CAR_Public/180119.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Friday, January 19, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 15



                            Headlines


1611 NORTH FEDERAL: Perez Seeks to Recover Overtime Under FLSA
AEP NVH: "Goings" Suit Moved to Northern District of Illinois
AGRO CONSTRUCTION: Muniz Seeks to Recoup Minimum & Overtime Wages
ALLERGAN INC: Kessler Represents Investors in $290MM Recovery
AMADEUS IT: "Gordon" Suit Transferred to S.D. New York

AMERICAN FAMILY: Claims in "Riggins" Suit Tossed With Prejudice
ANN TAYLOR: Settles False Discount Class Action
APPLE INC: Miller et al. Sue over Performance of Older Phones
APPLE INC: Schroeder Sues over Slow Down of Older iPhones Models
APPLE INC: Shine Lawyers Probes Class Action Over Slowing iPhones

APPLE INC: "Honigman" Suit Alleges Breach of Express Warranty
APPLE INC: "Mallh" Suit Alleges NY Business Law Violations
APPLE INC: "Brody" Suit Alleges NY Business Law Violations
ASSET RECOVERY: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit in Dist. of New Jersey
AUTOMOBILE CLUB: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug Files Class Action Suit

BANK OF NEW YORK: Sued over Dividend Conversions Excessive Rates
BARRACUDA NETWORKS: Whiteley Seeks to Enjoin Thoma Bravo Merger
BAZAARVOICE INC: Stein Seeks to Enjoin Marlin Equity Merger
BEAURAYNE BUILDERS: Class Certification Sought in "Valle" Suit
BLUE APRON: Sciabacucchi Sues D&Os in Delaware Chancery

BUMBLEE BEE: Rodriguez Files Product Mislabeling Suit in Ca.
CAPITALA FINANCE: Bronstein, Gewirtz Files Class Action
CAPITALA FINANCE: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
CAPITALA FINANCE: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action
CARLISLE DEVELOPMENT: "Serrano" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida

CAVIUM INC: "Raul" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Marvell Tech Merger
CEDARHURST OF EDWARDSVILLE: "Jamerson" Suit Moved to S.D. Ill.
CENTURION GROUP: "Sales" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
CHELSEA REALTY: Faces "Zayas" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
CHRISTIAN FAITH: "O'Brien" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA

CITGO PETROLEUM: $8MM to Settle Spam Text Class Action
CITRUS VALLEY HEALTH: Underpays Workers, Castanon Claims
COMMUNITY HOUSING: Fails to Pay All Earned Wages, De Love Says
CONE DRIVE: Joint Bid to Certify Workers Class Filed in UAW Suit
CONNECTICUT: Faces "Eisenlohr" Suit in Dist. of Connecticut

COOKIES UNITED: "Cruz" Suit Seeks OT Premium Pay under FLSA
CORECIVIC INC: Sued Over Immigrants' Forced Labor in Detention
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Suit in New York Alleging False Labeling
CRYPTO COMPANY: Brower Piven Files Class Action Suit
DAKOTA TRAVEL: Sued by "Leonard" Over Unpaid Overtime

DART CONTAINER: Roberts Sues over Collection of Biometric Info
DASUYA ENTERPRISES: "Earin" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage under FLSA
DAVID'S BRIDAL: Mendizabal Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
DCT ENTERPRISES: Underpays Pizza Delivery Drivers, Rich Says
DECISIONHR XIII: "Ladicani" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida

DEN-MAT HOLDINGS: Monette Says Toothbrush Heads Defective
DEV MEDICAL: Wins Prelim. OK of "Moreno" Deal; Hearing on March 6
DNA DIAGNOSTICS: Advantage Healthcare Hits Illegally-faxed Ads
DNA DIAGNOSTICS: Advantage Healthcare Seeks to Certify TCPA Class
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Shapiro Sues over Debt Collection Calls

DYNEGY INC: "Paskowitz" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violations
ELECTROLUX HOME: Mauro Says Microwave Oven Handles Defective
ENCORE HOSPITALITY: Accused by Ramos-Rios of Not Paying Overtime
EXPERIAN INFO: Clements et al. Sue over Antedated Trade Lines
FCA US: Faces "Wildin" Suit in Southern District of California

FIRSTSOURCE SOLUTIONS: Bernardez Seeks to Certify Class
FLEX FLORIDA: "Bejerano" Suit Alleges Overtime Wage Violations
GAS FIREPLACE: Court Approves Class-Action Settlement
GOOGLE LLC: Damore and Gudeman Allege Gender & Racial Bias
HIG CAPITAL: Faces "Klein" Stockholder Suit in Delaware Ch. Ct.

