class action.

Giuffra said Fiat Chrysler never orchestrated a nationwide
advertising campaign to tout its vehicles as environmentally
friendly, as Volkswagen did. Volkswagen has paid more than $20
billion in U.S. penalties and settlements, and one of its
executives was sentenced to seven years in federal prison for it
this month.

Giuffra argued that the Fiat Chrysler complaint lacks allegations
that even one car buyer relied on any false statement the
automaker made about emissions.

"The only thing they can point to is a vague label: EcoDiesel,
which is actually puffery," Giuffra said.

Puffery is defined as an exaggerated statement that no reasonable
consumer could rely on as factual. For instance, "Our cars are
the best in the world," is puffery, whereas, "Our cars are better
than Volkswagens" states a specific claim.

"No consumer could think EcoDiesel means these cars are
compliant," Giuffra argued.

Slaughter replied that whether "EcoDiesel" is puffery is a
question of fact that must be resolved at a later stage of
litigation.

Turning to the question of preemption under the Clean Air Act,
Chen asked how the class could show misrepresentations were made
about emissions without proving noncompliance with emissions
rules.

If the Clean Air Act did not exist, class attorney Kevin Budner,
Esq. said, consumers could still sue Fiat Chrysler for fraud.

"It's about telling consumers you're getting a clean diesel
vehicle," said Budner, with Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann and
Bernstein in San Francisco.

Chen said that even if Chrysler Fiat had a duty to tell consumers
about emissions, the issue still overlaps significantly with
Clean Air Act rules.

"The knowledge was exclusively in the hands of the defendant.
It's completely one-sided knowledge of a material fact, and
there's a duty to disclose," Chen said. "Assuming that's true,
isn't that claim squarely in the bull's eye of the Clean Air
Act?"

Budner replied that the alleged fraud does not turn on compliance
with the Clean Air Act, but on Fiat Chrysler's misstatements and
omissions.

Giuffra said Fiat Chrysler is confident it can create a fix that
will make the vehicles compliant with federal emissions
standards.

Leigh Rende, with the Department of Justice, said the
Environmental Protection Agency might approve an emissions fix
for the nearly 104,000 vehicles by April 2018.


FLAT RATE MOVERS: Faces "Mendizabal" Suit in S.D. of New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Flat Rate Movers,
Ltd. The case is styled as Maria Mendizabal, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Flat Rate Movers,
Ltd., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-10238 (S.D. N.Y., December 31,
2017).

Flat Rate Movers, Ltd. provides transportation and logistic
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FLORISSANT, MO: Loses Bid to Dismiss Unlawful Jailing Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum and Order denying
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned THOMAS BAKER, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF FLORISSANT, Defendant, Case No. 4:16-
CV-1693 NAB (E.D. Mo.).

Plaintiffs in this putative class action claim that they were
repeatedly jailed by the City of Florissant due to their
inability to pay fines, fees and other costs arising from traffic
tickets or other minor municipal offenses, without being offered
legal representation or any inquiry into their ability to pay.

Defendant argues that all counts of the amended complaint should
be dismissed on the basis that it fundamentally fails to comply
with the applicable rules of pleading, disadvantaging the
Defendant in its ability to provide a meaningful answer.  The
City argues that the amended complaint does not comply with Rule
8(a), as it is not a short and plain statement of claims, and
that it also fails to comply with Rule 10(b) because its numbered
allegations are not limited as far as practicable to a single set
of circumstances.

The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs' amended complaint and finds
that it satisfies the requirements of Rules 8 and 10.  The
background information provided at the beginning of the amended
complaint presents sufficient, yet not unduly superfluous,
information that helps place the allegations against Defendant in
context.  Moreover, Plaintiffs' allegations in the individual
paragraphs are limited, as far as practicable, to discrete sets
of circumstances, which should allow Defendant to frame a
responsive pleading. Finally, the Court does not find any of the
language in the amended complaint to be so redundant, immaterial,
impertinent, or scandalous as to warrant striking sections of the
pleading. The Court will deny the City's motions for repleading
or striking under Rules 12(e) and 12(f).

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have pleaded facts sufficient to
raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal
evidence to support their claim of municipal liability under
Section 1983, which is all that is required at this early stage
in the proceedings.

Because Plaintiffs were pretrial detainees at the time of the
alleged violation of their constitutional rights, the Court
analyzes their claims under the Fourteenth Amendment, rather than
the Eighth Amendment.  When evaluating the constitutionality of
conditions of confinement that are alleged to violate due
process, the "proper inquiry is whether those conditions amount
to punishment of the detainee."

Plaintiffs allege that they were held for up to several days at a
time during which they were exposed to conditions that had a
mutually enforcing effect that produced the deprivation of a
single, identifiable human need such as food, warmth, or
exercise. Plaintiffs also allege that on at least one occasion
jail officials explicitly stated that they were keeping the jail
uncomfortably cold in order to make prisoners so uncomfortable
that they would want to pay up and leave.

At this early stage of the proceedings, the Court finds
Plaintiffs' allegations are sufficient to state a plausible claim
for a due process violation attributable to the City.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 11, 2017
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ydygbwbj
from Leagle.com.

Thomas Baker, Plaintiff, represented by Blake Alexander Strode --
bstrode@archcitydefenders.org -- ARCHCITY DEFENDERS.

Thomas Baker, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey D. Kaliel --
jkaliel@tzlegal.com -- TYCKO AND ZAVAREEI LLP, Michael-John Voss
-- mjvoss@archcitydefenders.org -- ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Nathaniel
Richard Carroll -- ncarroll@archcitydefenders.org -- ARCHCITY
DEFENDERS & Thomas B. Harvey -- tharvey@archcitydefenders.org --
ARCHCITY DEFENDERS.

Sean Bailey, Plaintiff, represented by Blake Alexander Strode,
ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Jeffrey D. Kaliel, TYCKO AND ZAVAREEI LLP,
Michael-John Voss, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Nathaniel Richard Carroll,
ARCHCITY DEFENDERS & Thomas B. Harvey, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS.

Nicole Bolden, Plaintiff, represented by Blake Alexander Strode,
ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Jeffrey D. Kaliel, TYCKO AND ZAVAREEI LLP,
Michael-John Voss, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Nathaniel Richard Carroll,
ARCHCITY DEFENDERS & Thomas B. Harvey, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS.

Allison Nelson, Plaintiff, represented by Blake Alexander Strode,
ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Jeffrey D. Kaliel, TYCKO AND ZAVAREEI LLP,
Michael-John Voss, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Nathaniel Richard Carroll,
ARCHCITY DEFENDERS & Thomas B. Harvey, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS.

Meredith Walker, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Blake Alexander
Strode, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Jeffrey D. Kaliel, TYCKO AND ZAVAREEI
LLP, Michael-John Voss, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Nathaniel Richard
Carroll, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS & Thomas B. Harvey, ARCHCITY
DEFENDERS.

City of Florissant, Defendant, represented by Blake Daniel Hill -
- bhill@kingkrehbiel.com -- KING AND KREHBIEL, LLC & William A.
Hellmich -- bhellmich@kkhhb.com.- KING AND KREHBIEL, LLC.


FRONTIER AIRLINES: Former FAs Cheated of $40MM Payout
-----------------------------------------------------
Rox Laird, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
retired Frontier Airlines flight attendants filed a federal
lawsuit against their former employer December 28 saying they
were cheated out of their share of a $40 million payout from a
profit-sharing agreement.

According to the complaint filed in Des Moines, Iowa, federal
court, the $40 million in equity payments compensated Frontier
employees who agreed to concessions in a 2011 collective-
bargaining agreement when the Denver-based airline was struggling
financially.

Frontier filed for bankruptcy in 2008 and has since been acquired
by a private-equity firm.

The 78 plaintiffs, represented by lead attorney Kellie Paschke,
Esq. with Skinner & Paschke, claim they were wrongly denied
payments because the cutoff date for eligibility was set after
their retirements, in violation of the CBA.

Flight attendants employed through Jan. 1, 2012, were initially
eligible for equity payments, according to the agreement cited in
the complaint, but the airline and the Association for Flight
Attendants union allegedly modified the deal to restrict
eligibility to those who were "continuously employed" through
March 15, 2017, after the plaintiffs retired.

Paschke said via email that her clients in 16 states "took wage
freezes and benefit reductions in order to help Frontier remain
afloat at a time when the airline was facing severe financial
difficulties."

"Frontier's refusal to honor their 2011 agreement, despite record
profits in 2016, is disappointing," Paschke said.

Frontier did not immediately respond December 29 to a request for
comment.

The plaintiffs, who claim the airline breached the CBA, say the
precise amount due to them must be determined in court. Other
flight attendants who were given equity payments received about
$62,000 each based on their length of service, Paschke said.


GEICO GENERAL: Faces Class-Action Lawsuit Over Unsafe Repairs
-------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit filed by Leif Hansen on behalf of GEICO customers
claims the insurance giant has routinely violated the terms of
its auto policies by refusing to pay for essential and critical
vehicle repairs.

According to the lawsuit, which is seeking class-action status,
GEICO has a nationwide, longstanding policy and practice of
refusing to pay for electronic vehicle scans, which help
determine the safety and repair status of a vehicle. On average,
these scans cost $100 and are required or recommended by nearly
all major auto manufacturers to ensure auto repairs are safe and
complete.

Consumer advocate and auto repair shop owner Leif Hansen is the
lead plaintiff of the lawsuit, filed December 13 in U.S. District
Court. The lawsuit seeks damages for losses incurred by all
current and former GEICO policyholders that have suffered
collision losses in the past six years.

"This is about seeking justice for the millions who have been
bullied into claim settlements. Many are left without appropriate
compensation and may be unknowingly driving unsafe cars," said
Leif Hansen. "As many consumers already know, airbags, steering,
braking and accident avoidance systems can be compromised after a
collision. Electronic scans play a critical role in ensuring that
vehicles are safe to drive."

The lawsuit alleges GEICO used its superior knowledge and
bargaining position to deprive policyholders from receiving the
full benefits of their insurance policies.

"Astonishingly enough, GEICO actually may not know how many
unsafe cars they've put back on our roads. However, they
certainly know how many millions of dollars they've saved by not
finding out," said attorney Steven Olson, who is representing
Hansen.

A PDF accompanying this announcement is available at
https://is.gd/JNc1Lk

About Leif Hansen: Leif Hansen is the founder and owner of Leif's
Auto Collision Centers and a recognized consumer advocate. He
opened Olympic Auto in 1991 with one employee, which and founded
Leif's Auto Collision Centers in 1994. By 2014, Leif's
organization in Oregon and Washington was handling over 40,000
customers a year throughout its four divisions,

In 1994, Hansen uncovered a scheme where body shops were giving
kickbacks to insurance companies in exchange for referrals. This
inspired him to go to the Oregon Legislature to protect consumers
from illegal steering practices. He was instrumental in passing
Senate Bill 523, which requires insurance companies in Oregon to
inform consumers that they have the legal right to choose where
their vehicle is repaired. Under the law, insurance companies
must inform consumers of their rights prior to making a
recommendation for a repair provider. The law also prevents
insurance companies from limiting reimbursement when consumers
choose a repair provider without a referral from the insurance
company.

         Chris Edmonds
         Tel: (503) 342-7158
         E-mail: Chris@thinkhubbell.com [GN]


GENERAL MOTORS: Sued Over Defective Power Lift-Gate Struts
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class of motorists claims
in a federal complaint that defective power lift-gate struts on
certain General Motors SUVs unexpectedly fail, causing the lift
gate to fall on people trying to access the trunk.


GRAIN PROCESSING: Muscatine Residents Can Rejoin Class-Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Seattle Times reports that hundreds of Muscatine residents
who settled lawsuits against a local polluter will be given the
chance to void the deals and rejoin a class-action lawsuit.

District Judge Tom Reidel says he has "significant doubt" that
residents who opted out of the class had a full understanding of
deals they signed with Grain Processing Corp.

He says attorneys didn't disclose important terms, including that
they'd take one-third of the payments. He called GPC's timing in
negotiating settlements "highly suspect."

The settlements compensated residents based on a formula,
including a maximum $22,000 after attorneys' fees. They also
required residents to grant GPC easements on their land and give
up other legal rights.

The court is sending notices to 2,000 residents who opted out to
decide whether to rejoin the class. The lawsuit alleges the
company spewed pollution over their neighborhoods for decades.
Trial's scheduled this year. [GN]


HEARST CORP: 2nd Circuit Refuses to Revive Minimum-Wage Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that the Second Circuit refused
on Dec. 8 to revive minimum-wage claims against Hearst Corp.,
finding that the five unpaid interns who sued cannot be
considered employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.


HYDRO ONE: Certification Denied in Proposed Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Justice Perell's November 28, 2017, decision in Bennett v Hydro
One Inc., 2017 ONSC 7065 [Bennett] to deny certification of a
putative class action alleging that Hydro One was systemically
negligent in billing customers serves as a powerful reminder to
class litigants: where common issues are not a substantial
ingredient of putative class members' claims, the common issues
requirement will not be satisfied. The variety of potential
causes of the putative class members' alleged harm and the fact
that any harm suffered by individual class members diverged (if
it existed at all) led Justice Perell to conclude the claim
lacked the requisite basis in fact to satisfy the common issue
requirement. The lack of common issues, coupled with the
jurisdiction and powers of the Ontario Energy Board (OEB), also
resulted in the conclusion that the preferable procedure
requirement for class certification was not satisfied. On these
bases, class certification was denied.

The Decision

The Common Issue Requirement Was Not Met

The plaintiff proposed a series of common issues relating to the
causes of action advanced: negligence, breach of contract and
unjust enrichment. Each cause of action arose from the same
factual nexus, namely the alleged systemic negligence of Hydro
One in connection with a new billing program.

Justice Perell reviewed the established law regarding the common
issue requirement. While the requirement sets a "low bar" for
plaintiffs, it requires an issue that is a "substantial
ingredient of class member's claim and its resolution must be
necessary to the resolution of each class member's claim." A
common issue need not be dispositive but, through its resolution,
it must advance the litigation.

Having acknowledged that some basis in fact is required to
satisfy the common issue requirement, Justice Perell held that
the claim as alleged could not clear the low bar of the common
issue requirement. Central to his conclusion was the need for
individual inquiries regarding the existence and cause of any
billing issues experienced by class members.

Justice Perell was critical of the putative class' decision to
pursue their claim as one of systemic negligence, because the
class could not establish a basis in fact that Hydro One's
billing practices caused a common harm to all class members.

Justice Perell noted that Hydro One had made a multiplicity of
errors (overbilling, under billing, delayed billing, etc.). As
the alleged systemic issues produced various results to the class
members --some harmful, some neutral and some even beneficial--
individual inquiries would be required. The putative class was
unable to provide him with a methodology to extricate the
customers who benefitted from the billing errors, or were
potentially harmed by a cause that was independent of the new
billing program (e.g., through human error). Again, on the record
argued before him, he could not escape the conclusion that
individual inquiries would be required.

The facts alleged in Bennett indicated that while all class
members were at risk of being improperly charged, individual
examinations of all class members' claims would be needed to
determine the cause of any overcharging and whether such
overcharging occurred at all. As a result, there was no rational
relationship between all class members and Hydro One's alleged
systemic negligence, with a further result being that the class
definition was overbroad. Justice Perell concluded that the
plaintiff's blanket reliance on system negligence as opposed to
reliance on a discrete common error thought to have harmed all
class members was critical and distinguished Bennett from
previously certified claims (e.g., cases involving illegal
interest, overtime miscalculation or price-fixing, where there
was a common or single adverse consequence for class members).

The Preferable Procedure Requirement Was Not Met

The absence of common issues also led Justice Perell to conclude
that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure. In
addition, Justice Perell held the OEB would be the superior forum
for addressing the plaintiff's claims as it would better fulfill
both the access to justice and behaviour modification objectives
of the Class Proceedings Act. He held that the OEB had the powers
to adjudicate the claims, and although individual plaintiffs
cannot initiate proceedings at the OEB, he found the OEB had the
mandate to address their concerns.

Key Takeaways

Bennett confirms an important distinction between claims arising
from a discrete common error that might harm all class members
(which have been certified) from claims of systemic negligence
that require individual inquiries about both the existence and
nature of defendants' missteps and the impacts on class members
(which cannot be certified). Defendants will be well-advised to
remember this distinction when devising their responses to
putative class actions.

While it remains to be seen whether the Bennett decision will be
appealed, it accords with the growing trend in favour of more
closely scrutinizing common issues to ensure a class proceeding
is truly the preferable procedure in resolving putative class
members' claims. Systemic negligence must generally result in a
common wrong to ground common issues, and where there are no
common issues that will advance the litigation, a class
proceeding will not be the preferable procedure. [GN]


IFINEX: Bitfinex Critic Claims to be Organizing CA Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Hain, writing for Bitcoin.com, reports that a prominent
Twitter-based critic of Bitfinex, AB33, has announced his
intention to initiate a class-action lawsuit against Ifinex -- a
BVI based company of which Bitfinex has previously asserted it is
owned and operated by. The announcement of AB33's desire to seek
litigation against the company came shortly after the surfacing
of documents revealing that Ifinex had been struck off from
Singapore's Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA)
register.

On the 11th of December, AB33 published a post stating his
intention to organize a "class action against iFinex." AB33
accuses the exchange of "market manipulation," "misleading
patrons," and "publicly trading shares of a private company"
illicitly.

Most of the accusations likely relate to Bitfinex's conversion of
BFX tokens into iFinex shares following the major hack suffered
by the exchange during 2016. After losing approximately $72
million USD worth of customer funds to the hack, the exchange
chose to socialize losses, resulting in the conversion of 36%
percent of all customers' account balances into BFX tokens.

Although the exchange promised to pay back all BFX tokens with a
corresponding quantity of USD, Bitfinex quickly began to
encourage its customers to convert their BFX tokens into equity
in the company. A prominent Bitfinex critic currently facing
litigation from the exchange has previously alleged that the
exchange continued to encourage the conversion of BFX tokens
after losing its banking relationships, asserting that the
company withheld said information from its customers and
investors at the time. AB33 has also accused Ifinex of violating
the British Virgin Islands' laws through issuing shares for an
entity registered as a Private Limited Company.

Analysis of Bitfinex's Recent ETP Flash-Crash

News.Bitcoin.com recently reported on sudden flash-crashes of
between 60% -- 98% that affected multiple altcoin markets on
Bitfinex during the 29th of November. Bitfinex described the
events as comprising "panic across multiple markets," claiming
that the exchange's "protection measures" prevented the markets
from "dropping [. . .] further than they did." The company denied
technical issues being the catalyst for the crashes, despite
maintaining that the exchange has been under a sustained DDoS
attack since late November.

A telegram group is reported to have compiled CSV files
documenting the trades executed leading up to and during the
recent 98% ETP flash-crash. The group's analysis concludes that
ETP dropped from $3.42 USD to just $0.11 USD in 2 seconds.
Furthermore, someone purchased 12,720 ETP at between $2.751 and
$3.40 in the middle of the crash, after which the price returned
to $0.11 USD before 12 seconds of total market inactivity on
Bitfinex.

As such, the group's conclusions have renewed old concerns that
Bitfinex's orderbooks may not be as liquid as they appear. Said
concerns stem from isolated flash-crashes on Bitfinex during 2015
and earlier that invoked speculation that the company was
continuing to import the orderbooks of other exchanges to give
the illusion offering greater liquidity -- a deceptive tactic
that Bitfinex's Chief Financial Officer, Giancarlo Devasini, has
previously admitted the exchange used to practice.

Ifinex to be Struck off Singaporean ACRA Register

Shortly before AB33 published the post indicating his intention
to pursue litigation against Ifinex, documents circulated online
indicating that the company was struck off ACRA's register in
November. The documentation shows that both Ifinex and Renrenbee
LTD (formerly Bitfinex LTD) were struck off on the 6th of
November.

The ACRA news is seen as significant due to Bitfinex appearing to
have not previously informed its customers that the associated
companies were registered in Singapore, further intensifying
scrutiny surrounding the exchange's alleged lack of transparency.
[GN]


INC RESEARCH: Vincent Wong Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of investors who
purchased INC Research Holdings, Inc. securities between May 10,
2017 and November 9, 2017.

Click here to learn about the case: http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-
sb/inc-research-holdings-inc?wire=3. There is no cost or
obligation to you.

According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, the
Company issued materially false and misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) the merger with inVentiv Health,
Inc. ("inVentiv") was not providing the benefit that defendants
stated it would; (2) inVentiv was underperforming; (3) in turn,
INCR's 2017 financial performance would be negatively impacted;
and (4) as a result, defendants' statements about INCR'S
business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you suffered a loss in INCR you have until January 30, 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. To obtain additional information, contact
Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com, by telephone
at 212.425.1140, or visit http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-sb/inc-
research-holdings-inc?wire=3.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has
represented investors in securities litigations involving
financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights.

         Vincent Wong, Esq.
         Tel. 212.425.1140
         Fax. 866.699.3880
         E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]


INVESTMENT RETRIEVERS: Faces "Barzola" Suit in S.D. of Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Investment
Retrievers. The case is styled as Adrian Barzola, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Investment Retrievers, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-24724-KMW
(S.D. Fla., December 29, 2017).