HOBSON PROPERTIES: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Waite" Suit Alleges
HONEYWELL INTL: Brief Due Feb. 21 in "Pacheco" 4th Cir. Appeal
ICOT HEARING: Sued by "Charvat" Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
IDREAMSKY TECHNOLOGY: Rosen Law, Glancy Propose Class Settlement
INTEL CORP: "Jones" Suit Alleges Consumer Act Violations

INTERCONTINENTAL EXPORT: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Filed
JAMES MAYER: Faces "Latteri" Suit in District of New Jersey
KOBE STEEL: Bronstein, Gewirtz Files Class Action
KOBE STEEL: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action
KOBE STEEL: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action

LET'S EAT OUT: Morehouse Seeks to Recover Overtime Under FLSA
LOS ANGELES, CA: Garris Moves to Certify Landlord, Renter Classes
LUCERNE BAKERY: "Mendoza" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages under FLSA
LUNG INSTITUTE: "Rivero" Suit Moved to Middle District of Florida
MARKETSOURCE INC: "Hoel" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA

MARKETSOURCE INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Sabile Says
MARKETSOURCE INC: Underpays Account Sales Reps, Nunamacher Claims
MAXIMUM BOOTING: "Burke" Suit Moved to N.D. Georgia
MBTA RAMIREZ: Federal Judge Dismisses Shareholder Class Action
MCBRIDE RESEARCH: Faces "Campbell" Suit in New York State Court

MDL 2740: Parker Sues Over Taxotere-Related Hair Loss
MDL 2740: Wooten Sues Over Docetaxel Injection-Related Hair Loss
MICHIGAN: Rhodes, et al. Sue over Right to Vote
MICHIGAN: Jones Moves for Certification of Prisoners Class
MIDLAND CREDIT: "Colontorres" Suit Moved to N.D. New York

MONSANTO CO: Bootheel Farmers File Lawsuit Over Herbicide Damage
NATIONAL CREDIT: Debt Collection Violates FDCPA, Woodard Claims
NEIMAN MARCUS: Enters Agreement to Settle "Rubenstein" Class Suit
NEWSTAR FINANCIAL: Sharpenter Suit Challenges Sale to First Eagle
NIKE INC: Operates Blind-Inaccessible Web Sites, Mendizabal Says

NONGSHIM CO: Ramen Price-Fixing Class Suit Headed for U.S. Trial
NORTHSTAR REALTY: Brief in "Boothe" 4th Cir. Appeal Due Jan 26
NOVAN INC: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Class Action
OSI SYSTEMS: "Kerbs" Suit Alleges Securities Fraud
PATRIOT NATIONAL: "Cole" Seeks Unpaid Benefits Due to Closure

PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Sgarlata Sues Over PI Data Breach
PETEZA PROSE: Kile Sues to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
PHEAA: Morris et al Sue over Collection of Student Loans
PIER 1 IMPORT: Pier 1 Settles Class Action for $3.5-Mil.
PREET GOURMET: "Cano" Sues Over Unpaid Spread-of-Hours, Overtime

PREFERRED CARE: "Assael" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of Florida
PRODUCERS SERVICE: "Casarez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
PURDUE PHARMA: 2 Puerto Rico Towns File Opioid Antitrust Suit
QBE: Settles Class Action for $132.5-Mil.
QUDIAN INC: Vincent Wong Files Securities Class Action

QUDIAN INC: "Maia" Sues Over Share Price Drop
QUDIAN INC: Klein Law Firm Files Class Action
QUEENS LAND: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Gonzalez Says
ROUND LAKE PARK, IL: Willoughby Moves for Class Certification
SANOFI US: Faces "Arnett" Suit over Taxotere and Docetaxel Risks

SECURITY NATIONAL: Gregory Haskin Sues over Reimbursements
SELECTMEN OF HINGHAM: Faces "Belezos" Suit in D. Massachusetts
SHERATON OPERATING: "Kim" Suit Moved to C.D. California
SIGNET JEWELERS: Brower Piven Files Class Action Lawsuit
SNS TRANSPORTATION: Reyes Sues over Unpaid Wages & Overtime

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wages, Hofer Says
SOUTHWEST HAZARD: Fails to Pay Wages and Overtime, Barajas Claims
SUBWAY 273: "De La Torre" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of Florida
SWISSPORT USA: "Courtney" Wants to Stop Capture of Biometric Info
TAMNINE LLC: "Cullum" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages

TATA CONSULTANCY: Termination Class Certified in "Buchanan" Suit
TATA CONSULTANCY: US Judge Expands Bias Case to Class-Action Suit
TENHOP LLC: "Murphy" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime
THOMAS HANNA: "Raiford" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
TOLL BROS: "Lopez" Suit Alleges ADA Violations