Investment Retrievers is a debt buyer and/or debt collector
engaged in the business of filing consumer debt collection
lawsuits in the Courts of the State of Texas as the alleged
assignee of original consumer creditors and/or successors in
interest.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jon Paul Dubbeld, Esq.
   Berkowitz & Myer
   4900 Central Ave
   St. Petersburg, FL 33707
   Tel: (727) 344-0123
   Fax: (727) 344-0185
   Email: Jon@berkmyer.com


JIMMY JOHN'S: 7th Cir. Orders Wage Class-Action to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------
Dave Stafford, writing for The Indiana Lawyer, reports that Jimmy
John's assistant store managers nationwide may proceed with
class-action overtime pay litigation against franchisees, the 7th
Circuit Court of Appeals ruled December 14, delivering a reversal
of an Illinois decision that had restricted their suits.

The ruling allows Jimmy John's assistant managers to proceed with
suits against the 98 percent of Jimmy John's sandwich shops that
are franchises. The ruling arises from three class-action suits
from Illinois and Ohio that were consolidated for this ruling
from the appellate court in Chicago.

The suits generally allege that assistant managers were
misclassified as employees exempt from overtime pay in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and related state wage-and-hour
laws. The suits seek a putative class of all Jimmy John's
assistant managers at company-owned stores and franchises, back
overtime pay and other damages.

The 7th Circuit's ruling reversed an Illinois district court
order that had barred plaintiffs from pursuing their complaints
against their franchisee employers until claims against the Jimmy
Johns corporate defendants had been resolved. The panel held the
District Court lacked the authority to enjoin these cases.

"Jimmy John's does not cite to a single case in which a
non-(Multi-District Litigation) court has enjoined parallel
litigation in circumstances like this. Each case that Jimmy
John's relies on is distinguishable because they involved MDL
proceedings; pending or final class settlements and judgments;
duplicative litigation between the same parties; or some
combination thereof," Judge Joel Flaum wrote for the panel in In
Re: Jimmy John's Overtime Litigation, 17-1655.

The panel agreed with the assistant managers that Judge Charles
P. Kocoras of the District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois blocked litigants from pursuing their cases without
considering the traditional factors for granting an injunction
and without making required findings of facts and conclusions of
law.

"The record does not suggest that the franchisee cases were filed
to evade the district court's pretrial orders. Rather, plaintiffs
repeatedly told the district court they were filing the
franchisee cases because the statute of limitations was running
against those claims," Flaum wrote, noting plaintiffs had agreed
to stay the franchisee cases if the statute of limitations was
tolled pending the instant litigation.

Headquartered in Champaign, Illinois, Jimmy Johns has more than
2,500 U.S. locations and dozens in Indiana. The 7th Circuit
observed in a footnote that just 2 percent of the chain's
eateries are company-owned. [GN]


JOHNSON COUNTY, IN: Suit Over Public Defender Rules Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Scott L. Miley, writing for Pharos-Tribune, reports that
Kenneth Alford was arrested in January 2015 on charges that
included sexual misconduct with a minor.  That month, Alford
requested a public defender.

During the first seven months following his arrest, a court-
assigned public defender met twice with Alford, each time in
court for a total of two minutes, according to court documents.
By September, a new public defender was named.

Thirteen months later, Alford was sentenced to 834 days in jail
under a plea deal he said he was pressured to accept, according
to court documents.

Six other men, also arrested in Johnson County, faced similar
problems alleging little contact with their public defenders,
according to a lawsuit.

In many cases, the problems could lead to a complaint over
ineffective counsel.  But one of Alford's attorneys,
Jessica Wegg, said that this was a case of "no counsel."

In October 2015, the seven men filed a class-action complaint
alleging they were being denied assistance of counsel as
guaranteed by the U.S. and Indiana constitutions.

If they win their case, it could mean that Johnson County, and
perhaps other Indiana courts, must provide public defenders to
all indigent defendants.

Public defenders in Johnson County, and typically throughout the
state, provide the $90 an hour service while running their own
private practices.

In one Johnson County example, a public defender was assigned 176
felony cases and 32 misdemeanors cases. Of the 176, 140 were
resolved in 2014 including 106 by plea agreements, according to
the lawsuit.

"These deficiencies run so deep and are so pervasive that there
is simply no way that the public defense system in Johnson County
can result in the constitutionally adequate provision of
assistance of counsel," Ms. Wegg said in an October filing for
the men.

Currently the decision to appoint a public defender is left up to
a judge who considers numerous factors including whether
attorneys, contracted with a court for public defender services,
have room on their schedules to handle a defense.

The seven men sued the Johnson County Commissioners as well as
the judges who presided over the cases and the public defenders
who had contracts to provide services.  The defendants filed a
motion to dismiss, which was granted in January by Shelby
Superior Court.

Attorneys for the men sought an appeal, which was heard by three
Indiana Court of Appeals judges.

In part, attorneys for the Johnson County commissioners and
judges say providing public defenders is statutorily not a
responsibility of counties but rather the state. Trial courts, as
in Johnson County's case, shouldn't interfere with the public
defender structure set by the Legislature, the attorneys say.

Also, not all of the public defenders in Johnson County are named
in litigation "which raises the question whether there could be a
systemic challenge," said Attorney William Barrett representing
Johnson County.

Indiana Court of Appeals Judge Edward W. Najam Jr. rephrased one
of Ms Wegg's references in his final remark to attorneys
following oral arguments.

"If I can borrow a term from the oral argument, this is not a
run-of-the-mill case as it comes to us," Judge Najam said.  "It's
a very interesting case.  It has a lot of moving parts and this
panel will spend quite some time deciding what the proper
disposition will be." [GN]


JOHNSON UTILITIES: Accused of Bribery, Fraud
--------------------------------------------
Scott Buffon, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
customers of an Arizona water utility claim in court the
company's owner bribed a state regulator for clearance to charge
excessive prices.

In a federal racketeering class action filed December 18,
customers of Johnson Utilities say the water utility's owner,
George Johnson, using a lobbyist as a go-between, bribed a former
state regulator and his wife to "corruptly charge the public
excessive prices."

Johnson Utilities is headquartered in Scottsdale and provides
water and wastewater service in central Arizona's Pinal County.

According to the class action, Johnson planned with lobbyist Jim
Norton to funnel $31,500 to former Arizona Corporation
Commissioner Gary Pierce through his wife, Sherry.

The lawsuit names Johnson, Johnson Utilities, Johnson
International, the Pierces, and Norton as defendants.

In exchange for the money, Pierce introduced an amendment in 2011
to a previous decision barring Johnson Utilities from a rate
increase and tax reimbursement, the class claims.

"Gary Pierce and a majority of the ACC voted -- against ACC staff
recommendations -- to approve the amendment and grant Johnson the
requested rate increase and ability to request income tax
reimbursement in the future," the lawsuit says.

To funnel the funds to Sherry Pierce, money was sent to a co-
conspirator consultant that is unnamed in the indictment. The
consultant opened up a separate bank account to pay Sherry
Pierce, as an alleged employee of the consulting firm.

Payments were made to the Pierces from November 2011 through
August 2012, the class claims.

Johnson, the Pierces, and Norton were indicted May 23 on
conspiracy, bribery and fraud charges. They have all pleaded not
guilty, and face trial Jan. 3.

The May indictment also claims the Pierces were in discussion of
receiving a property worth $350,000 supposedly to be paid for by
Johnson. It is unclear if that property was ever received.

The class includes a number of Pinal County residents who had
their rates increased.

"These plaintiffs are looking forward to their opportunity to
present to the court the wide array of Mr. Johnson's misconduct,
as well as the other defendants," Jeffrey Goulder, Esq. --
jeffrey.goulder@stinson.com -- an attorney for the class, told
Courthouse News. "They're trying to do what's best for the entire
community."

Johnson's actions allegedly arose after an Aug. 24, 2010,
decision in which the Arizona Corporation Commission -- on
recommendation from its staff -- rejected his request for a
wastewater rate increase, and to allow Johnson to have his
personal income taxes reimbursed by payments made by Johnson
Utilities customers.

The original response, in which Pierce was a voting member,
unanimously deemed Johnson Utilities' request inappropriate.

"It is not appropriate or in the public interest to allow pass-
through entities such as [Johnson Utilities] to recover personal
income tax expenses through rates. [Johnson Utilities'] request
is not reasonable and will be denied," the commission said in its
rejection.

Goulder says more people may be later added as defendants.

"Frankly Mr. Johnson has a reputation of retaliation in lawsuits
where he is sued, he oftentimes will file countersuits against
those that take him on," Goulder said. "This group of citizens is
willing to step up, do the right thing, and try to bring some
justice to the people who have suffered these rate overcharges."

Johnson Utilities did not respond to requests for comments before
publication.

The class action seeks class certification, restitution and
damages on claims of fraud and violations of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.


JP MORGAN: Faces Class Action Over Extended Overdraft Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action
accuses JPMorgan Chase Bank of charging customers "extended
overdraft fees" with illegally high rates of interest.


JP MORGAN: Court Dismisses "Capozio" FDCPA Claims
-------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for Eastern District of
Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum Opinion granting in part and
denying in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the case
captioned MARK CAPOZIO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JP MORGAN CHASE
BANK, NA, Defendant, Civil Action No. 16-5235 (E.D. Pa.).

Presently before the Court is the motion to dismiss filed by
Defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA (Chase), pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure (Rule) 12(b)(6), in which Defendant seeks
the dismissal of all of the federal and state claims asserted
against it by Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint against
Defendant essentially claiming that Defendant has uniformly
engaged in illegal and deceptive business practices in violation
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the
Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Laws
Act (UTPCPL), the Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act (FCEUA),
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and Section 524 of
the United States Bankruptcy Code, specifically the discharge
injunction.

In essence, Plaintiffs contend that Defendant failed to honor the
parties' negotiated agreement that Plaintiffs' future mortgage
and escrow payments would not include a sum for insurance
premiums, and as a consequence, Defendant misapplied Plaintiffs'
monthly mortgage payments resulting in the incurrence of late
fees and other penalties.

Plaintiffs' FDCPA Claims

The Supreme Court has clarified that Congress did not intend for
debt buyers to be considered debt collectors for the purposes of
the Act, where the debt buyer attempted to collect debts which
the debt buyer owned.

Here, in their amended complaint, Plaintiffs allege that
Defendant is a debt collector as defined by 15 U.S.C.
Section1692a(6)(F)(iii) because Defendant was assigned the
Plaintiffs' mortgage while the loan was in default.  In light of
Henson, however, the mere assignment of the mortgage loan at
issue to Chase while the loan was in default does not make Chase
a debt collector under the section of the FDCPA on which
Plaintiffs expressly rely.

Notwithstanding the absence of any allegations in their amended
complaint, Plaintiffs argue in their supplemental brief that
Defendant is a debt collector' under the first definition as
Defendant's main business is the making of loans and the
collection of the indebtedness evidenced by its loan portfolio.
Even if this allegation was included in the amended complaint,
however, it would not satisfy Plaintiffs' pleading requirement
with respect to Defendant's requisite role as a debt collector.
To the contrary, the inclusion of this purported allegation would
merely affirm Defendant's alleged status as the owner of the loan
and/or a creditor under 15 U.S.C. Section 1692a(4), and not one
of a debt collector. Therefore, in light of the Supreme Court's
recent decision in Henson, Plaintiffs have not asserted facts
sufficient to show that Defendant is a debt collector" for
purposes of the FDCPA.

Plaintiffs' FDCPA claims at Count I are dismissed.

Plaintiffs' RESPA Claim Premised on Alleged Failure to Respond to
a QWR (Count IV)

Defendant argues that Plaintiffs' RESPA claim at Count IV must be
dismissed because the letter correspondence underlying the claim
does not meet the statutory requirements of a Qualified Written
Request (QWR).

Here, the letter underlying Plaintiffs' RESPA claim includes
eight separate requests for information pertaining to Plaintiffs'
mortgage loan. With respect to the escrow, Plaintiffs inquired
why JP Morgan Chase is escrowing our home owners' insurance
policy, and what the escrow advances represent. Plaintiffs'
letter, however, does not anywhere state that Plaintiffs believe
that this escrow is in error or why Plaintiffs believe it is in
error.

In their response to Defendant's argument, Plaintiffs concede
that the letter on which their RESPA claim is based fails to set
forth the reasons why the account is in error. Thus, in the
absence of this required information, Plaintiffs' RESPA claim
fails. Accordingly, the claim is dismissed.

Plaintiffs' Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices Claims

At Count II, Plaintiffs assert Pennsylvania state law claims for
unfair trade practices in violation of the FCEUA and the UTPCPL.
Unlike the FDCPA (discussed above), the FCEUA prohibits unfair or
deceptive collection practices of both debt collectors and
creditors.

With respect to creditors, the FCEUA provides, in its relevant
part, the following:

   (5) A creditor may not use any false, deceptive or misleading
representation or means in connection with the collection of any
debt.

   (6) A creditor may not use unfair or unconscionable means to
collect or attempt to collect any debt. Without limiting the
general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a
violation of this paragraph: (i) The collection of any amount,
including any interest, fee, charge or expense incidental to the
principal obligation, unless such amount is expressly authorized
by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law.

In addition, a violation of the FCEUA shall constitute a
violation of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection
Law.  Because the FCEUA does not provide individuals with the
right to institute private causes of action for violations,
individual plaintiffs must use 73 Pa. Cons. Stat. Section 201-
9.2, the remedial provision of the UTPCPL, to obtain relief.
Plaintiffs' remaining state law unfair trade practices claims are
premised upon Plaintiffs' contention, as alleged in the amended
complaint, that Defendant has wrongfully required Plaintiffs'
monthly mortgage payments to Defendant to include a sum for
insurance premiums as part of escrow despite the parties'
negotiated agreement that Plaintiffs' future monthly mortgage
payments would not include insurance premiums as part of escrow.

Plaintiffs' amended complaint relies upon and attaches a series
of correspondence between the parties through their respective
counsel and/or representatives prior to final execution of the
Loan Modification in which Defendant purports to agree that
Plaintiffs' monthly mortgage payment will not include escrow of
insurance premiums.

In particular, at Paragraph 27 of the amended complaint,
Plaintiffs allege that the parties entered into a letter
agreement, as evidenced by an attached letter dated December 28,
2015, from Defendant to Plaintiffs (December 28 Letter), through
which the parties agreed that homeowner's insurance would not be
required to be paid into escrow. The December 28 Letter from
Defendant sets forth Plaintiffs' new monthly mortgage payment as
follows: "Your new principal and interest payment will be
$980.96, plus a monthly escrow amount for taxes and insurance of
$516.88, which equals a new total monthly payment amount of
$1,497.84. This amount may change if there's an increase or
decrease in your taxes or insurance premiums or other escrow
items."

This letter from Defendant can plausibly be construed as
Defendant's written waiver of Plaintiffs' obligation to include
fees for insurance premiums for escrow. As such, this Court finds
that Plaintiffs' factual allegations, including, in particular,
the December 28 Letter from Defendant and the facts surrounding
it, sufficiently plead a waiver of the escrow of insurance
premiums requirement as permitted by the terms of the Mortgage.
In light of this alleged written waiver, if in fact effective,
Defendant's alleged misapplication of Plaintiffs' monthly
mortgage payments and assessment of late fees and other charges
could constitute unfair trade practices under the FCEUA and/or
UTPCPL.

Defendant's motion to dismiss Count II is denied.

Plaintiffs' Regulation X Claim (Count V)

At Count V, Plaintiffs assert a RESPA claim for the violation of
12 U.S.C. Section 2605 premised on Defendant's alleged failure to
comply with Regulation X, in particular, 12 C.F.R. Section
1024.17. Defendant moves to dismiss this claim solely on the
basis of its argument that Plaintiffs were required to pay
insurance premiums into escrow. Because this argument is without
merit, at this stage of the litigation,

Defendant's motion to dismiss Count V is denied.

Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted, in part, and denied, in
part. Counts I, III, and IV are dismissed in their entirety.
Count II is dismissed to the extent it relies upon Defendant's
alleged status as a debt collector and/or a violation of the
FDCPA only.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 7, 2017
Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y86h85k7
from Leagle.com.

MARK CAPOZIO, Plaintiff, represented by STUART A. EISENBERG,
MCCULLOUGH EISENBERG LLC, 65 West Street Road Suite A-204.
Warminster, PA 18974

LINDA CAPOZIO, Plaintiff, represented by STUART A. EISENBERG,
MCCULLOUGH EISENBERG LLC.

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, NA, Defendant, represented by JOHN C.
GOODCHILD, III -- john.goodchild@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN, LEWIS
& BOCKIUS, L.L.P.


LG CHEM: Judge Okays $41.5MM Lithium Ion Battery Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal judge on Dec. 22
granted preliminary approval to three settlements in the
sprawling lithium ion battery antitrust case: $41.5 million from
LG Chem, $24.5 million from Samsung and $4.95 million from NEC
Tokin.


LIBERTY MUTUAL: Lebanon Settlement Entitled to Full Credit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One, issued an
Opinion granting Plaintiff's Motion for Declaratory Judgment in
the case captioned CHAN HEALTHCARE GROUP, PS, a Washington
professional services corporation, Respondent, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL
FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY and LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
foreign insurance companies, Petitioners, No. 75541-2-I (Wash.
App.).

This appeal concerns use by Liberty Mutual Insurance Company of a
computerized database to determine the amounts payable for
treatments covered by personal injury protection coverage under
automobile insurance policies.  Washington's PIP statute requires
automobile insurers to pay all reasonable and necessary medical
expenses incurred by the insured.  Insurers must "conduct[] a
reasonable investigation" before refusing to pay claims.  Liberty
sets the benchmark reasonable medical charges payable using the
FAIR Health database, reflecting other healthcare provider
charges in the same geographic area.

Liberty's use of the FAIR Health database was previously
challenged in Lebanon Chiropractic Clinic v. Liberty Mutual
Insurance Company, a multistate class action lawsuit litigated in
Illinois.  The class included Washington providers.  The lawsuit
alleged that Liberty's use of the FAIR Health database was unfair
under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act and other states' equivalent acts, including the
Washington Consumer Protection Act.  Chan, a Lebanon class
member, received reasonable notice and did not opt out.

In October 2014, the parties in Lebanon reached a proposed class
settlement. In January 2015, class member Dr. David Kerbs, a
Washington chiropractor, filed an objection to the proposed
settlement asserting, among other things, "Lebanon Chiropractic
Clinic is an inadequate class representative for Washington
providers and has a conflict of interests with Washington
providers."  Dr. Kerbs argued the conflict of interest was the
result of differences between Illinois and Washington's consumer
protection statutes.

In February 2015, following a fairness hearing, the Illinois
court entered a final order and judgment approving settlement and
dismissing the case. In the order, the court acknowledged Dr.
Kerbs' objection, overruled all objections to the proposed
settlement, and determined the named plaintiff was an adequate
representative.

Dr. Kerbs appealed the judgment to the Appellate Court of
Illinois. He specifically challenged the adequacy of
representation resulting from conflict between the Illinois and
Washington's consumer protection and PIP statutes. In February
2016, the Illinois appellate court affirmed the trial court in an
unpublished opinion.

In September 2015, while Dr. Kerbs' appeal was still pending in
Illinois, Chan Healthcare Group, PS (Chan) filed the current case
against Liberty in King County Superior Court. Chan alleged
Liberty's reliance on the FAIR Health database constituted an
unfair practice under the Washington Consumer Protection Act.

Chan moved for a declaratory judgment that Lebanon did not
preclude the claims because the class representative was an
inadequate representative. Liberty moved for summary judgment
seeking dismissal of the case. The superior court declined to
give full faith and credit to the Lebanon settlement and found
the named plaintiff in Lebanon did not adequately represent the
interests of Washington providers. The trial court granted Chan's
motion and denied Liberty's motion.

Chan asks the Wash. App. to take on the role of the Illinois
trial court deciding the issue of adequate representation. But
the Wash App. said it does not review de novo whether it would
have found adequate representation as the Illinois trial court.
Neither does it decide whether it would have affirmed the trial
court determination of adequate representation sitting as the
Illinois appellate court. And the Wash. App. does not consider
whether it would have affirmed the appellate court's decision if
it was the Illinois Supreme Court.

In conducting a full faith and credit analysis, the Wash. App.
said it does not dwell on the precise rationale and analysis used
by the sister state to resolve the due process claim.  To allow
an automatic de novo review by collateral attack whenever lack of
due process is alleged would be contrary to full faith and credit
principles emphasizing the importance of finality.

The scope of collateral attack is narrow.  The Wash. App.'s
consideration of the argument and materials before the Illinois
court is limited to whether the issue at hand was raised,
litigated, and decided by that court. Chan contends the issues
litigated in Illinois are completely different than the issues
raised in Washington.

But in Illinois, Dr. Kerbs argued the Lebanon plaintiff was an
inadequate representative because differences between the
consumer protection and PIP statutes in Washington and Illinois
created a conflict of interest. Chan now attempts to revive those
same claims that were raised, litigated, and decided in the
Illinois trial and appellate courts. Chan's collateral attack
fails. The Lebanon settlement is entitled to full faith and
credit.

Therefore, the Wash. App. reversed.

A full-text copy of the Wash. App.'s December 11, 2017 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ychspom7 from Leagle.com.

Philip Albert Talmadge, Talmadge/Fitzpatrick/Tribe, 2775 Harbor
Ave Sw, Third Floor Ste C, Seattle, WA, 98126-2138. John Michael
Silk -- silk@wscd.com -- Wilson Smith Cochran Dickerson, 901 5th
Ave Ste 1700, Seattle, WA, 98164-2050, Russell Yager --
ryager@velaw.com -- Vinson and Elkins, 2001 Ross Ave., Ste. 3700,
Dallas, TX, 75201-2975. Manuel Berrelez -- mberrelez@velaw.com --
Vinson & Elkins, LLP, 2001 Ross Avenue Suite 3700, Dallas, TX,
75201-2975, Counsel for Petitioners.

David Elliot Breskin -- dbreskin@bjtlegal.com -- Breskin Johnson
& Townsend PLLC, 1000 Second Avenue Suite 3670, Seattle, WA,
98104, Cynthia J Heidelberg -- cheidelberg@bjtlegal.com --
Breskin, Johnson & Townsend, 1000 2nd Ave Ste 3670, Seattle, WA,
98104-1053, Counsel for Respondents.


LIBERTY TAX: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it
has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Liberty Tax, Inc. (NASDAQ: TAX) from June 29, 2016
through December 11, 2017, both dates inclusive ("Class Period").
The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Liberty Tax investors
under the federal securities laws.

To join the Liberty Tax class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1254.htmlor call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A
CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU
RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO
NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Liberty Tax's former CEO John T. Hewitt created an
inappropriate tone at the top; (2) the inappropriate tone at the
top led to ineffective entity level controls over the
organization; and (3) as a result, defendants' statements about
Liberty Tax's business, operations and prospects were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
February 13, 2018. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1254.htmlor to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim or Kevin Chan of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-
3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com.

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on
Twitter: https://twitter.com/rosen_firm.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Since 2014, Rosen Law Firm has
been ranked #2 in the nation by Institutional Shareholder
Services for the number of securities class action settlements
annually obtained for investors.

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Kevin Chan, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Tel: 212-686-1060
         Toll Free: 866-767-3653
         Fax: 212-202-3827
         Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                pkim@rosenlegal.com
                kchan@rosenlegal.com [GN]


MACY'S INC: Judge Lets Most Claims Stand in Sale Price Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal judge let most claims stand on Dec. 21 in a class action
accusing Macy's of advertising bogus "on sale" prices to
California consumers.

The case is KRISTIN HALEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MACY'S, INC.,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-06033-HSG (N.D. Calif.).

A full-text copy of the Order is available at
https://is.gd/oE4c2V


MANHATTAN MINI STORAGE: Faces "Mendizabal" Suit in S.D. of NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Manhattan Mini
Storage, LLC. The case is styled as Maria Mendizabal, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Manhattan Mini Storage, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-10235
(S.D. N.Y., December 31, 2017).

Manhattan Mini Storage is NYC's trusted self-storage company with
17 locations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MARDI GRAS: Strip Club Denies Keeping Dancers Off-Books
-------------------------------------------------------
Dan Glaun, writing for Mass Live, reports that the Mardi Gras
strip club has denied allegations that it underpaid dancers,
charged illegal fees to employees and kept workers off the books,
responding to a labor lawsuit filed by two former dancers in
October.

In the suit, former Mardi Gras employees Leah LaRock and Sarah
Chartier claimed that the club, after being forced to change its
labor practices following a 2010 class action suit, quickly
reverted to violating labor laws. Mandatory "house fees" charged
to dancers were rebranded as "locker fees," which were assessed
even to employees that did not use lockers at the club, the suit
claimed.

In its answer to the suit, filed on Nov. 17, Mardi Gras flatly
rejected all the allegations about its labor practices --
admitting only the already public fact that it settled its 2010
previous lawsuit for $1.8 million.

"The allegations are simply untrue and we look forward to
defending it," Kelly said in an October interview, shortly after
the suit was filed.

Kelly declined to comment further on December 14.

The suit names Mardi Gras Entertainment, Inc. and its president
Anthony L. Santaniello as defendants. Santaniello is the brother
of James Santaniello, the strip club operator and one-time
federal informant whose company B. S. C. Realty took out a
mortgage on the Mardi Gras property in 2009.

In an October interview, Larock said dancers would pay cash to
managers before they were allowed to work: $35 to $100 for a
"locker rental" fee, and $20 to the club's DJ. If they could not
front the money it would be taken from that night's tips, she
said.

"The Locker Rental Fees in this regard constitute a disguised
'fee to work,' which is prohibited by state law," the suit
states.

House fees are not an uncommon requirement to work in strip
clubs, though the practice has been challenged before. A federal
lawsuit filed in March claimed that Denver strip clubs exploited
dancers in part by charging them to work.

LaRock started working at Mardi Gras in 2007 and Chartier in
2011, and both stopped dancing there in 2016. They were
classified differently as workers, according to the lawsuit:
LaRock received a paycheck at Massachusetts' tipped minimum wage,
while Chartier was paid nothing by the club and made money solely
on tips.

After Mardi Gras settled its 2010 class action, it changed the
name of its "house fee" to a "locker fee" but kept charging
dancers to work, the suit alleges.

"This new name did not change the amount of the fee nor the fact
that payment was mandatory," the suit says.

The amount allegedly charged exceeded what LaRock earned from her
hourly wage, requiring her and other dancers to pay out of their
tips. That alleged policy was a violation of state labor law, the
suit claims.

LaRock and Chartier are suing on behalf of all Mardi Gras
employees who worked between 2014 and 2017 and were affected by
the fees, numbering at least 500 people, the suit says. The
dancers are asking for triple their unpaid wages in accordance
with state labor law, plus interest, costs and attorney's fees.
Neither were part of the 2010 class action suit.

According to series of potential defenses asserted by the club in
its response to the suit, the Mardi Gras may raise a number of
objections to the claims -- including whether LaRock and Chartier
fully worked the hours they were paid for, have a legitimate
class action claim or filed a timely lawsuit.

"Most of the affirmative defenses raised are standard boilerplate
defenses," Larock and Chartier's attorney Raymond Dinsmore wrote
to MassLive in response to the club's filing. "The ones that
aren't are either spurious or inapplicable to the causes of
action that we pleaded." [GN]


MARK HJELLE: Faces Orion Property Suit in S.D. of Kansas
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mark Hjelle. The
case is styled as Orion Property Group, LLC, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mark Hjelle,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02738-KHV-GEB (S.D. Kan., December
29, 2017).

The Defendant is an individual.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Brennan P. Fagan, Esq.
   FaganEmert & Davis LLC
   730 New Hampshire, Suite 210
   Lawrence, KS 66044
   Tel: (785) 331-0300
   Fax: (785) 331-0303
   Email: bfagan@fed-firm.com

      - and -

   William Skepnek, Esq.
   Skepnek Law Firm, PA
   1 Westwood Road
   Lawrence, KS 66044
   Tel: (785) 856-3100
   Fax: (785) 856-3099
   Email: bskepnek@skepneklaw.com

      - and -

   Ryan C. Hudson, Esq.
   Rex A. Sharp, PA
   5301 W. 75th Street
   Prairie Village, KS 66208
   Tel: (913) 901-0505
   Email: rhudson@midwest-law.com


MIZUHO BANK: Court Reviews Denial of Rule 12 Bid
------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
granting Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration of the denial of
its Rule 12(b)(2) Motion in the case captioned GREGORY GREENE,
JOSEPH LACK, ANTHONY MOTTO, and GREGORY PEARCE, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MIZUHO
BANK, LTD. and MARK KARPELES, Defendants, No. 14 C 1437 (N.D.
Ill.).

In this putative class action, Gregory Greene, Joseph Lack,
Anthony Motto, and Gregory Pearce allege that Mizuho Bank, Ltd.
and Mark Karpeles are liable for financial losses arising from
the demise of the Mt. Gox bitcoin exchange.  Plaintiffs bring
only state law claims, and subject matter jurisdiction lies under
the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d).

The complaint states a tortious interference claim against Mizuho
on behalf of Motto, Pearce, the Deposit Subclass, and the
Withdrawal Subclass and unjust enrichment and fraudulent
concealment claims against Mizuho on behalf of Motto and the
Deposit Subclass. The complaint's other claims, brought by
Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and the Mt. Gox Class, are
against Karpeles only.

Three months after the operative complaint's filing, the Supreme
Court issued Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of
California, 137 S.Ct. 1773 (2017).  Bristol-Myers holds that
specific personal jurisdiction does not lie over a nonresident
plaintiff's claim against a defendant not subject to general
personal jurisdiction solely because the non-resident plaintiff's
claim is similar, or even identical, to a resident plaintiff's
claim in the same suit.

The Supreme Court had granted certiorari in Bristol-Myerson
January 19, 2017, more than a month earlier, 137 S.Ct. 827
(2017), putting front and center the theory that Mizuho now
presses on reconsideration. Yet instead of opposing Plaintiffs'
motion on the ground clearly teed up in Bristol-Myers that
specific jurisdiction does not lie over Pearce's claims, Mizuho
consented to the amendment. And because, as Mizuho admits, pre-
Bristol-Myers Seventh Circuit precedent did not foreclose it from
pressing that theory, Mizuho could have raised that theory before
Bristol-Myers was issued, and it therefore forfeited any argument
based on that theory.

The court would not have excused the forfeiture if doing so would
materially prejudice Pearce and the putative Withdrawal Subclass,
but there is no such prejudice here. As far as personal
jurisdiction is concerned, Pearce is free under Bristol-Myers to
pursue its claim against Mizuho in Pennsylvania. True enough,
there appears to be a two-year limitations period on that claim.
But Mizuho concedes that American Pipe & Construction Co. v.
Utah, 414 U.S. 538, 553-54 (1974), tolled the limitations period
from March 14, 2014, when Plaintiffs first named Mizuho as a
defendant,  through March 7, 2017, when Pearce was added as a
named plaintiff,  meaning that the statute of limitations has not
expired. And should a Pennsylvania court, despite Mizuho's
concession here, dismiss Pearce's claim on limitations grounds,
this court would entertain a motion to add Pearce back into this
case on the ground that excusing Mizuho's forfeiture turned out
to materially prejudice him and the Withdrawal Subclass.

The court recognizes, as Plaintiffs observe, that having Pearce
and the Withdrawal Subclass proceed in Pennsylvania while the
rest of the case proceeds in Illinois is sub-optimal from an
efficiency standpoint. But Bristol-Myers teaches that such
practical problems must yield to the more abstract matter of
whether it is legitimate to submit Mizuho to personal
jurisdiction in an Illinois court for a non-resident's claims
that have no tie to this forum.

Mizuho's reconsideration motion is granted.

A full-text copy of the District of Court's December 11, 2017
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ydyx99w7 from Leagle.com.

Gregory Greene, Plaintiff, represented by Ari Jonathan Scharg --
ascharg@edelson.com -- Edelson P.C..

Gregory Greene, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Lillard
Dore cdore@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, Jay Edelson --
jedelson@edelson.com -, Edelson PC, Robert A. Clifford, Clifford
Law Offices, P.C., 120 North LaSalle Street, 31st Floor,
Chicago, IL 60602  Steven Lezell Woodrow --
swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com -- Woodrow & Peluso, LLC, Benjamin
Scott Thomassen -- bthomassen@edelson.com -- Edelson P.C., Eve-
Lynn J. Rapp -- erapp@edelson.com -- Edelson P.C., John Aaron
Lawson -- alawson@edelson.com -- Edelson Pc, Scott Bennett Kitei
-- skitei@honigman.com. -- Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP
& Shannon Marie McNulty, Clifford Law Offices. 120 North LaSalle
Street, 31st Floor, Chicago, IL 60602

Joseph Lack, Plaintiff, represented by Ari Jonathan Scharg,
Edelson P.C., Steven Lezell Woodrow Woodrow & Peluso, LLC, Eve-
Lynn J. Rapp, Edelson P.C., John Aaron Lawson, Edelson Pc &
Benjamin Scott Thomassen, Edelson P.C..

Anthony Motto, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Scott
Thomassen, Edelson P.C. & Eve-Lynn J. Rapp, Edelson P.C..

Gregory Pearce, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Scott
Thomassen, Edelson P.C. & Eve-Lynn J. Rapp, Edelson P.C..
Mark Karpeles, an individual, Defendant, Pro Se.

Mizuho Bank, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Jason A. Frye --
jfrye@nge.com -- Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg, Jeffrey Resetarits --
jeffrey.resetarits@shearman.com -- Shearman & Sterling LLP,
Jerome Steven Fortinsky -- jfortinsky@shearman.com -- Shearman &
Sterling, Llp, John A. Nathanson -- john.nathanson@shearman.com -
- Shearman & Sterling LLP & Jonathan Stuart Quinn --
quinn@nge.com -- Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg.


MOISHES MOVING: Faces "Mendizabal" Suit in S.D. of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Moishes Moving
Systems, LLC. The case is styled as Maria Mendizabal, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Moishes Moving Systems, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-10239
(S.D. N.Y., December 31, 2017).

Moishe's Moving Systems is a moving company that offers local and
long distance moving services, self-storage, and mobile
storage.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MORGAN & BROTHER MANHATTAN: Faces "Mendizabal" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Morgan and Brother
Manhattan Storage Company, Inc. The case is styled as Maria
Mendizabal, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Morgan and Brother Manhattan Storage
Company, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-10237 (S.D. N.Y.,
December 31, 2017).

Morgan and Brother Manhattan Storage Company, Inc. provides
moving services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MRI INTERNATIONAL: Time to Seek OK of Class Deal Extended
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada
issued an Order for Continuance of Deadline to File Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement in the case
captioned SHIGE TAKIGUCHI, FUMI NONAKA, MITSUAKI TAKITA, TATSURO
SAKAI, SHIZUKO ISHIMORI, YUKO NAKAMURA, MASAAKI MORIYA, HATSUNE
HATANO, and HIDENAO TAKAMA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarity situated, Plaintiff, v. MRI INTERNATIONAL,
INC., EDWIN J. FUJINAGA, JUNZO SUZUKI, PAUL MUSASHI SUZUKI, LVT,
INC., dba STERLING ESCROW, and DOES 1-500, Defendants, Case No.
2:13-cv-01183-HDM-NJK (D. Nev.).

On November 17, 2017 the Court ordered Parties to file a motion
for preliminary approval of class action settlement no later than
December 11, 2017.

Mr. Fujinaga raised, for the first time, his concern that, since
a receiver has been appointed by the Court in the parallel U.S
Securities and Exchange Commission's action against MRI and
himself, he believed that he may not be authorized to enter into
any settlement on behalf of MRI or himself.

On November 30, 2017, and December 7, 2017, Plaintiffs' counsel
met and conferred with Receiver's counsel, Michael Lynch, Esq.,
explaining that the order appointing receiver specifically
includes a carve-out provision exempting the present action from
the Receiver's control and that, in any event, the settlement is
in the best interest of all parties, including the receivership
estate.

The Parties intend to file a joint motion in the SEC Action
requesting direction from the Court, either that the Receiver
lacks authority to direct the settlement in this action, or that
Judge Mahan order the Receiver to enter into the Class Action
Settlement Agreement.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 11, 2017 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7ycsybb from Leagle.com.

Shige Takiguchi, Plaintiff, represented by James Edwin Gibbons --
jeg@manningllp.com -- Manning & Kass Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester
LLP.

Shige Takiguchi, Plaintiff, represented by James R. Olson, Olson,
Cannon, Gormley, Angulo & Stoberski, 9950 W Cheyenne Ave, Las
Vegas, NV 89129, USA, Mariko Taenaka -- mt@robertwcohenlaw.com --
Law Offices of Robert W. Cohen, Robert W. Cohen --
rwc@robertwcohenlaw.com  -Law Offices of Robert W. Cohen, APC &
Steven Jeff Renick -- sjr@manningllp.com -- Manning & Kass,
Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP.

Fumi Nonaka, Plaintiff, represented by James Edwin Gibbons,
Manning & Kass Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP, James R. Olson,
Olson, Cannon, Gormley, Angulo & Stoberski, Mariko Taenaka, Law
Offices of Robert W. Cohen, Robert W. Cohen, Law Offices of
Robert W. Cohen, APC & Steven Jeff Renick, Manning & Kass,
Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP.

Kaoruko Koizumi, Plaintiff, represented by James Edwin Gibbons,
Manning & Kass Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP, James R. Olson,
Olson, Cannon, Gormley, Angulo & Stoberski, Mariko Taenaka, Law
Offices of Robert W. Cohen, Robert W. Cohen, Law Offices of
Robert W. Cohen, APC & Steven Jeff Renick, Manning & Kass,
Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP.

Tatsuro Sakai, Plaintiff, represented by James Edwin Gibbons,
Manning & Kass Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP, James R. Olson,
Olson, Cannon, Gormley, Angulo & Stoberski, Mariko Taenaka, Law
Offices of Robert W. Cohen, Robert W. Cohen, Law Offices of
Robert W. Cohen, APC & Steven Jeff Renick, Manning & Kass,
Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP.

Mitsuaki Takita, Plaintiff, represented by James Edwin Gibbons,
Manning & Kass Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP, James R. Olson,
Olson, Cannon, Gormley, Angulo & Stoberski, Mariko Taenaka, Law
Offices of Robert W. Cohen, Robert W. Cohen, Law Offices of
Robert W. Cohen, APC & Steven Jeff Renick, Manning & Kass,
Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP.

Shizuuko Ishimori, Plaintiff, represented by James Edwin Gibbons,
Manning & Kass Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP, James R. Olson,
Olson, Cannon, Gormley, Angulo & Stoberski, Mariko Taenaka, Law
Offices of Robert W. Cohen, Robert W. Cohen, Law Offices of
Robert W. Cohen, APC & Steven Jeff Renick, Manning & Kass,
Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP, pro hac vice.

Yoko Hatano, Plaintiff, represented by James Edwin Gibbons,
Manning & Kass Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP, James R. Olson,
Olson, Cannon, Gormley, Angulo & Stoberski, Mariko Taenaka, Law
Offices of Robert W. Cohen, Robert W. Cohen, Law Offices of
Robert W. Cohen, APC & Steven Jeff Renick, Manning & Kass,
Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP, pro hac vice.

Yuko Nakamura, Plaintiff, represented by James Edwin Gibbons,
Manning & Kass Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP, James R. Olson,
Olson, Cannon, Gormley, Angulo & Stoberski, Mariko Taenaka, Law
Offices of Robert W. Cohen, Robert W. Cohen, Law Offices of
Robert W. Cohen, APC & Steven Jeff Renick, Manning & Kass,
Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP, pro hac vice.

MRI International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel L.
Hitzke -- Daniel.hitzke@hitzkelaw.com -- Hitzke & Associates &
Erick M. Ferran, 720 South 7th Street, Suite 300, Las Vegas, NV
89101
Edwin J Fujinaga, Defendant, represented by Daniel L. Hitzke,
Hitzke & Associates & Erick M. Ferran.

Junzo Suzuki, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey A. Silvestri --
jsilvestri@mcdonaldcarano.com -- McDonald Carano Wilson, Nicolas
Morgan -- nicolasmorgan@paulhastings.com -- Paul Hastings LLP,
pro hac vice & Paul J. Georgeson -- pgeorgeson@mcdonaldcarano.com
-- McDonald Carano Wilson LLP.

Paul Musashi Suzuki, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey A.
Silvestri, McDonald Carano Wilson, Nicolas Morgan, Paul Hastings
LLP, pro hac vice & Paul J. Georgeson, McDonald Carano Wilson
LLP.

ICAG, INC., Defendant, represented by Jacob A. Reynolds  --
freynolds@hutchlegal.com -- Hutchison & Steffen, Mark A.
Hutchison -- mhutchison@hutchlegal.com  -- Hutchison & Steffen,
LLC & Robert T. Stewart -- rstewart@hutchlegal.com -- Hutchison &
Steffen, LLC.

First Hawaiian Bank, as Trustee of the Junzo Suzuki Irrevocable
Trust UAD 7/12/2013, Defendant, represented by Christopher R.
Ramos, Vedder Price, LLP, 1925 Century Park East Suite 1900 Los
Angeles, California 90067, pro hac vice, Rex Garner --
rex.garner@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP, Ariel E. Stern --
ariel.stern@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP & Lisa M. Simonetti,
Vedder Price, LLP, 1925 Century Park East Suite 1900 Los Angeles,
California 90067

First Hawaiian Bank, as Trustee of the Keiko Suzuki Irrevocable
Trust UAD 7/12/2013, Defendant, represented by Christopher R.
Ramos, Vedder Price, LLP, pro hac vice, Lisa M. Simonetti, Vedder
Price, LLP, Rex Garner, Akerman LLP & Ariel E. Stern, Akerman
LLP.

First Hawaiian Bank, as Trustee of the Junzo Suzuki and Keiko
Suzuki Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust U/A dtd 5/1/2008,
Defendant, represented by Christopher R. Ramos, Vedder Price,
LLP, pro hac vice, Rex Garner, Akerman LLP, Ariel E. Stern,
Akerman LLP & Lisa M. Simonetti, Vedder Price, LLP.