TONG SHEN: "Rojas" Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations
TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Class & Subclasses Certified in "Feller" Suit
TUCKER ENERGY: "McElroy" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA
WISCONSIN: Certification of Class Sought in "Campos" Suit
WYNDHAM HOTELS: "Macias" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of Florida


                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial in Case vs. E-Source Set for Spring 2018
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Had US$209.8-Mil. Liability at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: HII Continues to Face PI Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 223 Cases vs. CECO Still Pending at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Corp. Has 17,150 PI Lawsuits at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Valhi Unit Has 103 Cases Pending at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2,742 Claims v. Metropolitan Life at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Had $281MM Loss Reserves at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Houston Wire Still Faces PI Suits at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Suits v. Dixie Group Still Ongoing

ASBESTOS UPDATE: School Closed Due to Asbestos Leaking on Ceiling
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Demolition on Asbestos-Filled Fertilizer Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firefighter Dies of Mesothelioma
ASBESTOS UPDATE: City Council Escape Suspension on Asbestos Mess
ASBESTOS UPDATE: City Hall Renovation to Include Asbestos Removal

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Abatement Begins in Elementary School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Exposed to Asbestos Awarded $22M Verdict
ASBESTOS UPDATE: School Closed After Asbestos Damages in Tiles
ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Corps Use Asbestos Despite Proof of Cancer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found Again in Kids Cosmetic Products

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Renovation on Asbestos-Contaminated Plant Begins
ASBESTOS UPDATE: UK School Remains Closed After Asbestos Find
ASBESTOS UPDATE: J. Starnes Joins Gori Julian Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bechtel Corp. Wins Asbestos Ruling
ASBESTOS UPDATE: State Didn't Notify About Asbestos in S.D. Bldg.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nova Scotia Plant Asbestos Removal Costs $40MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Indicates Legacy Uses of Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Gets Six-Figure Sum for Husband's Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Machakos Urged Policy for Asbestos Disposal



                            *********



1611 NORTH FEDERAL: Perez Seeks to Recover Overtime Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
MYNOR PEREZ, and other similarly situated individuals v. 1611
NORTH FEDERAL CORP. d/b/a Mario's Catalina Restaurant a/k/a
Catalina's Restaurant and MARIO FLORES and DANIEL J. O'FLAHERTY,
Case No. 0:17-cv-62389-DPG (S.D. Fla., December 6, 2017), seeks
to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

1611 North Federal Corp., doing business as Mario's Catalina
Restaurant, also known as Catalina's Restaurant, is a Florida
company having its main place of business in Broward County,
Florida.  The Corporate Defendant operates as an organization
that sells and markets its services and goods to customers from
throughout the United States.  The Individual Defendants are
Florida residents and are owners and/or officers of the Corporate
Defendant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
          SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
          20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 503-5131
          Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
          E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


AEP NVH: "Goings" Suit Moved to Northern District of Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE GOINGS, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AEP NVH OPCO, LLC, d/b/a
APPLIED ACOUSTICS INTERNALTIONAL, and UGN, INC. f/k/a UNITED
GLOBE NIPPON, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2017-CH-14954 was
removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Dec.
28, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-
09340 to the proceeding.[BN]

AEP NVH is in the Automotive Tires business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Haley Jenkins, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP
          205 N. Michigan, Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 60601
          E-mail: hjenkins@stephanzouras.com
                  kbowers@stephanzouras.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kerryann M. Haase, Esq.
          James P. Fieweger, Esq.
          Michelle L. Dama, Esq.
          MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP
          444 West Lake Street, Suite 3200
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 222 0800
          Facsimile: (312) 222 0818
          E-mail: khminton@michaelbest.com
                  jpfieweger@michaelbest.com
                  mldama@michaelbest.com


AGRO CONSTRUCTION: Muniz Seeks to Recoup Minimum & Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALMA LIZBETH MUNIZ and other similarly situated individuals v.
AGRO CONSTRUCTION, INC. a Florida Profit Corporation and LOUIS
AGRO, Individually, Case No. CACE-17-022069 (Fla. Cir. Ct.,
Broward Cty., December 6, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
and minimum wages, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Agro Construction, Inc., has its main place of business in
Broward County, Florida.  Louis Agro is a corporate officer of,
and exercised operational control over the activities of the
Corporate Defendant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason S. Remer, Esq.
          Brody M. Shulman, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          44 West Flagler St., Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com
                  bshulman@rgpattorneys.com


ALLERGAN INC: Kessler Represents Investors in $290MM Recovery
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers representing shareholders of Allergan Inc. disclosed they
had settled a lawsuit resolving insider trading claims against
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., Bill Ackman and his
Pershing Square family of hedge funds stemming from Valeant's
2014 attempt to takeover Allergan, Inc. In settling the claims,
Valeant and Pershing Square agreed to jointly pay a total of $290
million for all involved investors.