Suzuki Enterprises, Inc. Profit Sharing Plan, Defendant,
represented by Gregg D. Zucker -- gregg@foundationlaw.com --
Foundation Law Group, Robert A. Rabbat --
rrabbat@enensteinlaw.com -- Enenstein Pham & Glass & Tess Emily
Johnson -- tjohnson@sdfnvlaw.com -- Backus Carranza.

Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert, Interested Party, represented by
Paul D. Alston  -- palston@afhi.com -- Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing &
Nickolas A. Kacprowski -- nkacprowski@ahfi.com -- Alston Hunt
Floyd & Ing.

Mary Luszczyk, Material Witness, represented by Mark S. Dzarnoski
-- mdzarnoski@gordonsilver.com -- Gordan & Silver, Ltd.


MRS BPO: Faces "Abrahamov" Suit in Eastern District of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MRS BPO, LLC. The
case is styled as Daniel Abrahamov, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MRS BPO, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-07570 (E.D. N.Y., December 29, 2017).

MRA BPO, L.L.C. provides business process outsourcing services.
The Company offers back office, accounts receivable, and customer
relationship management services. MRA BPO serves customers in the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


NEW YORK: Court Approves $5MM "Parker" Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York issued an Memorandum and Order granting Preliminary Approval
of Class Action Settlement in the case captioned ROY PARKER et
al. on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant, No. 15 CV 6733 (CLP)
(E.D.N.Y.).

Roy Parker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, filed a class action Complaint against the City of New
York, claiming that the New York City Department of Corrections
(NYCDOC) had violated the Constitution by holding pre-trial
detainees in solitary confinement or punitive segregation (PSEG)
without providing them with due process and for no legitimate
purpose.

The Class is defined as the named plaintiffs and all people who
were confined in PSEG while a pre-trial detainee based on the Old
Time Policy at any time between November 23, 2012 and September
16, 2015 (Class).

Under the settlement, Class members will receive minimum
compensation of $175 per day spent in PSEG while a pre-trial
detainee, as a result of the Old Time Policy.  Class members who
were diagnosed as having a serious mental illness or who were
under the age of 18 when they served PSEG time due to the Old
Time Policy will receive $200 per day spent in PSEG.

Based on the discovery conducted during the litigation, the
parties have identified approximately 470 class members and thus,
on average, the class members will receive approximately $10,500,
with an anticipated total maximum amount paid of $4,963,175.

The Stipulation further provides for modest service awards to the
named plaintiffs of no more than $500 per person.  Plaintiffs'
counsel will move for approval of those individual awards at the
time the Class moves for final approval of the settlement.

The parties represent that the proposed settlement was entered
into only after plaintiffs' counsel conducted a thorough
investigation, obtained extensive discovery, and analyzed the
proper measure of damages and the likelihood of class
certification. Counsel conducted interviews with the named
plaintiffs and other pretrial detainees, obtained and reviewed
over 3,000 pages of documents pertaining to the claims, and
conducted a 30(b)(6) deposition of the defendant's employee
responsible for implementing the Old Time Policy.

Given the presumption of fairness when a class settlement has
been reached after arm's-length negotiations between experienced,
capable counsel after meaningful discovery, the Court finds that
the process of reaching the proposed settlement in this case was
procedurally fair.

The parties seek to avoid the expense and delay that would result
from continuing litigation. Plaintiffs note that continued
litigation would require extensive additional discovery,
including multiple depositions of defendant's employees, the
named plaintiffs, various class members, and NYCDOC
representatives, in addition to more document discovery related
to the development of and justification for the Old Time Policy.
Accordingly, the parties believe that this settlement allows for
resolution of the claims, providing significant monetary relief
to the Class members in a prompt and efficient manner. Thus, the
first Grinnell factor of avoiding potential protracted litigation
favors settlement.

The reaction of the Class to the settlement may only be evaluated
after notice of the proposed settlement has been sent to the
Class and the time for objections has passed. In this case,
notice of the proposed settlement has not yet been distributed to
the Class. Thus, this factor is neutral.

The parties believe they have completed a sufficient amount of
discovery to evaluate the case and to conclude that the
settlement is warranted.  Plaintiffs have interviewed current and
former NYCDOC detainees and obtained numerous records, sufficient
to allow them to understand the Old Time Policy and the impact of
this Policy on the detainees.

Given the extent of discovery conducted in this case and the time
spent between the parties negotiating the settlement, the Court
finds that this factor favors approval of the proposed
settlement.

A trial on the merits would involve resolution of liability
issues that have never been litigated to conclusion in this
context and would likely involve an appeals process, both of
which pose a risk of uncertainty with respect to outcome and
duration. Accordingly, the proposed settlement seeks to alleviate
these risks. In light of the foregoing, considering the risks of
appeal and the prolonged nature of the litigation, the Court
finds that this factor favors approval of the proposed
settlement.

Plaintiffs acknowledges that there is a risk associated with
obtaining and maintaining class certification through trial.
Since the proposed settlement would eliminate the aforementioned
risk, expense, and delay, the Court finds that this factor favors
approval.

The parties acknowledge that defendant, as a municipality, may be
able to withstand a greater judgment. However, the parties
contend that this alone should not preclude the Court from
finding that the settlement is fair. Accordingly, the Court finds
that this factor is neutral and does not prevent approval of the
proposed settlement.

Plaintiffs contend that the settlement reached here falls within
the range of reasonableness in that it provides "more than 'a
fraction of the potential recovery.  When the proposed settlement
provides a meaningful benefit to the class when considered
against the obstacles to proving plaintiff's claims with respect
to damages in particular, the agreement is reasonable.

On these bases, the Court finds that the total award, including
the deductions for administrative costs and individual awards to
the named plaintiffs, is fair and reasonable.

Here, the proposed Class members likely lack the means to
prosecute individual actions and employing the class method will
achieve economies of scale and avoid the waste of judicial
resources and the possibility of inconsistent findings.
The Court agrees with plaintiffs that the Rule 23(b)(3) factors
weigh heavily in favor of finding that a class action is a
superior method of resolving the class members' claims.
The Court finds that plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements
of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) as to the Settlement Class.
Therefore, pursuant to the parties' Stipulation, the Court
conditionally certifies a settlement class consisting of all
people who, while pretrial detainees at any time between November
23, 2012 and September 16, 2015, were confined in PSEG in a
NYCDOC facility pursuant to the Old Time Practice a/k/a the
Historical Time Practice.

The Court finds that the named plaintiffs are adequate class
representatives and that proposed Class Counsel satisfy the
criteria of Rule 23(g). Thus, the Court appoints plaintiffs'
counsel to represent the class members in this matter.

The Court grants the plaintiffs' motions for preliminary approval
of the class settlement, for conditional class certification, and
for the appointment of plaintiffs' counsel as Class Counsel.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 11, 2017
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybuea8wu
from Leagle.com.

Roy Parker, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander A. Reinert --
areinert@yu.edu -- c/o Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.
Roy Parker, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Erik Mullkoff
dmullkoff@chwllp.com, Cuti Hecker Wang LLP & Eric Jason Hecker --
EHECKER@CHWLLP.COM -- Cuti Hecker Wang LLP.

Rajab Asep, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander A. Reinert, c/o
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Daniel Erik Mullkoff, Cuti
Hecker Wang LLP & Eric Jason Hecker, Cuti Hecker Wang LLP.
Christopher Chandler, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander A.
Reinert, c/o Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Daniel Erik
Mullkoff, Cuti Hecker Wang LLP & Eric Jason Hecker, Cuti Hecker
Wang LLP.

Jamal Coleman, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander A. Reinert,
c/o Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Daniel Erik Mullkoff, Cuti
Hecker Wang LLP & Eric Jason Hecker, Cuti Hecker Wang LLP.

Allana Dixon, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander A. Reinert, c/o
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Daniel Erik Mullkoff, Cuti
Hecker Wang LLP & Eric Jason Hecker, Cuti Hecker Wang LLP.

Chauncey Miranda, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander A. Reinert,
c/o Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Daniel Erik Mullkoff, Cuti
Hecker Wang LLP & Eric Jason Hecker, Cuti Hecker Wang LLP.

Cesar Rivera, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander A. Reinert, c/o
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Daniel Erik Mullkoff, Cuti
Hecker Wang LLP & Eric Jason Hecker, Cuti Hecker Wang LLP.

City of New York, Defendant, represented by Martin John Bowe, The
City of New York Law Department & Ryan Budhu, New York City Law
Department.


NFL: Super Bowl Ticket Pricing Class Action Back in the Game
------------------------------------------------------------
Perry Cooper, writing for Big Law Business, reports that a
proposed class action alleging the National Football League is
responsible for inflated Super Bowl ticket prices is back in
action after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
revived it Dec. 15.

Ticket buyers alleged a causal chain explaining how the NFL's
withholding of tickets ultimately raised prices on the secondary
market, Judge Julio M. Fuentes wrote. That's enough to establish
standing to sue, the court said.

This is the second time the Third Circuit has considered the
case. In January 2016, it found the case should be dismissed
because the plaintiffs' claims were based on conjectural
assertions of causation and injury.

                   Only 1 Percent for Sale

Josh Finkelman bought two tickets to the 2014 Super Bowl in New
Jersey on the resale market for $2,000 apiece. The seats had a
face value of $800 each.

He filed a class action against the NFL, alleging that its
ticketing practices violated New Jersey's Ticket Law, which makes
it unlawful to withhold more than 5 percent of tickets to an
event from sale to the general public.

The NFL distributed 99 percent of Super Bowl tickets to league
insiders and only made 1 percent available to members of the
general public, who had to enter a lottery for the chance to buy
tickets, Finkelman alleges.

This time around, the Third Circuit said Finkelman established
standing because he alleged that insiders who get tickets sell
them through third-party brokers who are more likely to charge
higher prices.

Judges D. Brooks Smith and Leonard P. Stark, sitting by
designation from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware, joined the opinion.

Nagel Rice represented the ticket buyers. Fox Rothschild and
Haynes & Boone represented the NFL.

The case is Finkelman v. Nat'l Football League, 2017 BL 449256,
3d Cir., No. 16-4087, 12/15/17. [GN]


NIGERIA DEPOSIT: Ex-Bankers to File Suit Over N9.8N Entitlements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ibrahim Apekhade Yusuf, writing for The Nation, reports that
barring any last minute hitch, over 10, 000 former bankers who
filed a class action suit through the Registered Trustees of the
Association of Ex-Staff of Non-Consolidated Banks of Nigeria at
the National Industrial Court, Lagos Judicial Division have
resolved to file individual suits.

Confirming this development in a telephone interview with our
correspondent was the counsel to the aggrieved ex-bankers, Bar.
Daniel Omotilewa.

According to him, this move followed the striking out of the
subsisting suit in court by Justice Benedict Kanyip.

Expatiating, he said, "We're just been tactical about the whole
thing.

Definitely we're withdrawing the case to file a fresh one. We
came to this court under the umbrella of Registered Trustees of
the Association of Ex-Staff of Non-Consolidated Banks of Nigeria
and since we foresee a challenge that we may not be able to
follow through with this action with our prayers in this court,
the wisest thing do under the circumstances was to take a new
path," he said.

Thankfully, he said: "All the affected members of the group are
all in agreement with the new line of action. What we want to do
now is to compile the comprehensive list of those affected as we
plan the next line of action at the court," he said.

The lawyer who hinted that the fresh case will be filed was
however quick to admit that the resumed date of hearing of the
fresh is at the discretion of the court.

Echoing similar sentiments, the chairman of the group, Magnus
Maduka, while addressing journalists said: "We decided to
restrategise because there are certain development. There is no
way we can continue the way we are going and succeed unless we
factor in some of the things we know."

"We were trying to explore the possibility of not going to court
at all these past years believing that the CBN and NDIC and the
banks concerned would do the needful. But it does appear that we
may have to wait forever and that is why we decided to take the
matter before the court to get justice for all the affected
parties," Maduka stressed.

It may be recalled that the consolidation exercise introduced by
the then CBN governor, Prof. Chukwuma Soludo which swept through
the banking sub-sector, left some banks defunct as a result of
their inability to meet the new N25billion capital benchmark.

Consequently, over 10, 000 ex-staff of banks have sued the
Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation (NDIC) and the Central Bank
of Nigeria (CBN) over non-payment of their N9.8billion gratuities
11 years after they were retrenched.

Also joined in the suit are Ecobank Nigeria Plc, UBA Plc, Skye
Bank Plc and Zenith Bank Plc.

The claimants had instituted the action on behalf of the ex-staff
of eight banks including: Allstates Trust Bank, Assurance Bank,
Eagle Bank, Gulf Bank, Hallmark Bank, Liberty Bank, Metrolpolitan
Bank and Trade Bank respectively.

A breakdown of the claimants' gratuities showed that Allstates
and Hallmark Bank both acquired by Ecobank were owed over
N7billion.

Besides, UBA which acquired Gulf Bank, Liberty Bank, Metropolitan
Bank and Trade Bank owed ex-staff of the respective banks over
N1.3bn just as Skye Bank and Zenith Banks were owing over N600m
and N22million. [GN]


NORTHWESTERN POLYTECHNIC: Class Action Seeks Tuition Refund
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Northwestern Polytechnic University, of Fremont, California,
refused to refund tuition after losing its accreditation, and was
run for the private benefit of a man and his brother-in-law, a
class claims in Alameda County Court.


NRG YIELD: Court Junks Shareholders' Suit Against Board Members
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of Delaware issued an Opinion dismissing,
for failure to state a claim, the Complaint in the case captioned
IRA TRUST FBO BOBBIE AHMED, on behalf of similarly situated Class
A stockholders of NRG YIELD, INC., Plaintiff, v. DAVID CRANE,
JOHN F. CHLEBOWSKI, MAURICIO GUTIERREZ, KIRKLAND B. ANDREWS,
BRIAN R. FORD, FERRELL P. McCLEAN, CHRISTOPHER S. SOTOS and NRG
ENERGY, INC., Defendants, Consolidated C.A. No. 12742-CB (Del.
Ch.).

This action arises out of a reclassification of the shares of NRG
Yield, Inc. (Yield) that went into effect in May 2015.  Yield's
business model is to own a portfolio of income-producing energy
generation and infrastructure assets from which dividends can be
distributed to public stockholders a model often referred to as a
yieldco.  Since its formation in 2012, Yield has been controlled
by NRG Energy, Inc. (NRG), which manages Yield's day-to-day
affairs and is responsible for identifying and placing assets
into Yield.

A Class A stockholder filed the action asserting that the members
of the Yield board breached their fiduciary duties in connection
with their approval of the Reclassification, and that NRG
breached its fiduciary duty as a controlling stockholder by
causing Yield to undertake the Reclassification.

Plaintiff argues that the Reclassification was a conflicted
transaction that is subject to entire fairness review.  According
to plaintiff, NRG obtained a unique benefit in the
Reclassification that the minority stockholders did not enjoy
because the transaction perpetuated NRG's majority stake in Yield
at a time when that control was slipping away.

Defendants argue that the business judgment rule should apply for
two reasons.  First, defendants argue that the Reclassification
was a pro rata transaction that affected all of Yield's
stockholders equally. In other words, defendants contend that NRG
did not receive a unique benefit from the Reclassification so
that it was not a conflicted transaction.

Second, defendants posit that even if, arguendo, the
Reclassification was a conflicted transaction, the business
judgment rule still applies because the framework set forth in
Kahn v. M&F Worldwide, Corp. (MFW) 88 A.3d at 645, should apply
to the Reclassification, and plaintiff has failed to plead
sufficient non-conclusory facts that any of the elements of that
framework was not satisfied.

The Court finds that notwithstanding defendants' contentions,
plaintiff has pled non-conclusory facts to support a reasonable
inference that, whatever may have been the intentions behind
Yield's original business model, NRG nevertheless was on the cusp
of losing its control position in Yield when it undertook the
Reclassification, which admittedly was done to perpetuate that
control.

Although Delaware law does not impose on controlling stockholders
a duty to engage in self-sacrifice for the benefit of minority
shareholders, a refusal to require that a controller be
altruistic is not relevant to what standard of review should
apply to a transaction in which the controller extracts something
uniquely valuable to the controller, even if the controller
nominally receives the same consideration as all other
stockholders.

Here, that something was a means for NRG to ensure it would be
able to retain voting control of Yield well into the future
without abandoning a key aspect of its original business model,
using Yield equity to acquire income-producing assets. Thus,
plaintiff has pled sufficient facts for purposes of this motion
to warrant review of the Reclassification as a conflicted
controller transaction that presumptively would be subject to
entire fairness review.

A full-text copy of the Chancery Court's December 11, 2017
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycpp6sbs from
Leagle.com.

Peter B. Andrews -- pandrews@andrewsspringer.com -- Craig J.
Springer -- pandrews@andrewsspringer.com -- & -- David M. Sborz -
- dsborz@andrewsspringer.com -- of ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC,
Wilmington, Delaware; Jeremy S. Friedman -- jfriedman@fotpllc.com
-- Spencer Oster -- soster@fotpllc.com -- & David Tejtel --
dtejtel@fotpllc.com -- of FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC, New York,
New York; Jason M. Leviton jason@blockesq.com -- Joel Fleming --
joel@blockesq.com -- of BLOCK & LEVITON LLP, Boston,
Massachusetts; Counsel for Plaintiff.

William M. Lafferty  -- wlafferty@mnat.com -- & D. McKinley
Measley -- mmeasley@mnat.com -- of MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT &
TUNNELL LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Counsel for Defendants John F.
Chlebowski, Brian R. Ford, and Ferrell P. McClean.

Brian C. Ralston -- bralston@potteranderson.com -- Andrew H.
Sauder asauder@potteranderson.com -- & -- Mathew A. Golden --
mgolden@potteranderson.com -- of POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP,
Wilmington, Delaware; Counsel for Defendants David Crane,
Mauricio Gutierrez, Kirkland B. Andrews, Christopher S. Sotos,
and NRG Energy, Inc.


OSI SYSTEMS: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of Lead Plaintiff Date
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a free shareholder information service, reminds
investors that they have until February 5, 2018 to file lead
plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit
against OSI Systems Inc., if they purchased the Company's
securities between August 16, 2013 and December 6, 2017,
inclusive (the "Class Period").  This action is pending in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California.

Get Help

OSI Systems investors should visit us at
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-osi-systems-inc-
securities-litigation-1 or call to speak to our claim center
toll-free at (844) 367-9658.

                    About the Lawsuit

OSI Systems and certain of its executives are charged with
failing to disclose material information during the Class Period,
violating federal securities laws.

On December 6, 2017, Muddy Waters Research reported several
allegations of corrupt business practices by the Company.
Specifically, that an Albania concession was acquired through
bribery or other improper measures; an unannounced transfer of
49% of its project company, S2 Albania SHPK, to an Albanian
holding company for consideration of less than $5.00; and, based
on information from former employees, other unlawful acts
including improper sales, bribery and fraud.

On this news, the price of OSI Systems' shares plummeted $24.55
per share, or 29.2%. [GN]


OSI SYSTEMS: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP has filed a class action suit in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California against OSI Systems, Inc. ("OSI" or the "Company"),
and certain of its senior officers.

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC, and is brought
by Plaintiff on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased
the common stock of OSI between August 21, 2013 and December 6,
2017, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint further alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants "made materially false or misleading statements, and
failed to disclose" material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects.  "On December 6, 2017, Muddy
Waters Research published a report on OSI entitled "OSIS: Rotten
to the Core."  (http://www.muddywatersresearch.com/research/).
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 its
"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 declined $24.55 per
share, or 29.2%, to close at $59.52 per share on December 6,
2017, on unusually heavy trading volume.

If you are a member of the proposed Class, you may move the court
no later than February 5, 2018 to serve as a lead plaintiff for
the proposed Class.  You need not seek to become a lead plaintiff
in order to share in any possible recovery.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the proposed
Class and is represented by Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
(www.kaplanfox.com).  Our firm, with offices in New York, San
Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, and New Jersey, has decades of
experience in prosecuting investor class actions and actions
involving violations of the Federal securities laws.

         Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq.
         KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
         850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
         New York, NY 10022
         Toll-Free Telephone: (800) 290-1952
         Telephone: (212) 687-1980
         Fax: (212) 687-7714
         E-mail address: jcampisi@kaplanfox.com

         Laurence D. King, Esq.
         KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
         350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
         San Francisco, CA 94104
         Telephone: (415) 772-4700
         Fax: (415) 772-4707
         E-mail address: lking@kaplanfox.com  [GN]


PARC HOTEL: Faces "Zeng" Suit in Eastern District of New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Parc Hotel LLC.
The case is styled Qinghai Zeng, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Parc Hotel LLC doing
business as: Parc Hotel, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07601 (E.D.
N.Y., December 31, 2017).

The Parc Hotel LLC is engaged in the hotel business.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


PARTSSOURCE INC: "Gembarski" Class Certification Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Portage County,
issued an Opinion affirming the Court of Common Pleas' granting
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned
EDWARD F. GEMBARSKI, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PARTSSOURCE, INC.,
Defendant-Appellant, No. 2016-P-0077 (Ohio App.).

Edward F. Gembarski alleged that PartsSource took back the
commissions earned by Plaintiff and the putative class, and that
money has never been returned.  And this same alleged wrongful
taking of the alleged earned commissions happened to Mr.
Gembarski as well as approximately 75-120 other Account Managers.
Mr. Gembarski has personal knowledge of the list of Account
Managers PartsSource regularly sent out advising that they were
having their commissions pulled, and whose complaints were
exactly the same as Mr. Gembarski's.

Appellee filed a class-action complaint for damages against
appellee in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas.

The court certified the class and defined the same as follows:

     All current and/or former PartsSource, Inc. Account Managers
and/or employees who are or ever have been subject to Defendant
PartsSource, Inc.'s policy and wrongful practice of reducing,
withholding or deducting, taking back or 'pulling' earned
commissions on sales of medical equipment and/or supplies.

Appellant challenges the finding that appellee seeks
certification of a class of Account Managers who sold medical
equipment and/or parts for Defendant PartsSource, and, in a
footnote, observed that Account Managers, Sales Representatives
and Customer Service Representatives are used, at times,
interchangeably.  Appellant counters that, at the certification
hearing, appellee testified that the proposed class included
account managers, senior account managers, and strategic account
managers, but not product managers.

Appellant also notes that Charles Koch, its Chief Administrative
Officer, testified that different categories of employees were
compensated differently so that the titles were not
interchangeable.

The Ohio App. finds that the objection fails to identify a
recognizable error.  The class certified by the trial court
includes any of appellant's employees who received commissions
from the sale of medical equipment and/or supplies and who were
subject to an allegedly improper policy of having earned
commissions rescinded.  Membership in the class does not depend
on job title, responsibilities, or overall compensation package.
Moreover, Koch testified by deposition that there were a variety
of titles that were applied to salespersons who were,
nonetheless, paid by commission.

Appellant also maintains the magistrate erred when it identified
appellee as an Account Representative, not acknowledging that he
held other positions and/or titles during his employment with it.
These objections are inconsequential to the ultimate issue of
class certification. As such, any error is harmless as a matter
of law.

Appellant argues the magistrate erred in finding that at least 75
persons were in the same position as Mr. Gembarski and earned
their commissions in the same manner he did. Appellant counters
that appellee testified that he only had personal knowledge of
six other employees' compensation plans and, therefore,
speculated about the actual number.

The Ohio App. discerns no error in this.  The magistrate's
finding fairly reflects appellee's testimony, which was based on
complaints he heard from approximately 50 or 60 other
salespersons (100 percent of them) who had commissions pulled
back. The magistrate also cited the deposition testimony of
Daniel Brenner, the Director of Customer Implementation for
appellant, who estimated that there were between 45 and 65
persons who sell medical parts for commission at any given time.
Koch in his deposition testimony referred to "140 or so sales
reps" who had received reduced commissions over a number of
years. The magistrate's finding is therefore adequately supported
by the record.

Appellant's first assignment of error lacks merit.

For its second assignment of error, appellant asserts that the
trial court abused its discretion in adopting the magistrate's
finding of fact and conclusion of law which by improperly
engaging in a merits based inquiry, certifying a proposed class
that is unascertainable and ordering PartsSource to ascertain the
putative class members.

Appellant contends the magistrate relied on impermissible
evidence, Disc A, a spreadsheet that appellant produced in
response to a discovery response in August 2013 reflecting only
commission amounts during a limited period of time that the
Company did not reimburse, without any indication of whether
customers ultimately paid on those transactions. Appellant
contends that Disc A cannot show whether salespersons who had
"earned commissions rescinded actually received appropriate
reimbursement under the terms of their specific compensation
plans" and that appellee impermissibly raised Disc A as evidence
in his reply brief in support of class certification.

The Ohio App. sees nothing impermissible about the magistrate's
consideration of Disc A.  Contrary to appellant's
characterization, appellee's use of Disc A is not a new argument
but evidence duly produced during discovery and introduced into
evidence as an attachment to the reply brief prior to the
certification hearing, the contents of which were thoroughly
discussed in Koch's deposition testimony.  The magistrate
properly described the contents of Disc A as the identities of
well over one hundred (100) Account Managers who have had their
alleged earned commissions pulled and whose money has not been
returned to them. There was no claim that Disc A resolved issues
of damages or ultimate liability.

Appellant's second assignment of error lacks merit.

Appellant's third assignment of error provides that the trial
court abused its discretion in summarily concluding that appellee
satisfied Civ.R. 23's seven prerequisites, where the record does
not contain competent and credible evidence supporting that
conclusion, and where such conclusion is against the manifest
weight of the evidence.

Here, the magistrate determined the differences in individual
class-member's contracts, as well as potential statute-of-
limitations problems with individual claims, were insufficient to
undermine the conclusion that there were adequate questions of
law and/or fact that predominate the class as a whole.

The magistrate further determined the class action was superior
to other methods of fair and efficient adjudication of the
controversy because (1) no other person within the putative class
expressed an interest in separately prosecuting the allegations
in this matter; (2) appellee is the only current or former
employee to have commenced suit relating to the alleged
wrongdoing; (3) appellee sought out the forum in which the case
was being prosecuted, without objection, thereby suggesting the
concentration of the litigation was desirable; and (4) there
would be no significant difficulty in managing the class action
because each class member has a claim arising from the same
nucleus of operative facts and legal theories, all of which can
be resolved in a single stroke under the class action mechanism.
The foregoing findings are reasonable and, as a result, the trial
court did not abuse its discretion in adopting the magistrate's
decision certifying the class.

Appellant's final assignment of error is without merit.

The judgment of the Portage County Court of Common Pleas is
affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Ohio App.'s December 11, 2017 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yb7bmug6 from Leagle.com.

Thomas J. Connick -- tconnick@connicklawllc.com -- Connick Law,
LLC, 25550 Chagrin Blvd., #101, Beachwood, OH 44122 (For
Plaintiff-Appellee).

Jeffrey J. Wedel -- jjw@zrlaw.com -- Stephen S. Zashin
ssz@zrlaw.com, and Helena Oroz -- hot@zrlaw.com -, Zashin & Rich
Co., L.P.A., Ernst & Young Tower, 950 Main Avenue, 4th Floor,
Cleveland, OH 44113 (For Defendant-Appellant).


PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of PayPal Holdings, Inc. ("PayPal") (NASDAQ:PYPL)
between February 14, 2017 and December 1, 2017. You are hereby
notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California. To get more information go to:

http://www.zlk.com/plsra-c/paypal-holdings-inc-2?wire=3

or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-
free: (877) 363-5972. There is no cost or obligation to you.

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period Defendants
issued materially false and/or 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 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. Then on December 1, 2017, PayPal disclosed
that personal information for roughly 1.6 million TIO users had
potentially been compromised as a result of the previously
announced security vulnerabilities.

If you suffered a loss in PayPal 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.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York,
California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys
have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in
securities litigation, and have recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]


PIER 1: $3.5MM Class Settlement in "Mathein" Has Prelim Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement in the case
captioned LAUREN MATHEIN and CHRISTINE SABAS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PIER 1
IMPORTS (U.S.), INC., Defendant, No. 1:16-cv-00087-DAD-SAB (E.D.
Cal.).

The primary issue in this case revolves around whether
defendant's Flex Shift policy violated various provisions of the
applicable California wage order.  As part of that "Flex Shift"
policy, associates would report to work, either by phone or in
person, before learning if she or he would actually be able to
work the flex shift and earn wages.

Plaintiffs alleged the following causes of action, inter alia:
(i) failure to pay reporting time pay; (ii) failure to pay
minimum wage; (iii) failure to maintain required business
records; (iv) failure to furnish proper wage statement stubs.
The proposed class for purposes of settlement is defined as all
current and former non-managerial associates who are/were working
for defendants in a store in California from January 20, 2012, up
through March 26, 2016.

Under the proposed settlement agreement, defendant offers a
maximum settlement amount of $3,500,000.

The Court found the settlement to be the product of serious,
substantial, and arms-length negotiations.  The parties conducted
meet and confer sessions about the discovery and additional
documents were produced as a result.  The two class
representative plaintiffs and defendant's PMQ were deposed.
After a full day session, the parties concluded the formal
mediation without a settlement but with signs of clear progress.
Afterwards, the parties continued to engage in negotiations and
eventually accepted a mediator's proposal.  The court is
convinced that the parties' negotiations were extensive,
involved, and non-collusive, lending weight to the fairness of
the settlement and the motion for preliminary approval.

To evaluate the fairness of the settlement award, the court
should "compare the terms of the compromise with the likely
rewards of litigation."

Here, the total proposed settlement is for $3.5 million, which
will be paid proportionally to all class members based on the
number of weeks each class member worked.  Plaintiffs state that
the overall average payment for all class members will be
approximately $375 -- $3.5 million divided by 9,339 class
members.  After accounting for deducted fees, the overall average
payment for all class members will be approximately $236. Given
that class members often worked approximately 20 hours per week
at an average of less than $10 in pay per hour, plaintiffs
estimate that this sum represents about two weeks of pay for an
average class member.

Given the lack of clear precedent and the novelty of plaintiffs'
arguments, the court finds that the proposed settlement award,
which recovers approximately 28% of the global damages estimate,
is fair and adequate.

The court finds the settlement agreement in this case to be fair
for the purposes of preliminary approval.

The hearing for final approval of the proposed settlement is set
for April 17, 2018 at 9:30 a.m., with the motion for final
approval of class action settlement to be filed 28 days in
advance of the final approval hearing.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 11, 2017 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybbgktgx from Leagle.com.

Lauren Mathein, Plaintiff, represented by William Anthony Baird -
- tbaird@marlinsaltzman.com -- Marlin & Saltzman, LLP.

Lauren Mathein, Plaintiff, represented by Stanley D. Saltzman --
ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com -- Marlin & Saltzman, LLP.

Christine Sabas, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Stanley D.
Saltzman, Marlin & Saltzman, LLP & William Anthony Baird, Marlin
& Saltzman, LLP.

Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., Defendant, represented by Gregory
William Knopp -- gknopp@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer
and Feld LLP & Galit Avitan Knotz -- gknotz@akingump.com -- Akin
Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP.


PURDUE PHARMA: Parker County Joins Class Action Opioid Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maggie Fraser, writing for Weatherford Democrat, reports that
Parker County joined 25 other Texas counties in a class action
lawsuit against Purdue Pharmaceuticals and other major drug
manufacturers for their role in the epidemic of opioid addiction.

The Parker County Commissioners Court December 11 unanimously
approved both a resolution to join the suit and a retention
agreement for the services of Cappolino, Dodd and Krebs L.L.P,
one of the two firms pursing the class action suit.

"We have a law firm that's contacted us," County Attorney John
Forrest said. "They currently have filed litigation against
pharmaceutical companies for the prescription of opioids. They
have 25 counties under contract, and they're discussing with us
if we'd like to join in that class action suit."

If successful, the suit would "go back and recover costs" from
pharmaceutical companies to cover costs incurred by counties in
dealing with the effects of opioid abuse, Forrest said.

"Pharmaceutical companies have been prescribing opioids for
chronic pain as opposed to acute pain, meaning that they
encourage doctors and physicians to continuously prescribe this
medication," he said. "Based on studies, they've determined that
after 30 days on these prescriptions, individuals become
addicted.

"It causes all kinds of problems in a community. Specifically,
increased medical costs, increased costs due to crimes committed,
and problems with these individuals' productivity due to their
addiction. These drugs are Fentanyl, OxyContin and those types of
prescription drugs that contain opioids."

Over-prescription of opioids can be a "gateway" to heroin use,
with 80 percent of heroin users beginning their addiction with
prescription opioids, according to a report from the National
Institute on Drug Abuse.

"Once individuals can no longer get prescription drugs, they
could potentially get into heroin," Forrest said. "You have
overdoses that are documented here in Parker County as a result
of heroin use. Apparently, with CPS, we also have this issue with
parents who are using heroin or opioids."

There is no cost to the county to join the suit, he said, though
the firms seeking damages will receive a 25 percent contingency
fee from the money recovered if the suit is successful. [GN]


PURDUE PHARMA: Harris County to Sue Over Opioid Epidemic
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Harris County, Texas, is
the latest government body to sue over the national opioid
epidemic, blaming Purdue Pharma, Cephalon, Janssen and other drug
companies for widespread addiction and the crushing cost of
dealing with the crisis.


QUDIAN INC: Kaplan Fox Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP has filed a class action suit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against Qudian Inc. ("Qudian" or the "Company") (NYSE: QD),
certain of its senior officers, directors, and underwriters.

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933.  The complaint is brought on
behalf of all persons who purchased Qudian American Depository
Shares ("ADS") in the Company's October 17, 2017 initial public
offering ("Offering") under or traceable to an Amended
Registration Statement filed with the SEC on Form F-1/A on
October 13, 2017 and a Prospectus filed with the SEC on October
17, 2017 (collectively the "Registration Statement") (the
"Class").  In the Offering, 37.5 million Qudian ADSs were sold at
$24.00 per share for gross proceeds of $900 million.

The complaint further alleges that the Registration Statement
made representations "concerning the Company's risks concerning
security breaches and unauthorized access to its customers
confidential information" and that these representations "were
untrue statements of material facts and omitted material facts
necessary to make the statements contained therein not
misleading, because the Registration Statement did not disclose
that, at the time of the Offering, the Company's security
measures for protecting its customers' confidential information
had been breached or the Company had experienced unauthorized
access to its customers confidential information, exposing the
Company to liability related to the loss of the information,
litigation and negative publicity."

On December 13, 2017, Qudian ADSs closed at $13.98 per share, or
more than 41% below the IPO price of $24 per share.

If you are a member of the proposed Class, you may move the court
no later than February 12, 2018 to serve as a lead plaintiff for
the proposed Class.  You need not seek to become a lead plaintiff
in order to share in any possible recovery.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the proposed
Class and is represented by Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP.  Our
firm, with offices in New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles,
Chicago, and New Jersey, has decades of experience in prosecuting
investor class actions and actions involving violations of the
Federal securities laws.

If you have any questions about this Notice, the action, your
rights, or your interests, please e-mail attorneys Jeff Campisi,
Esq. -- jcampisi@kaplanfox.com -- or Larry King, Esq. --
lking@kaplanfox.com -- or contact them by phone, regular mail, or
fax:

         Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq.
         Laurence D. King
         KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
         Telephone: (212) 687-1980
         Fax: (212) 687-7714
         E-mail: jcampisi@kaplanfox.com
                 lking@kaplanfox.com [GN]


QUDIAN INC: Scott+Scott Files Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP is notifying investors that a
class action lawsuit has been filed against Qudian, Inc. (NYSE:
QD) and other defendants, related to alleged violations of
federal securities laws.  If you purchased Qudian American
Depository Shares in or traceable to the Company's initial public
offering, held on or about October 18, 2017, or if you purchased
Qudian ADS after October 18, 2017, you are encouraged to contact
a Scott+Scott attorney at (844) 818-6980 for additional
information.

Qudian is a Chinese provider of online micro-lending credit
products.  The Company offers cash credit products which includes
funds in digital form and merchandise credit products. Qudian
serves customers in China.

The lawsuit claims materially false and misleading statements
were made regarding Qudian's loan collection practices and the
security of its borrowing data.

On November 21, 2107, Chinese media reported that the personal
information of millions of Qudian customers was allegedly
available for sale on the black market.  On November 23, 2017,
Bloomberg News reported that "Chinese regulators and police are
investigating a potential leak of data" from Qudian.

Since the IPO, the price of Qudian ADS has dropped precipitously.
As of the time of this writing, the Company's ADS are trading at
$13.44, approximately 44% lower than the IPO price of $24.00.

What You Can Do

If you purchased Qudian ADS on or after October 18, 2017, or if
you have questions about this notice or your legal rights, please
contact attorney Rhiana Swartz at (844) 818-6980, or at
rswartz@scott-scott.com.  Investors have until February 12, 2018,
to move for lead plaintiff.

                       About Scott+Scott

Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions
throughout the United States.  The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide with
offices in New York, London, Connecticut, California, and Ohio.

         Rhiana Swartz, Esq.
         Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP
         Tel. No.:(844) 818-6980
         E-mail: rswartz@scott-scott.com [GN]


QUDIAN INC: Lawsuits Claiming False IPO Information
---------------------------------------------------
Liu Xiao and Li Mingming, writing for Caixin, reports that a
spate of law firms has filed class-action lawsuits against
microlender Qudian for alleged false and misleading information
in its initial public offering (IPO) documents.

Even before tightening measures in the Chinese microlending
market, Qudian shares plunged after its CEO gave an interview in
October suggesting the firm treated bad loans as charity, putting
the firm's stated bad loan ratio of 0.5% into question.

In late November, Chinese media reported that personal
information of Qudian customers was allegedly compromised and
being sold on the black market. Chinese regulators and police are
investigating the potential data leak, Bloomberg reported citing
people with knowledge of the matter.

The first lawsuit filed focuses on whether Qudian failed to
disclose that "its loan collection practices were materially
deficient and/or nonexistent as the Company treated bad loans as
welfare, and . . . .[whether] Qudian's data systems and
procedures were materially inadequate to safeguard sensitive
borrower data against breach," according to a filing from Faruqi
& Faruqi LLP.

Since then, Rosen Law Firm, Kirby McInerney LLP; Holzer & Holzer
LLC; Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC; Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer
LLP; and Johnson Fistel, LLP have also filed lawsuits against the
microlender for the same reasons. The cases were filed in New
York.

Qudian said the lawsuits have no foundation and that it will
mount an active defense, Sina Technology, an online Chinese media
outlet, reported on December 14.

Qudian didn't reply to Caixin's request for comment. [GN]


QUINCY BIOSCIENCE: Brain Health Supplement Class Certified
----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal judge certified a class led by Philip Racies that claims
Quincy Bioscience misrepresented the effects of its "brain health
supplement."  A similar claim was made in 2014.


R.A. ROGERS: Faces "Leavens" Suit in Eastern District of NY
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against R.A. Rogers, Inc.
The case is styled as Corissa Leavens, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v R.A. Rogers, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-07588 (E.D. N.Y., December 30, 2017).

R.A. Rogers, Inc. is a full service collection agency,
specializing in credit unions, banks, medical, property
management and commercial collections.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RAMONA MUNICIPAL: Class Action Over Sewer Service Charge Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Brainard, writing for The San Diego Union-Tribune, reports
that attorneys representing the Ramona Municipal Water District
in a class action lawsuit challenging its sewer service charge
method were scheduled to file opening briefs on the merits of
their case with the state Supreme Court by Dec. 13.

RMWD's attorneys with Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP of
San Diego requested an extension to file the opening briefs,
which was granted in November.  This was the second extension
granted.

The state Supreme Court agreed to review the case on Sept. 13
after it was petitioned by the water district for a rehearing
following an appellate court decision in the plaintiffs' favor.

In Eugene Plantier v. Ramona Municipal Water District, filed
Jan. 13, 2014, commercial property owners Eugene Plantier and
Orrin Day claim that RMWD's sewer service charge is unlawful and
violates California's Proposition 218 because the district
imposes a sewer service charge based on equivalent dwelling unit
(EDU) value that bears no rational relationship to a parcel's
actual wastewater use.

The case was bifurcated into two phases with Phase 1 determining
whether the plaintiffs had exhausted their administrative
remedies by first protesting the fees at the district's
Proposition 218 public hearings on proposed sewer fee increases.
The trial court found that the plaintiffs had not done so and
therefore did not have standing in court.  That decision
prevented the complaint from moving into Phase 2 to determine
whether the sewer charge is lawful.

The plaintiffs appealed the ruling and won with the court finding
that the Prop. 218 notices state the public hearings are to
address protests over proposed fee increases as opposed to
protests over the method used to charge the fee.  That decision
was issued June 13.

If the state Supreme Court favors the appellate court ruling, the
case will be able to move to the second phase to consider whether
the sewer service charge is lawful.  If the state's high court
agrees with the trial court, the case will not proceed. [GN]


RBM OF CALIFORNIA: Westside Families Sue Over Construction
----------------------------------------------------------
Howard Blume, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that several
Westside families and school employees are suing to prevent
construction that they say will harm students at Palms Elementary
School.

The cause for concern is a large apartment development that would
be built adjacent to the campus. A fence is all that separates
the construction site from the kindergarten play area,
potentially exposing the students to toxic dust and other harms,
according to the lawsuit filed by attorney Olu K. Orange, Esq. a
parent at the school.

An additional worry, Orange said, is the potential effect on
hearing-impaired students who benefit from a special program at
Palms. These students use devices that amplify sounds and spend
some of their time in a specially outfitted classroom -- with
carpeted walls and a low ceiling -- that is designed to minimize
extraneous sounds.

"Every distinct noise and ongoing noise interferes with their
ability to learn," Orange said. "It hurts them and it causes them
pain."

Those named in the suit include L.A. City Councilman Paul Koretz
and developer Hiro Kobayashi, whose social media profile
describes him president of RBM of California, which specializes
in real estate development, investment and asset management.

A spokeswoman for Koretz, who represents the area, said his
office "cannot comment on pending lawsuits" and did not answer
additional questions about the development.

An attorney for the developer said the project will be positive
for the neighborhood.

"The proposed residential complex . . . will bring significant
investment to the community and is expected to add millions of
dollars to the local economy," Elisa Paster said in a statement.

The suit asserts that the city and the developer have not
followed through with necessary environmental reviews.

Paster took issue with that claim, saying that the developer
agreed to remove asbestos and lead paint from an old structure on
the site when "neighboring buildings are not being utilized."

"Throughout the successful entitlement process, which was
conducted according to all the city's rules and regulations, the
developer has met with school leaders and city officials," her
statement said.

The lawsuit seeks class-action status, which, if granted, would
mean that attorneys would be representing the interests of all
students at the school.

A spokeswoman for the L.A. Unified School District said the
district is aware of the issue.

"L.A. Unified is working with Councilman Koretz's office -- as
well as parents, teachers, staff, the school community and the
developer -- to ensure that the developer will implement
mitigation measures that will limit the impacts to students and
staff," Barbara Jones said.

The district could provide no immediate information on those
measures. According to Orange, a demolition team briefly began
work December 15 on the site. [GN]


REVIVE NAILS SPA: Faces "Hsieh" Suit in Eastern District of NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Revive Nails Spa
Corp. The case is styled as Hui-Ju Hsieh also known as: Ruby
Hsieh on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Revive Nails Spa Corp, Chi Onn Lai and Lay Heong
Lee, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-07598 (E.D. N.Y., December 31,
2017).

Revive Nails Spa Corp. is located in Huntington, New York. This
organization primarily operates in the Manicurist, Pedicurist
business/industry within the Personal Services sector.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


RJ REYNOLDS: Fla. Court Flips Statute of Limitations Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District, issued
an Opinion reversing the judgment of the Trial Court granting
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned
DEMOND MANSFIELD AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF
THELMA BROWN, Appellant, v. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, PHILIP
MORRIS USA AND LORILLARD TOBACCO COMPANY, Appellees, Case No.
5D16-1826 (Fla. Dist. App.), and the case is remanded for
evidentiary hearing.

Demond Mansfield, as Personal Representative of the Estate of
Thelma Brown, deceased, appeals the final summary judgment
entered in favor of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Philip
Morris USA (Tobacco Companies) on their statute of limitations
defense.

Mansfield sued Tobacco Companies, alleging that the decedent,
Thelma Brown, purchased and smoked cigarettes containing nicotine
that were designed, manufactured, advertised, and marketed by
Tobacco Companies and that as a result, the decedent became
addicted to these cigarettes.

Mansfield asserted that the decedent's addiction to cigarettes
caused her to contract illnesses that proximately led to her
death.  Mansfield further alleged that the decedent was a member
of the class that initially brought a class action suit against
Tobacco Companies for injuries caused by smoking and that
obtained a final judgment for punitive damages.

The filing of a complaint is complete once the pleading is
delivered to and received by the proper officer. In this case,
the proper officer was the Clerk of the Circuit Court in Osceola
County. Because the complaint filed in this case bears an Osceola
County Clerk of Court date stamp of January 14, 2008, Tobacco
Companies moved for summary judgment based on their statute of
limitations defense that Mansfield did not file his complaint by
the Engle-imposed deadline.  The trial court granted the motion
and entered the final summary judgment now on review.

The Fla. App. held that the effect of a clerk's date stamp on a
document is to create a rebuttable presumption that the document
was filed on that day. Nevertheless, the clerk's date stamp is
not conclusive proof of the filing date and may be rebutted by
the submission of competent substantial evidence that the
complaint was actually received in the clerk's office by the
filing deadline.

Here, although the presumption exists that Mansfield's complaint
was untimely filed on January 14, Mansfield filed evidence in
opposition to Tobacco Companies' motion for summary judgment
indicating that on January 11, 2008, the subject complaint and a
filing fee check was delivered to the clerk of court in Osceola
County and that the clerk of court issued a receipt showing that
the complaint was filed by Mansfield against Tobacco Companies on
that day.

These circumstances present an unresolved question of fact. In
Strax, the court ruled that in those rare cases where a paper is
delivered to the clerk's office within the jurisdictional time
frame but, for some reason, through inadvertence or error is not
timely stamped by the clerk, it is appropriate to remand for an
evidentiary hearing to determine if the document was timely
filed.

Accordingly, the Fla. App. remanded the matter back to the trial
court for an evidentiary hearing to allow Mansfield the
opportunity to rebut the presumption that his suit was filed on
January 14, 2008, with competent substantial evidence that the
complaint was in fact timely received by the Osceola County Clerk
of Court on January 11, 2008.

A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' November 3, 2017
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/ydfa6eol from
Leagle.com.

Willie E. Gary -- weg@williegary.com -- Donald N. Watson --
dnw@williegary.com -- and Charles L. Scott, Jr., of Gary,
Williams, Parenti, Watson & Gary PLLC, Stuart, for Appellant.

Geoffrey J. Michael -- geoffrey.michael@apks.com -- of Arnold &
Porter LLP, Washington, D.C., Cathy A. Kamm -- ckamm@shb.com --
Daniel F. Molony -- dmolony@shb.com -- and Kristopher J. Verra --
kverra@shb.com -- of Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Tampa, and
Jennifer Blues Kenyon -- jbkenyon@shb.com -- of Shook, Hardy &
Bacon LLP, Kansas City, Mo. for Appellee, Philip Morris USA.
Jason T. Burnette -- jtburnette@jonesday.com -- of Jones Day,
Atlanta, GA, Troy A. Fuhrman -- troy.fuhrman@hwhlaw.com -and
Marie A. Borland -- marie.borland@hwhlaw.com -- of Hill, Ward &
Henderson, P.A., Tampa for Appellee, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco
Company. Dawn Giebler Millner --
gieblerd@gtlaw.com -- of Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Orlando, for
Appellee, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company as successor-by merger of
Lorillard Tobacco Company.


ROYAL SIAM RESTAURANT: Faces "JinZhong" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Royal Siam
Restaurant, Inc. The case is styled as Xin JinZhong and Ruixuan
Cui, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Royal Siam Restaurant, Inc doing business as: Royal
Siam Thai Cuisine, 1A Royal Thai Cuisine & 1A Anago Sushi, Inc
doing business as: Royal Siam Thai Cuisine, Sushi Suki Yorker,
Inc. doing business as: Sushi Suki and Sushi Suki New York, Inc.
doing business as: Sushi Suki, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-10240
(S.D. N.Y., December 31, 2017).

Royal Siam Thai Restaurant is situated in the quaint Milkwood
Village in Wilderness, Garden Route. It offers traditional Thai
cuisine.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE.


SAMSUNG CORP: Class Action Over Alleged CRT Price-Fixing Settled
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Neveau, writing for NBC Chicago, reports that Illinois
residents who purchased a certain type of television set could be
eligible for payments after a class-action lawsuit was settled by
the Attorney General's office.

Attorney General Lisa Madigan announced that Illinois residents
who purchased TV's and monitors with cathode ray tubes (CRT's)
will have until 2018 to claim part of a $36 million settlement
with manufacturers of the devices.

The settlement came amid a lawsuit that claimed companies had
illegally conspired to fix prices on the devices, according to
Ms. Madigan's office.  Samsung, Philips, Hitachi, and LG were all
named in the lawsuit and were part of the settlement.

"I encourage any Illinois consumers or businesses who bought a
television or monitor containing these CRT's to file claims to
recover the money they are owed," Ms. Madigan said in a
statement.

According to a press release, residents who purchased TV's or
monitors from Mar. 1, 1995, to Nov. 25, 2007, are eligible for
payments under the settlement.  The maximum amount that consumers
can potentially get back for TV purchases is $20, and $60 for a
computer monitor, Madigan's office said.

That number could change based on the number of people that file
claims, according to the Attorney General.

Illinois consumers have until July 12 of 2018 to fill out a claim
form as part of the class action settlement.  That form can be
found on a special website set up by the Attorney General's
office. [GN]


SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Money Bail Class Action Evidence Inadmissible
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
at a hearing on Dec. 12, a federal judge lit into a lawyer
challenging San Francisco's bail scheme over evidence she said
would be inadmissible in a federal court.

Phil Telfeyan with Equal Justice Under Law, arguing the case on
behalf of a proposed class of arrestees who cannot afford bail
but are otherwise eligible for pretrial release in San Francisco,
argued other jurisdictions have effectively used other non-
monetary methods to ensure arrestees appear in court.

He said in Kentucky, which has had a pretrial release program
since 1976, 92 percent of defendants make all future court
appearances.  This drew a heated response from U.S. District
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who wanted to know where he got
that figure.

"You're asking me to accept that as true but you have no
foundation for it," she said.  "It seems to me you want to cut
corners and you don't understand the rules of evidence and what
that means in a federal court.  If you think that a district
court can just say, 'Hey let me pull something off the internet
and view that as true,' if it gets to the Ninth Circuit, do you
think the Ninth Circuit will say that judge did his or her job?
This is a fact-finding entity."

"We're citing scholarly articles," Mr. Telfeyan said.

"So what? I'm just supposed to take some academic at their word?
Without any examination?" Judge Gonzalez Rogers said, her voice
rising in irritation.

She said she was loathe to accept an academic study or a law
review article as evidence on which to upend "the prevailing
system in the United States."

In 2015, the nonprofit legal group Equal Justice Under Law
brought a federal class action against San Francisco, claiming it
unconstitutionally criminalizes poverty by keeping poor arrestees
in jail. Lead plaintiffs Riana Buffin and Crystal Patterson spent
29 and 48 hours in jail, respectively, because they couldn't
afford bail.

The two women were arrested in October 2015 in San Francisco,
Ms. Buffin on suspicion of grand theft and Patterson on suspicion
of assault.  Ms. Buffin's bond was set at $30,000, Patterson's at
$150,000.

Mr. Telfeyan and Equal Justice Under Law say this wealth-based
detention scheme violate the 14th Amendment, and want an
injunction prohibiting San Francisco from using a bail schedule
to keep people behind bars because they cannot afford to buy
their freedom.

Judge Gonzalez Rogers said she believes strict scrutiny, the
highest standard of review in constitutional matters, should
apply to the case.  For the city's money bail scheme to survive,
it must be justified by a compelling state interest, be narrowly
tailored to meet that goal, and there must be no other less
restrictive ways of achieving it.

"If strict scrutiny applies, the plaintiffs only need show a
number of plausible alternatives," Mr. Telfeyan said, noting the
goal of future court appearances can be achieved through a risk
assessment tool by which arrestees are screened based on a number
of factors, from the serious of their crimes to their past
criminal convictions.  Judges can use that tool to evaluate
whether a detainee should remain in jail or be released pending
their future court dates, with no money changing hands.

Krista Baughman, arguing for the bail industry, said there are
other alternatives.

"The effectiveness of risk assessment tools is unknown and less
effective than bail," she said.

Judge Gonzalez Rogers seemed exasperated.  She said she was
"appalled" by the plaintiffs' motion for class certification,
which she said had little to do with the complaint.

"I was frankly appalled when I saw that proposed order and I
questioned your competency," she told Mr. Telfeyan.  "The way you
postured this class certification motion led me to think you
don't know what you're doing."

Mr. Telfeyan apologized, saying the same motion from 2015 had
been filed because the judge had previously ruled it untimely.

Judge Gonzalez Rogers declined to rule on Dec. 12, and set a
tentative bench trial date for Feb. 12.

In an interview after the hearing, Mr. Telfeyan said he was
looking forward to Gonzalez Rogers' order.

"We're going to learn a lot from her order.  I'm looking forward
to finding what evidence the judge needs," he said, adding he
would prefer either summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs
or clarification on what evidence she wants to see at trial.

The case comes as California is poised to likely eliminate bail
through legislation, and San Francisco City Attorney Dennis
Herrera has also said he will not defend the system.  Chief
Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye called money bail unsafe and unfair
in October, vowing to work with legislators to replace it with a
reformed pre-trial scheme.

A class action lawsuit is still pending, with the next hearing
set Jan. 22. [GN]


SCHNIPPER RESTAURANTS: "Alvarez" Has Conditional Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued an Opinion and Order granting Plaintiff's Motion for
Conditional Certification in the case captioned MARTIN ALVAREZ
a/k/a EDUARDO LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SCHNIPPER RESTAURANTS LLC, SRG1
LLC d/b/a SCHNIPPER'S QUALITY KITCHEN, SRG2 LLC d/b/a SCHNIPPER'S
QUALITY KITCHEN, SRG 570 LEX LLC d/b/a SCHNIPPER'S QUALITY
KITCHEN, SRG NYP LLC d/b/a SCHNIPPER'S QUALITY KITCHEN, ANDREW
SCHNIPPER, and JONATHAN SCHNIPPER, Defendants, No. 16 Civ. 5779
(ER) (S.D.N.Y.).

Alvarez brings an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL) alleging that he and all
other similarly situated employees are entitled to unpaid minimum
wage and costs for tools of the trade from a chain of Manhattan
restaurants operating under the name Schnipper's Quality Kitchen.

Plaintiff filed a motion for: (1) conditional certification of a
FLSA Collective Action; (2) approval of Plaintiff's proposed
notice and consent forms; (3) production by Defendants of contact
information for all potential opt-in plaintiffs; (4) approval of
the posting of the proposed notice at Schnipper's Quality Kitchen
locations; (5) tolling of the FLSA statute of limitations until
Plaintiff is able to send notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs;
and (6) tolling of the FLSA statute of limitations from November
10, 2016 to the date of this Order due to the parties'
participation in the S.D.N.Y.

Plaintiff seeks to conditionally certify a collective that spans
all non-exempt tipped employees, including bartenders, barbacks,
waiters, runners, bussers, and delivery persons, employed at each
of the four Schnipper's Quality Kitchen locations spanning a six
year time period.

Defendants argue that Plaintiff has not met their burden of
demonstrating that Plaintiff and potential opt-in plaintiffs were
victims of a common policy or plan that violated the law.

The Court finds that Alvarez's declaration provides the modest
factual showing required to certify a collective action that
includes delivery persons.  Alvarez asserts, based on his own
experiences and conversations with co-workers, that all non-
managerial tipped employees employed by Defendants were subject
to the same wage and hour policies.

With respect to Plaintiff's allegations about other nontipped
employees, in the Second Circuit, courts routinely find employees
similarly situated 'despite not occupying the same positions or
performing the same job functions and in the same locations,
provided that they are subject to a common unlawful policy or
practice.

Plaintiff's allegations with respect to non-delivery workers are
sparse. Plaintiff affirms that he often had conversations with
three co-workers who were servers at various Schnipper's
locations and that from those conversations, he knows that all
non-managerial tipped employees employed by Defendants were
subject to the same wage and hour policies. These unsupported
assertions and conclusory allegations are insufficient to
conditionally certify a class.

Therefore, Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification is
granted, but given the information presently before the Court,
the class shall only include delivery workers.

Plaintiff seeks to conditionally certify a collective action
dating back six years, because Plaintiff has brought both FLSA
and NYLL claims before the Court. Some courts in this Circuit
routinely allow parties to list a six year time period on
collective action notices when a plaintiff presents claims under
both the FLSA and the NYLL, which has a six-year statute of
limitations.

However, three years is the maximum time period to join FLSA
collective actions, and no New York state class action has been
certified. It would be confusing to employees who are ineligible
for the FLSA opt-in class to receive the opt-in notice, which
does not relate to any state law claims.

Therefore, the appropriate time period listed on the notice is a
period of time dating back three years prior to the filing of the
Complaint.

Plaintiff has submitted a proposed notice to potential opt-in
plaintiffs. Defendant has raised several objections to the
notice. The parties are instructed to meet and confer and submit
a joint proposed notice within two weeks of the entry of this
Order. The parties are also instructed to discuss the best
methods to be used to provide current employees of
Defendants notice of the lawsuit, including by posting a notice
at the four Schnipper's locations or by enclosing notice within a
pay envelope. If the parties fail to agree, they are instructed
to submit a joint letter explaining the remaining differences.

Plaintiff additionally seeks an order directing Defendants to
produce the names, social security numbers, titles, compensation
rates, dates of employment, last known mailing addresses, email
addresses, and all known telephone numbers" of potential opt-in
plaintiffs. Defendants argue that this request is overbroad, and
that Defendants should only be required to provide names and
addresses of potential opt-in plaintiffs. Courts in this District
commonly grant requests for the production of names, mailing
addresses, email addresses, telephone numbers, and dates of
employment in connection with the conditional certification of an
FLSA collective action. The Court will therefore grant
Plaintiff's motion with respect to names, titles, compensation
rates, dates of employment, mailing addresses, email addresses,
and telephone numbers.

However, Plaintiff has not yet demonstrated the need for the
productive of such sensitive information as employees' social
security numbers. Plaintiff may renew this request if Plaintiff
is unable to effectuate notice on potential opt-in plaintiffs
with the information that is produced by Defendants.

The Court grants conditional certification of the FLSA claim as a
representative collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section
216(b) on behalf of all delivery persons employed by Defendants
at each of their four restaurants located in New York City for
the three-year period prior to the filing of the Complaint
(collectively, the Covered Employees).

The Court grants approval of the distribution of the notice of
this FLSA Action to Covered Employees, including a consent form
(or opt-in form) as authorized by the FLSA.

The Court denies Plaintiff's motion for equitable tolling of the
FLSA statute of limitations until such time that Plaintiff is
able to send notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs; and the Court
denies Plaintiff's motion for equitable tolling of the FLSA
statute of limitations for the period during which the parties
were engaged in the S.D.N.Y. Mediation Program.

A full-text copy of the District of Court's December 11, 2017
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8fqbwqh
from Leagle.com.

Martin Alvarez, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class also known as Eduardo Lopez, Plaintiff, represented
by Anne Melissa Seelig -- anne@leelitigation.com -- Lee
Litigation Group, PLLC.

Martin Alvarez, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class also known as Eduardo Lopez, Plaintiff, represented
by C.K. Lee -- cklee@leelitigation.com -- Lee Litigation Group,
PLLC.

Schnipper Restaurants LLC, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey A.
Kimmel -- jak@msf-law.com -- Meister Seelig & Fein LLP, Racquel
Crespi Weintraub -- rcw@msf-law.com -- Meister Seelig & Fein LLP
& Paul J. Rutigliano -- pjr@msf-law.com -- Meister Seelig & Fein
LLP.

SRG1 LLC, doing business as Schnipper's Quality Kitchen,
Defendant, represented by Jeffrey A. Kimmel, Meister Seelig &
Fein LLP, Racquel Crespi Weintraub, Meister Seelig & Fein LLP &
Paul J. Rutigliano, Meister Seelig & Fein LLP.

SRG2 LLC, doing business as Schnipper's Quality Kitchen,
Defendant, represented by Jeffrey A. Kimmel, Meister Seelig &
Fein LLP, Racquel Crespi Weintraub, Meister Seelig & Fein LLP &
Paul J. Rutigliano, Meister Seelig & Fein LLP.

SRG 570 Lex LLC, doing business as Schnipper's Quality Kitchen,
Defendant, represented byJeffrey A. Kimmel, Meister Seelig & Fein
LLP, Racquel Crespi Weintraub, Meister Seelig & Fein LLP & Paul
J. Rutigliano, Meister Seelig & Fein LLP.

SRG NYP LLC, doing business as Schnipper's Quality Kitchen,
Defendant, represented by Jeffrey A. Kimmel, Meister Seelig &
Fein LLP, Racquel Crespi Weintraub, Meister Seelig & Fein LLP
&Paul J. Rutigliano, Meister Seelig & Fein LLP.

Andrew Schnipper, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey A. Kimmel,
Meister Seelig & Fein LLP, Racquel Crespi Weintraub, Meister
Seelig & Fein LLP & Paul J. Rutigliano, Meister Seelig & Fein
LLP.

Jonathan Schnipper, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey A. Kimmel,
Meister Seelig & Fein LLP, Racquel Crespi Weintraub, Meister
Seelig & Fein LLP & Paul J. Rutigliano, Meister Seelig & Fein
LLP.


SCHWANS COMPANY: Faces "Leguette" Suit in E.D. of New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Schwans Company.
The case is styled as Shatequa Leguette, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Schwans
Company, Schwans Consumer Brands, Inc., Schwans Food Service,
Inc. and SFC Global Supply Chain, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-07599 (E.D. N.Y., December 31, 2017).

Schwan's Company, formerly known as The Schwan Food Company, is a
privately owned company with approximately 11,000 employees.
Based in Marshall, Minnesota, the company sells frozen foods from
home delivery trucks, in grocery store freezers, by mail, and to
the food service industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
   Levin-Epstein & Associates
   One Penn Plaza, Suite 2527
   New York, NY 10119
   Tel: (212) 792-0046
   Fax: (212) 563-7108
   Email: joshua@levinepstein.com


SHREVEPORT, LA: Jan. 22 Water Dep't Class Action Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Melody Brumble and Vickie Welborn, writing for KTBS, report that
Shreveport's Water Department still faces scrutiny even though
the city's off the hook after a judge tossed out a year-old
lawsuit.

Judge Ramon Lafitte ruled on Dec. 11 that Shreveport doesn't owe
Shreveport businessman Scott Pernici and attorney Michael
Wainwright nearly $2 million.

They claimed they were due the money as a finder's fee after
discovering hundreds of Shreveport's heavy water users were being
underbilled.

Attorneys representing Messrs. Pernici and Wainwright said on
Dec. 12 they'll appeal the ruling, saying in part, "Sand Beach is
confident that on appellate review this ruling will be reversed
in its entirety."

The attorneys said their clients were "shocked" at the judge's
decision.

Separately, a federal investigation of the city's water billing
software contract is ongoing. That review was requested by Mayor
Ollie Tyler in 2016.

"We know that the Department of Justice has interviewed different
persons, and they don't report to us what their status is. We
assume that when they complete their review they will notify us
of their findings," attorney Julie Lafargue said.

Ms. Lafargue said on Dec. 12 the FBI is not investigating the
city's Architectural and Engineering Committee contract award
activity.

An external auditor will conduct a performance audit of the
city's water department starting in early 2018.  The review will
include meters, billing and collections, among other operations.

But Shreveport is already moving ahead to fix its water billing
system, Ms. Lafargue said.  A recommendation for a new billing
software company should be coming in about a month.

That's when the city plans to interview four companies -- Hansen,
Cayenta, Rostech and Advanced.  A selection committee will
interview those companies in mid-January and then make a
recommendation to the mayor.

Ms. Largargue doesn't know exactly when the new company would
take over but said there would be a transition period with the
new software phased in while the existing software is phased out.

Meanwhile, the city has been working to correct errors for a
year.  Ms. Lafargue said the city wants an early warning system -
-something akin to a warning lights in a car -- built into the
new software.

"A light needs to come on in the system to warn our employees
there's a problem.  The light did not come on, so we're going to
a better system, a better software system," Ms. Lafargue said.

Still another related lawsuit is pending in federal court.  The
city filed a breach of contract lawsuit against Systems &
Software, the company that generates the water and sewer bills.

The city contends the company is to blame for the billing
problems because of errors in the way it programmed the tiered
rates into the city's computerized system. As a result, the city
says about 180,520 customers were billed lower rates, resulting
in a loss of $834,774 in revenue.

Additionally, an unauthorized change by S&S support analyst to
the sewer billing rates resulted in an incorrect billing of 5,785
sewer accounts and loss of $217,342 in revenue.

A city employee then discovered the S&S software was not applying
a mandatory state fee to all accounts, causing an under
collection of $130,000.

So the city is seeking a judgment of $1,052,000 in under
collection of water and sewer revenue and $130,000 in under
collection of fees as a result of S&S's breaches in its contract
and maintenance agreements.

The billing system "has not functioned properly or as intended by
System & Software, Inc. and the city, and these failures have
resulted in system wide problems which have affected the city's
ability to accurately bill its customers and collect water and
sewer revenue," states the lawsuit.

The city filed a motion Dec. 8 asking to extend until January and
February the deadlines originally set in December for expert
witness lists and reports.  They blame the delay on the
defendant's "document dump" or late production of almost 106,000
electronic pages of documents over the preceding three days.

Trial is set for June if the date is not changed.

A brief look at the other lawsuits and their status:

   -- A defamation lawsuit filed by Messrs. Wainwright and
Pernici on March 2 was dismissed in September.  A judge them to
pay $18,832.70 to the city for the city's attorney fees.
Wainwright & Pernici have appealed that ruling to the Second
Circuit Court of Appeal.

   -- Mr. Wainwright filed a public records lawsuit in November
2016.  A judge ruled that city had satisfied the request and
awarded Mr. Wainwright $10,000 to cover attorney's fees.  The
judge did not order the city to pay damages.

   -- A class action lawsuit is still pending, with the next
hearing set Jan. 22. [GN]


SLATER & GORDON: Australian Ct. Approves Class-Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nasdaq reports that Australian law firm Slater & Gordon Ltd said
a court had approved a recapitalisation scheme with its senior
lenders and another to settle a class-action against the company
by shareholders.

Slater & Gordon said in a statement it would lodge a copy of the
Federal Court of Australia orders approving the schemes with the
Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) on
December 15, upon which they would take effect.

In 2017, Slater & Gordon reached an in-principle agreement to
settle a class-action suit against the company and its directors,
as well as related shareholder claims, for A$36.5 million.

Slater & Gordon said approval of the recapitalisation deal would
lead to implementation of the deal announced in June 2017,
whereby its secured lenders would have almost full ownership of
the company. [GN]


SOUTH AFRICA: Residents Near Coronation Park Consider Suing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Northern Natal Courier reports that it is probably the most
notorious park in Endumeni.  Yet, the complaints from residents
living near Coronation Park, on McKenzie and Handley Streets,
continue to fall on deaf ears.

For years, residents say they have to endure weekly, and now
daily parties, accompanied by drinking in public, loud music and
piles of litter left behind.

Residents say calls to the police and municipality have 'all been
ignored'.  According to the Magistrate's Court in Dundee, the by-
laws which govern offences like drinking in public, public
nuisances and littering, were promulgated in 2016.

However, residents say their calls to the police and/or
municipality 'go largely unanswered' and there appears to be
confusion over who should implement the bylaws.

Residents who called the Courier this morning, said an 'end-of-
year' party moved in and more parties moved in.  Residents said
they have contacted attorneys to consider drawing up a class
action forcing the authorities to either fence in or close park.

They say 'the excessive rates that they have to pay cannot be
justified as the values of their properties and are being
compromised'.  Already one bed and breakfast has closed down in
the area with the owner saying the continuous public nuisance
problem made his establishment unattractive. [GN]


STERLING JEWELERS: Faces "Hudson" Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sterling Jewelers
Inc. The case is styled as Larry Hudson, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, and on behalf of
the general public, Plaintiff v. Sterling Jewelers Inc., an Ohio
corporation, Signet Jewelers Limited, a foreign corporation and
DOES 1 through 30, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-09301
(C.D. Cal., December 29, 2017).

Sterling Jewelers is an American specialty jewelry company
headquartered in Akron, Ohio. The company was founded in 1910 by
Henry Shaw, from LeRoy's Jewelers in Lorain, Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


TEZOS: Hagens Berman Files Suit to Stop Dissipation of ICO Funds
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, has filed a class action in the
Northern District of California on behalf of investors to recover
the bitcoin (BTC), Ethereum (ETH) and fiat currency paid in the
Tezos Initial Coin Offering ("ICO").  The complaint, which names
Defendants Dynamic Ledger Solutions, Inc. (DLS), Tezos Stiftung
(aka the "Tezos Foundation"), Kathleen Breitman, Arthur Breitman,
Timothy Cook Draper, Draper Associates, Johann Gevers, Diego
Ponz, Guido Schmitz-Krummacher, Bitcoin Suisse AG, and Niklas
Nikolajsen, alleges that Defendants illegally sold unqualified
securities in violation of California's Corporate Securities Law
of 1968 (Cal. Corp. Code Sec 25110) and California's Unfair
Competition Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec 17200 et seq.).  In
doing so, Defendants collected approximately $232 million USD
worth of cryptocurrencies from investors (primarily Bitcoin and
Ethereum), now worth over $1.2 billion USD.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired the right to purchase
TEZOS currency in the Tezos ICO or would like to aid in the
investigation with non-public knowledge, contact Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP.  For more information visit:

"In light of recent developments, ICO participants want their
consideration back and justifiably want action quickly," said
Hagens Berman partner Reed Kathrein.  "Our new complaint seeks to
get that relief as soon as possible, though the international
aspect of this scheme presents many hurdles."

                      About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman is a national investor-rights law firm
headquartered in Seattle, Washington with 70+ attorneys in 11
offices across the country.  The firm represents investors,
whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex litigation.
More about the firm and its successes can be found at
www.hbsslaw.com.  For the latest news visit our newsroom or
follow us on Twitter at @classactionlaw.

         Reed Kathrein, Esq.
         Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
         Tel. No.: 510-725-3000
         E-mail: reed@hbsslaw.com [GN]


TEZOS: Lawsuit Seeks Freezing of Foundation Assets
--------------------------------------------------
Matthew Allen, writing for Swissinfo.ch, reports that a fourth
Tezos lawsuit filed in the United States has called on
Californian courts to freeze an estimated $1 billion (CHF990
million) of investor assets sitting in a Swiss-based foundation.

Law firm Block & Leviton argues that the recent departure of a
Tezos Foundation director and the apparent replacement of the
entity's auditor gives weight to its demand for funds, derived
from an initial public offering (ICO) in July, to be frozen.

"The situation regarding the ICO proceeds has deteriorated
further, making irreparable looting an imminent prospect," court
filings claim. "Without immediate judicial intervention,
Defendants may completely consume the illegally obtained ICO
proceeds, leaving Plaintiff and the Class with no remedy."

The filings argue that California courts would have the
jurisdictional power to freeze assets held by the Swiss-based
foundation because the ICO fundraiser was "governed By Federal
and California law".

Along with the injunction demanding that assets are frozen, Block
& Leviton has filed a class action lawsuit, alleging the ICO
represented an "unqualified and unregistered" sale of
"securities".

Tezos Foundation President Johann Gevers is named in the lawsuit,
along with two other foundation directors, plus Kathleen and
Arthur Breitman, founders of the Tezos project, their company
Dynamic Ledger Solutions and venture capitalist Tim Draper, a
large investor in Tezos.

It also names Bitcoin Suisse, a Swiss crypto financial services
firm that recently revealed it has the power to block Tezos
Foundation transactions. Bitcoin Suisse founder Niklas Nikolajsen
is also named in the lawsuit.

                    Trouble with Tezos

The Tezos project has been thrown into turmoil since a row
between the Gevers and the Breitmans went public in October.
Gevers denies allegations that he attempted to fake the real
value of a bonus and has in turn accused the Breitmans of
conducting a smear campaign against him.

In the meantime, investors and grassroots Tezos supporters have
expressed annoyance that the project has become eclipsed by the
bitter personal dispute. A group known as the Tezos Community has
attracted more than 1,000 signatures to an online petition
external link calling for the removal of Gevers.

Tezos Community describes itself as an informal network of Tezos
supporters. The person who set up the community, says he has no
formal affiliation with the Breitmans, or DLS -- and neither is
he in their pay.

The petition has been signed by Olaf Carlson-Wee, founder of the
US Polychain Capital hedge fund that has invested heavily in
Tezos. He told swissinfo.ch that he was motivated to add his
signature out of frustration that funds are not moving out of the
foundation towards developers of the protocol.

"By far the most important issue is that the Tezos Foundation has
not been efficiently allocating resources and capital to
developing the Tezos infrastructure," he said during a telephone
interview. "In my opinion, there has been an absurdly slow
deployment of capital. It should have been allocated months ago."

In August, the foundation statedexternal link: "We are extremely
pleased to announce a commitment of $50 million in funding to
companies looking to build on the Tezos platform. The innovation
and growth of the ecosystem is the top priority of the Tezos
Foundation."

In September external link, the foundation listed a number of
measures it was taking to meet that target. Repeated attempts by
swissinfo.ch to get an update on those statements and to
determine the size of funds that have actually been allocated to
development projects have not been answered by the foundation.
[GN]


TEZOS: Auditor Resigns Amid Investor Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Silver Miller, a securities fraud and investment loss
contingency-fee law firm based in South Florida, working with the
Wites Law Firm, was the first law firm to file a class action
lawsuit in federal court against troubled blockchain startup
Tezos and Arthur and Kathleen Breitman -- the American founders
of Tezos who own all of its intellectual property through Dynamic
Ledger Solutions (DLS).  Tezos raised from investors in a July
2017 Initial Coin Offering (ICO) cryptocurrency assets now valued
at more than $1.3 billion but has experienced additional
uncertainty this month, as Tezos' outside auditor and one of the
three board members tasked with managing the funds Tezos raised
have each resigned amidst questionable conduct and escalating
litigation.  Silver Miller's lawsuit pleads that the Court
rescind all investments in Tezos; return to all investors their
cryptocurrency; and adjudicate that Tezos, the Breitmans, and DLS
violated multiple securities laws when they promoted and
conducted the unregistered, pre-functional ICO.

According to numerous published reports, the Tezos auditor and
Swiss board member's resignations -- along with the ongoing power
struggle between the Breitmans and Tezos Chairman Johann Gevers -
- are at best likely to cause indefinite delays in the
development of the Tezos project.  At worst, these power
struggles and delays could cause the project to collapse before
investors receive any return on their billion-dollar investment.
Tezos investors concerned about protecting their investment are
urged to contact Silver Miller at 954-516-6000 to join the class
action and protect their rights.  You can also reach Silver
Miller through the firm's website at www.SilverMillerLaw.com or
by email at dsilver@silvermillerlaw.com

The class in this case has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney.

Silver Miller -- http://www.SilverMillerLaw.com-- currently
represents the victims in class/group action lawsuits against
multiple cryptocurrency exchanges (Cryptsy; Coinbase; Kraken) and
is investigating several companies that conducted ICOs within
2017 for potential regulatory violations and misrepresented
solicitations.  If you have invested in an ICO and are concerned
that your investment is in jeopardy or that you have been
defrauded, contact Silver Miller for a no-cost, no-obligation
consultation to discuss your legal rights. [GN]


TIME INC: Shareholders File Class Action Over Meredith Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Russell, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
shareholders filed a federal class action challenging Time Inc's
proposed $2.8 billion sale to the Koch-backed Meredith
Corporation.

Represented by the firm WeissLaw, lead plaintiff Joel Rosenfeld
accuses Time's board and executive of failing to disclose
conflicts of interest for Time insiders and its financial adviser
Morgan Stanley.  Only Time, its top executives and board are
named as defendants -- not Meredith or Morgan Stanley.

Iowa-based Meredith owns television stations that reach 12
million U.S. households.  Its women- and lifestyle-focused
magazines and websites include Better Homes & Gardens, Family
Circle and Allrecipes.  Time has its eponymous magazine, Sports
Illustrated, People, Fortune and Entertainment Weekly, boasting
monthly engagement of more than 230 million users globally.

When Time announced the merger on Nov. 26, 2017, it touted the
$18.50 per-share price as a 46 percent premium over the Nov. 15,
2017, closing price.

But shareholder Rosenfeld says Time insiders will reap a
substantial financial windfall under terms of the merger
agreement that convert all unvested equity-based awards held by
company executives into right-to-receive cash payments.

Richard Battista, the media empire's CEO, stands to reap $6.2
million in cash payouts, while three other top executives would
each garner more $2 million.

If fired after the merger, Mr. Battista would walk away with more
the $15 million, the complaint alleges.

Golden parachutes would also lead other Time executives to split
at least $20 million if they are fired after the acquisition,
according to the complaint.

The complaint further accuses Time of failing to disclose the
company's unlevered free-cash flows for 2017 through 2022, and
not disclosing the line items utilized to calculate the Time's
unlevered free cash flows, including adjusted operating income
before depreciation and amortization, stock-based compensation,
taxes, capital expenditures, and changes in net working capital.

Meredith received $650 million in financial backing from Koch
Equity Development, the private-equity arm of Koch Industries,
the energy conglomerate of the billionaire Koch brothers known
for their advocacy for conservative causes.

Meredith has maintained that Koch will not get a board seat or
influence editorial operations.

Representatives for Time and Meredith did not respond to request
for comment on Dec. 19.

Mr. Rosenfeld seeks class certification, an injunction against
the merger, and rescission and damages if it is completed.  He is
represented by Richard Acocelli -- racocelli@weisslawllp.com --
at WeissLaw in Manhattan.


TOSHIBA CORP: Wins Summary Judgment in Price-Fixing Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that in a $250 million antitrust class action on Dec. 18, a
federal judge dealt a blow to indirect buyers of optical disk
drives, granting summary judgment to Samsung, Toshiba and others
in a long-running conspiracy case accusing them of fixing prices
around the world.

U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg found that the indirect
purchasers failed to prove that the defendants overcharged direct
purchasers for the drives, and that the direct purchasers passed
on the overcharges to them.

"Even if no evidence existed to the contrary, this single piece
of secondary evidence from the deposition testimony of one
corporate representative falls woefully short of meeting IPPs'
burden to show proof of pass-through," Judge Seeborg wrote.

A slew of plaintiffs in 2010, including HP, accused disk-drive
makers of bid-rigging and price-fixing in a scheme that gave them
control of 90 percent of the optical disk drive market.  It
allowed them to make more than $45 billion between 2004 and 2008,
the class claimed.

The Department of Justice revealed in 2009 that it was
investigating antitrust violations in the optical disk drive
industry. Hitachi-LG Data Storage pleaded guilty to criminal
antitrust violations paid a $21.1 million criminal fine.  Some of
its employees went to prison.

Indirect purchasers' attorney Jeff Friedman, with Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro in Berkeley, was disappointed with the Dec. 11
ruling.

"The court found we had presented sufficient evidence of a
longstanding price fixing conspiracy.  It's a shame that
sometimes our system appears to let wrongdoers get away with
illegal behavior and rewards their efforts to avoid
responsibility," he said in an email.

Judge Seeborg found that the indirect buyers failed to show an
industry-wide conspiracy.  They showed that the defendants
probably targeted only Dell and HP.

Their best evidence of an overarching conspiracy consisted of
pricing charts that indicated the defendants targeted Dell, HP,
Lenovo, IBM and Acer.  But much of the evidence barely mentioned
the last three companies, and some contained pricing information
only for Dell, Judge Seeborg found.

Judge Seeborg did grant summary judgment on the buyers' failure
to prove pass-through, rejecting deposition testimony of a
corporate representative for Circuit City and a report from the
plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Kenneth Flamm.

"While he displays in theory how pass-through could have worked,
his expert report does not identify and cannot substitute the
necessary record evidence to support that it actually occurred in
this case," Judge Seeborg wrote.

"The evidence that Dr. Flamm points to is often tangentially
related and at best, of uncertain application to the pass-through
issue," he added.

Also on Dec. 11, Judge Seeborg granted summary judgment against
Acer, finding it had not proved the defendants targeted it in a
conspiracy.

He also granted summary judgment against the bankruptcy trustees
of Circuit City and Radio Shack, for failing to prove they had
been harmed by the alleged conspiracy.

Judge Seeborg found that the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements
Act precludes claims based on Category 1 sales -- foreign sales
to foreign consumers -- because they fall outside the scope of
federal and state antitrust laws.

But Category 2 sales -- foreign sales to consumers in the United
States -- and Category 3 sales -- domestic sales to consumers in
the United States -- may proceed for the defendants remaining in
the indirect purchaser and Acer cases. Those defendants in the
omnibus order include Samsung and Toshiba.

Category 1 sales account for about 36 percent of Dell's optical
disk drive purchases and about 60 percent of HP's purchases.
Category 2 sales account for about 26 percent of Dell's purchases
and about 28 percent of HP's purchases.  Category 3 sales account
for about 38 percent of Dell's purchases and about 12 percent of
HP's purchases.

Judge Seeborg so far has awarded $180 million in class action
settlements to indirect purchasers in the multidistrict
litigation.  In November he granted final approval of a $50.5
million settlement with Philips and Pioneer.  In December 2016,
he granted final approval of a $124.5 million settlement with
Sony, Panasonic, NEC and Hitachi-LG.

Direct buyers, who ended their litigation last year, have been
awarded nearly $75 million.

Samsung is represented by Ian Simmons -- isimmons@omm.com -- with
O'Melveny & Myers in Washington, D.C., and Toshiba by Belinda Lee
-- belinda.lee@lw.com -- with Latham & Watkins in San Francisco.
They could not be reached for comment after business hours on
Dec. 18.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Class Action Over Soy-Based Wiring Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Titus, WTSP, reports that have you looked under your
car's hood lately?

You may want to as more people say rodents have made it their
unlikely home.

According to lawsuits filed against major car manufacturers, it's
thanks to your car's new wiring that is attracting their hungry
bellies.

Boris Itric has been a mechanic for more than 50 years, so when
he looks under a car hood,

"This one is damaged a lot," he said.

He knows instantly whether the wires here have been chewed.

"Right here there were bite marks," says Mr. Itric.

Mr. Itric says this is something he says is common and not biased
to just one type of car.  He's been seeing this type of damage
for years.

This lawsuit 10 investigates got their hands on against Toyota
claims that it's happening more because of the soy based
materials in the wiring now being used.

"Soy is a food product and arguably soy is delicious to rodents
and what we alleged is it attracts a high number of rodents and
they chew through the wires and it disables cars," says
Brian Kabateck an attorney with Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP, the
firm who is representing the class action lawsuit.

Names on both lawsuits are from car drivers all over the country.

We also have photos they say showing the damage these rodents
cause.

These ones are from a Florida woman and her Toyota where you can
clearly see bite marks.

"We're talking thousands of dollars to fix these repairs," says
Mr. Itric.

"We're not sure why manufacturer started using soy based but we
believe it was because it was good for environment," says Mr.
Kabateck.

Mr. Kabateck says it's not good for the car owner's pocketbook as
this problem isn't covered under warranty.

"Wire gets completely chewed through," says Mr. Kabateck.

So Mr. Kabateck says he only wants to see Toyota make things
right.

"All we are asking in this case if people paid money out of their
pocket give them their money and update the warranty," says
Mr. Kabateck.

In a statement from Toyota:

"While we cannot comment on this litigation, we can say that
rodent damage to vehicle wiring occurs across the industry, and
the issue is not brand- or model-specific.  We are currently not
aware of any scientific evidence that shows rodents are attracted
to automotive wiring because of alleged soy-based content. "

Many insurance policies do cover your wiring getting fixed.  The
only problem, owners are still left with the deductible.

How to prevent this from happening:

There is anti-rodent tape that you can find online at stores like
Walmart and Amazon where you can wrap it around your wires.

It costs around $20.

Another solution, is also fox urine. You can pick it up at many
hardware and hunting stores. You just sprinkle it in the parking
spot before you park your car and it scares away rodents because
they think there's a predator nearby. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Veteran Files Class Action Over Radiation
--------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Wigton, writing for CCHeadliner.com, reports that an
81-year-old Nixa man is at the forefront of a cause he hopes will
help other veterans and their widows. On Dec. 11, Victor Skaar, a
retired U.S. Air Force chief master sergeant, filed a request
with the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in Washington,
D.C., challenging the refusal of the U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs to provide disability compensation to veterans exposed to
ionizing radiation.

"I've been working on this since '82. I'm just so proud that
we're getting the attention.  It's been very emotional,"
Mr. Skaar told the Headliner News.  "The attorneys have been very
up front with me. Nothing is certain in law. We may be denied and
everything's over. But they're trying for us and they are very
encouraging in their conversation."

The "they" Mr. Skaar is referring to are Yale Law School students
with the Veterans Legal Services Clinic.

The group filed the proposed nationwide class action lawsuit,
saying the VA needs to provide disability compensation to
veterans exposed to ionizing radiation after a Jan. 17, 1966,
mid-air collision of Air Force planes that released four hydrogen
bombs over Palomares, Spain.

According to a release from the Yale Veterans Legal Services
Clinic, the Palomares 'Broken Arrow' incident irradiated the
Spanish countryside with plutonium dust after two of the bombs'
non-nuclear explosives detonated on impact. In the following
months, the U.S. military ordered approximately 1,600 service
members to the site to search for airplane and bomb parts and
remove irradiated crops and soil.

"The VA refuses to recognize Palomares as a 'radiation-risk'
activity, and relies on a scientifically flawed methodology to
systematically deny Palomares veterans the benefits other nuclear
veterans receive," the release says.  "A recent report from Dr.
Frank von Hippel, a senior research physicist and professor of
public and international affairs emeritus at Princeton University
concludes, 'it appears that the dose estimates that have been
made for the Palomares veterans are extremely uncertain and, in
many cases, the maximum doses have been grossly underestimated.'"


"No one's listening to us about it and taking our word for what
happened," Mr. Skaar said about the veterans who worked the
Palomares site. "There's no question about the fact we were there
and no question about the fact we were exposed."

Mr. Skaar, who was 29 years old at the time, helped clean up the
Palomares site.  He was in charge of detection and
decontamination and helped recover more than 5,500 55-gallon
drums over the course of 62 days.

Mr. Skaar said plutonium was released throughout the area and,
"if you inhale it, which we did, it is highly radioactive, highly
hazardous."

"When we were trained in medical disaster control -- in all the
training manuals when it talked about radiation and plutonium, it
said there was no such thing as an insignificant amount of
exposure to plutonium," Mr. Skaar said.  "Once it's in your
system, it will stay in your system 40, 50, 60 years."

According to the court documents, the motion is for "all U.S.
veterans who were present at the 1966 cleanup of plutonium dust
at Palomares, Spain, and whose application for service-connected
disability compensation based on exposure to ionizing radiation
the Department of Veterans Affairs has denied or will deny."

The motion says that the VA's exclusion of Palomares as a
radiation risk is based on "scientifically flawed methodology."

"Original bioassay testing shows that many Palomares veterans
were exposed to dangerously high levels of radiation, in excess
of the current annual limit . . ." court documents said.

In 1981, doctors told Mr. Skaar he was anemic.  At that time,
what he didn't know is that his anemia was caused from
undiagnosed leukopenia.  Mr. Skaar submitted a claim to the VA in
1982 and it was denied in 1984.

"So I kind of gave up on it, but then I didn't like the idea that
I had a blood disorder that was not my fault.  There was no other
environmental factor, nothing else to cause me to have this
disorder," he said.

In 1997, the doctors at the Cancer Institute diagnosed Mr. Skaar
with leukopenia, which is a low white blood cell count.

The doctor "said it was caused by exposure to radiation,"
Mr. Skaar said.  "But the VA would not accept that . . . My
disease condition is not recognized as a radiogenic disease."

Mr. Skaar can list off many veterans he worked with in Palomares
who have been diagnosed with or have died from cancer.

"I believe this isn't about me anymore because I'm 81 years old,"
Mr. Skaar said.  "I don't care if they reverse the decision on my
claim, but there are people out there who have already died and
there are widows out there who have already been neglected.
Through this class action, it brings all of us together under one
group and looks at us in a more humane, technical way and looks
at our exposure for what it is -- what we know it to be, not what
some computer model tells some health physicists." [GN]


UNITED KINGDOM: Faces Class Action Over Future of NHS Services
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tess De La Mare, Jasmine Watkiss and Maximilian Maerkl, writing
for getSURREY, report that Stephen Hawking will challenge South
West Surrey MP and Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt in court over
plans to privatise some NHS services.

The physicist has joined campaigners in their efforts to fight
greater privatisation of the NHS.

Mr Hawking announced he had joined the JR4NHS campaign, founded
by three doctors and a university professor, on December 8.

The group filed High Court papers on Decembers 11.

Mr Hawking hopes the move will set in motion a full public
inquiry into the health secretary's plans to introduce commercial
companies to run parts of the health and social services -- to be
known as accountable care organisations (ACOs).

He said: "I have decided to join Dr Colin Hutchinson, Professor
Allyson Pollock, Professor Sue Richards and Dr Graham Winyard in
bringing a legal action against the Secretary of State for
Health, Jeremy Hunt, and NHS England, to stop the introduction of
accountable care organisations (ACOs) without full public
consultation and parliamentary approval.

"I am concerned that ACOs attack the fundamental principles of
the NHS.

"The NHS must be protected from those who want to privatize it."

He posted a link to a video published on the Royal Society of
Medicine website, in which he declared his unwavering support for
the NHS, our sister site Cambridge News reports.

Campaigners fear that ACOs, which were first introduced in the
US, will lead to an "Americanisation" of the NHS.

Students urged to get meningitis and septicaemia vaccinations
after charity warns number of cases expected to rise over winter
JR4NHS wrote on its Crowdjustice page that the companies will get
to decide when care is free and when it has to be paid for.

They also argued that ACOs may be paid more if money is saved.

The government called the campaign's move "scaremongering".

A Department of Health spokesman said: "We strongly resist the
misleading claims in this action; it is irresponsible
scaremongering to suggest that ACOs are being used to support
privatisation and harm the fundamental principles of the NHS.
[GN]


UTZ QUALITY: Will Pay $1.25-Mil. to Settle Class-Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Keith Schweigert, writing for Fox43, reports that Utz Quality
Foods Inc. will pay a $1.25 million settlement in a lawsuit
claiming that the company falsely advertised that its chips and
other snack products were "all natural," according to court
documents.

The Hanover-based company also agreed to stop using the terms
"natural" and "all natural" on its labeling and advertising
within the next four months as part of the settlement, which was
filed Dec. 6 in federal court.

The class action lawsuit was brought by consumers Matt
Difrancesco and Angela Mizzoni in Dec. 2014 in the U.S. District
Court of Massachusetts. The suit alleged that Utz labelled and
advertised 43 products as "all natural," which was misleading to
customers because the products ingredients that were either
genetically modified, heavily processed or synthetic, court
records state.

Consumers are eligible for reimbursement for $2 per qualifying
purchase up to a maximum of $20 per household. [GN]


VIRGINIA BEACH, VA: Schools Face Age Discrimination Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Connors, writing for The Virginian-Pilot, reports that at
least three people are part of a class-action lawsuit against the
school division that claims its hiring practices discriminated on
the basis of age.

Joseph Andreana filed suit in U.S. District Court in Norfolk
claiming that in the spring of 2015, the division decided to
reorganize, asking computer resources specialists to reapply for
information technology jobs, along with other employees and the
public.

Computer specialists "who were substantially older and with
vastly more experience in the position and field were
systematically passed over" the lawsuit claims.

A spokeswoman said the division does not comment on ongoing
litigation.

The computer specialists who applied for IT slots had an average
age of 48.1 in March 2015, the suit said.  Those who were
initially denied were on average 56.1; those initially accepted
were on average 45.6 years old, it claims.

Mr. Andreana had been a computer specialist for 16 years until
summer 2015, the suit said.  He was forced to accept a job with
the division as a classroom teacher at lower pay than he would
have made in IT.

He does not ask for a specific dollar amount in the suit, instead
making several requests.  Among those are back pay and other
compensation from the division and a job with the division as an
IT specialist.

The suit was filed in November.  As of early December, at least
two other people had filed notice to join, court documents show.
In March 2015, Margaret Marcotte was 45 and had 11 years'
experience as a computer specialist, but did not get an IT job.
Marie Gerdes was also passed over. [GN]


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Audi Emissions Fix Under Settlement Approved
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board on
Dec. 18 approved an emissions fix for 24,000 Audi vehicles
tainted with emissions cheating software as part of a $1.2
billion settlement with Volkswagen.

The approval covers 2014-2016 Audi A6 Quattro, A7 Quattro, A8,
A8L and Q5 diesel vehicles.


VOLTAGE PICTURES: Hollywood to Sue Pirates in Canada
----------------------------------------------------
Jordan Pearson, writing for Motherboard, reports that a
groundbreaking lawsuit is underway in Canada that will test key
elements of the country's copyright regime. If successful, it
would set up what one prominent intellectual property lawyer
called a legal "machine" for cheaply and easily getting cash
settlements from scores of people who illegally download movies
online.

"This case is a game changer," said David Fewer, director of the
Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) at
the University of Ottawa. It's the first lawsuit of its kind in
Canada, he said. Every Canadian internet user should be paying
attention, especially if they've illegally downloaded a movie
before.

The novel case is being brought by Voltage Pictures, the American
production company behind Oscar-winning films like Dallas Buyers
Club and The Hurt Locker. Voltage has brought lawsuits against
pirates in Canada before, but its last litigation attempt in 2012
was withdrawn. Now, the company is after more than settlements
from a few individuals who downloaded a movie once -- much, much
more.

Voltage Pictures and its legal representation, Toronto-based firm
Aird & Berlis LLP, are presently engaged in a "reverse" class
action lawsuit. Normally, a class action lawsuit involves a large
group of individuals (a "class") suing a single entity. In a
reverse class action suit, one company sues a class of people --
in this case, people who illegally downloaded Voltage's films.
Reverse class action suits are rare, but not unheard of in Canada
or the US. But, according to Fewer, Voltage's case is the first
having to do with intellectual property in Canada.

Voltage filed a request with the courts in 2016 to get Rogers
(one of the "big three" telecom companies in Canada) to identify
a single Canadian to be the representative defendant in the
lawsuit. If legal liability is established for this one person,
then the court will set fines for everybody else who pirated
Voltage's films. It's not clear how many individuals will be
swept up in the reverse class action, but a federal appeals court
judge stated in May that Voltage had estimated "tens of thousands
of suspected infringers."

"What Voltage effectively wants to do is create a cheap little
troll machine that churns out settlements cheaper than a federal
court case, cheaper than any mechanism you can imagine," Fewer
said over the phone.

In an emailed statement, Ken Clark of Aird & Berlis said that the
goal of the litigation is to "reduce legal expenses for everyone
caught up in a copyright lawsuit -- creators and infringers
alike." Clark said that if the litigation is successful, pirates
in Canada will be paying settlements "in the order of magnitude
of a speeding ticket." The idea isn't simply to extract
settlements from people, Clark said, but to change their
behaviour.

"We want people to pay for the movies that they watch, instead of
feeling entitled to watch them for free," Clark wrote.

But first, Voltage has to go through the courts to settle a few
thorny legal questions. One key issue, which would lower the cost
of suing a class of people from potentially millions of dollars
to zilch, is proceeding to the Supreme Court of Canada. That
hearing is tentatively scheduled for late April of 2018.

Historically in Canada, learning the identity of an alleged
pirate isn't cheap for copyright holders. Service providers in
the past charged a fee to reveal a customer's identity, and that
cost would be multiplied by the number of defendants to be sued.

However, this changed in 2015, when Canada began employing a
"notice-and-notice" system for copyright infringement. Under this
regime, a copyright holder sends an ISP a notice of infringement,
which the ISP passes on to the consumer. To get the alleged
infringer's identity, the copyright holder still has to file for
a Norwich order with the courts, but notice-and-notice left the
question of fees for Norwich orders up in the air since the
federal government has not yet set any rates in legislation.

With notice-and-notice leaving fees an open question, Voltage
Pictures and Aird & Berlis saw an opportunity to get people's
identities from service providers for free. "We are trying to
take advantage of the new regime," Clark wrote me in an email.

ISPs in Canada want the fee because, they argue, it takes more
work to confirm someone's identity with enough certainty to drag
them into litigation. "Making a mistake with a notice? Not a big
deal," the CIPPIC's Fewer said. "Making a mistake with a Norwich
order? You can really fuck up somebody's life."

A federal appeals court agreed that Voltage should not pay Rogers
fees for its Norwich order in May of 2017, calling the fees "a
multi-million dollar barrier between [Voltage] and the starting
gate for their legal proceedings." But Rogers is now fighting
back against that ruling -- all the way up to the Supreme Court.

In its written submission to the Supreme Court of Canada, Rogers
stated that the case "impacts all internet-using Canadians,
including the vast majority who do not engage in copyright
infringement." The core of their argument is that the multi-
million dollar cost of producing Norwich orders will be passed
onto consumers.

If the Supreme Court rules that ISPs can't charge fees to
identify someone they already served a notice to, it will be a
new dawn in Canada for copyright enforcement: The financial
barrier for suing pirates will be significantly lowered.

And once that hurdle is cleared, Voltage will go for its real
prize: a cheap mechanism for taking small settlements from scores
of Canadians who downloaded a movie for free. [GN]


WELLS FARGO: Navajo Nation Sues Over Predatory Sales Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
ActionNewsNow reports that the Navajo Nation has sued Wells
Fargo, claiming the bank targeted tribal members with "predatory
sales tactics."

In a federal lawsuit filed on Dec. 12, the tribe alleged that
Wells Fargo -- the only national bank that services its territory
-- preyed on people by opening unauthorized bank accounts and
debit cards, and by pressuring people, particularly the elderly,
to enroll in services they did not need.

"Under intense pressure from superiors to grow sales figures,
Wells Fargo employees lied to Navajo consumers, telling elderly
Navajo citizens who did not speak English that in order to have
their checks cashed, they needed to sign up for savings accounts
they neither needed nor understood," the Navajo Nation said in
its complaint.

Representatives of Wells Fargo "stalked local events like
basketball games and flea markets" to sign up as many customers
as possible for "unnecessary accounts," the complaint continued.

The "unlawful sales practices" are said to have been employed
between 2009 and 2016.

The Navajo Nation spans Arizona, New Mexico and Utah.  Wells
Fargo has five branches across the Navajo Nation and is its
"predominant provider of banking services," according to court
documents.

Wells Fargo, in a statement, said it couldn't comment on details
regarding pending litigation.

"At Wells Fargo, we are focused on rebuilding trust and building
a better bank.  Over 2017, we have taken significant steps to
make things right for our customers, including members of the
Navajo Nation, who may have been affected by unacceptable retail
sales practices," the company said.

Wells Fargo's aggressive sales practices first attracted scrutiny
in September 2016, when the bank said it had fired 5,300 workers
for creating fake accounts.  In August, Wells Fargo said it had
uncovered a total of up to 3.5 million potentially fake bank and
credit card accounts.

As a result, Wells Fargo has been ordered to pay hundreds of
millions of dollars.  The company agreed to a $142 million
national class action settlement, as well as millions of dollars
in refunds for affected customers.  The Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau also levied a $185 million fine.

Still, new scandals keep emerging.  Wells Fargo has admitted that
some mortgage borrowers were charged inappropriate fees, while
other customers were charged for auto insurance they didn't need.
The company is also accused of overcharging small businesses on
credit card fees, and of signing up customers in California for
insurance policies they didn't want. [GN]


WESTJET: Loses Bid to Have Proposed CA Lawsuit Tossed Out
---------------------------------------------------------
Srushti Gangdev, writing for Global News, reports that an appeal
by WestJet to have a proposed class action lawsuit involving
claims of workplace sexual harassment thrown out by the BC
Supreme Court has failed.

WestJet argued that the courts were an inappropriate venue for
the complaint to be addressed, and said the case would be better
handled by a human rights tribunal.

Justice Mary Humphries said in her decision that the case deals
with a breach of contract, so the courts are an appropriate
venue.

Former WestJet flight attendant Mandalena Lewis, who claims the
airline violated its own anti-harassment policies, said she's
relieved by the ruling -- both for her and for women who have
gone through similar experiences in the workplace.

"It's setting a precedent for women to tell women that if this
does happen in your work environment -- that you can take your
employer, if they have broken their anti-harassment contract,
then they can go through this route. This is an available route
for women."

WestJet acknowledged the outcome of the motion but declined to
comment further.

In a previous statement to Global News, WestJet said it is
"committed to fostering a harassment-free workplace where all
employees are treated with respect and dignity."

The Supreme Court's decision on December 15 means that the
proposed lawsuit can continue to certification and potentially go
to trial.

Lewis claims she was sexually assaulted by a WestJet pilot in
Maui in 2010. She claims the airline took steps to silence her
and protect the pilot from being charged before eventually
terminating her from the company.

"WestJet basically told me to be quiet about the incident, and
that it was an isolated event, and to sign a non-disclosure
agreement -- and sort of encouraged me to leave the company
because I wasn't happy with how they dealt with it," said Lewis.

"They basically said that it was my word against his. They were
concerned about reprimanding the pilot in any sort of fashion
because they were concerned that he would actually sue them."

Lewis says that the pilot has charges pending in Maui, but claims
that WestJet prevented him from flying over water -- a move that
she claims was put in place to protect him.

Lewis says she was inspired to start the lawsuit after a former
colleague told her she was raped by the same pilot who Lewis
alleges assaulted her. She says she has heard reports of 19
similar incidents within WestJet.

None of the allegations have been proven in court. [GN]


* FCRA Class Action Plaintiffs Must Show Actual Injury
------------------------------------------------------
Megan Kokontis, Esq. -- megan.kokontis@akerman.com -- of Akerman
LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that employers who run
background checks on prospective employees take note --
applicants who sue prospective employers for Fair Credit
Reporting Act violations for failure to provide notice in a
stand-alone format may not be able to maintain a lawsuit unless
they can show that they suffered an actual injury. As employers
should know, the Fair Credit Reporting Act has specific
procedures employers must follow when running background checks,
including providing notice to applicants in a stand-alone format
and getting written permission before running the background
check.  Employers who don't comply may find themselves facing
expensive and time-consuming class action lawsuits for statutory
damages of up to $1,000 per violation.

In 2016, the Supreme Court in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins issued an
important decision involving a different provision of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act, deciding that plaintiffs must show that
they suffered a "concrete injury" in addition to the statutory
violation.  Since that time, defendants have argued with mixed
success that standing requirements articulated by Spokeo should
apply to a variety of statutes, including other provisions of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act.  Several courts have considered
whether to apply Spokeo in the stand-alone notice context of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act.  The Seventh Circuit, which includes
Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin, has applied Spokeo in that
context, but the Ninth Circuit, which includes Alaska, Arizona,
California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington
did not apply Spokeo and instead found standing existed.  Lower
courts within a federal circuit must usually follow what the
higher court does, but because the latter decision was limited to
situations where the plaintiffs claimed confusion by the failure
to provide a stand-alone notice, subsequent cases where confusion
is not claimed are not necessarily bound by it.  A recent
California district court decision confirms that California
judges see it the same way.

The California class action lawsuit alleged that Home Depot
violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by including unlawful
waivers in the background check consent forms. Plaintiffs alleged
that the notice and waivers were not in a stand-alone format, and
instead contained extraneous information in violation of the Act.
According to the Plaintiffs, because the forms contained
additional information, the waiver and the background checks were
invalid and violated the Act.  The Plaintiffs did not allege that
they had suffered any actual injury though. Home Depot moved to
dismiss citing Spokeo and argued that the complaints just alleged
bare statutory violations, without claiming the plaintiffs
suffered any actual injuries.  The court agreed, finding that
alleging a violation of the Act was not enough, plaintiffs also
had to show a concrete injury.  The court's short opinion did not
address the Ninth Circuit case that found standing existed, but
did note that the plaintiff "failed to plead even general
allegations of injury," which could arguably include confusion.

Lack of standing is, by no means, a new defense, but after
Spokeo, federal courts seem to have a heightened sensitivity to
standing issues.  If the plaintiffs can't show that they suffered
any harm, employers can breathe easier even if they may have made
a mistake. Each case and each complaint varies, but employers
facing such lawsuits should carefully consider whether the
plaintiffs have actually shown that they suffered any concrete
injury and raise standing arguments where appropriate. [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  * * *