Allergan stockholders alleged that in February 2014, Valeant
tipped Pershing Square founder Bill Ackman about its plan to
launch a hostile bid for Allergan.  Armed with this nonpublic
information, Pershing then bought 29 million shares of Allergan
stock from unsuspecting investors, who were unaware of the
takeover bid that Valeant was preparing in concert with the hedge
fund. When Valeant publicized its bid in April 2014, Allergan
stock shot up by $20 per share, earning Pershing $1 billion in
profits in a single day.

Valeant's bid spawned a bidding war for Allergan. The company was
eventually sold to Actavis PLC for approximately $66 billion.

Stockholders filed suit in 2014 in federal court in the Central
District of California, where Judge David O. Carter presided over
the case.  Judge Carter appointed the Iowa Public Employees
Retirement System ("Iowa") and the State Teachers Retirement
System of Ohio ("Ohio") as lead plaintiffs, and appointed Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP and Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann, LLP as lead counsel.

The court denied motions to dismiss the litigation in 2015 and
2016, and in 2017 certified a class of Allergan investors who
sold common stock during the period when Pershing was buying.

Earlier in December, the Court held a four-day hearing on dueling
motions for summary judgment, with investors arguing that the
Court should enter a liability judgment against Defendants, and
Defendants arguing that the Court should throw out the case.  A
ruling was expected on those motions within coming days.

The settlement resolves both the certified stockholder class
action, which was set for trial on February 26, 2018, and a more
recently-filed action brought on behalf of investors who traded
in Allergan derivative instruments.  Defendants are paying $250
million to resolve the certified common stock class action, and
an additional $40 million to resolve the derivative case.

Lee Rudy, a partner at Kessler Topaz and co-lead counsel for the
common stock class, commented: "This settlement not only forces
Valeant and Pershing to pay back hundreds of millions of dollars,
it strikes a blow for the little guy who often believes, with
good reason, that the stock market is rigged by more
sophisticated players. Although we were fully prepared to present
our case to a jury at trial, a pre-trial settlement guarantees
significant relief to our class of investors who played by the
rules."

Kessler Topaz is one of the world's leading advocates for
institutional investors from around the world.  The firm has
recovered billions of dollars for clients resulting from
securities class actions, shareholder derivative suits, antitrust
litigation and other complex litigation in jurisdictions around
the globe. [GN]


AMADEUS IT: "Gordon" Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Gordon, et al., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Amadeus IT Group SA, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-mc-
00171, was transferred the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (Foley Square) on Jan. 8, 2018. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-mc-00006-LAK to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Lewis A.
Kaplan.

Amadeus IT operates as a transaction processor for the travel and
tourism industry worldwide.[BN]

Attorneys for Non-Party James Filsinger:

          Benjamin D Greenberg, Esq.
          Shawn J Larsen-Bright, Esq.
          DORSEY & WHITNEY (WA)
          701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6100
          Seattle, WA 98104-7043
          Telephone: (206) 903 8800
          E-mail: greenberg.ben@dorsey.com
                  larsen.bright.shawn@dorsey.com


AMERICAN FAMILY: Claims in "Riggins" Suit Tossed With Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Stephen R. Bough entered an order in the lawsuit styled
DARNITA RIGGINS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Case No. 2:14-cv-04171-SRB (W.D. Mo.):

   -- granting the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment;

   -- dismissing with prejudice the Plaintiff's claims;

   -- denying as moot the Plaintiff's Second Renewed Motion to
      Certify Class.

The matter involves an insurance dispute regarding the
interpretation of Plaintiff Donita Riggins' homeowner's policy.
The parties agree as to the facts relevant to the Court's
decision.

Plaintiff brings a purported class action asserting two claims
against Defendant.  In Count I, the Plaintiff asks for
declaratory judgment "that [Defendant's] depreciation of labor
costs [are] contrary to its written policy of insurance issued to
the named [P]laintiff and members of the [P]laintiff Class[.]"
In Count II, the Plaintiff alleges that "[b]y depreciating labor
in the calculation of the named [P]laintiff's [actual cash value]
payments, [Defendant] breached its obligations to the [P]laintiff
under her written insurance policy."

In his order, Judge Bough opines that there is no per se breach
of contract of the Plaintiff's insurance policy and, thus, the
Court must grant summary judgment.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=YCUG2mHR


ANN TAYLOR: Settles False Discount Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Bryan Cave, writing for JD Supra, reports that fashion retailer
Ann Taylor has settled a false discounting class action in New
York federal court alleging that prices at its outlet stores were
listed as "marked down" from prices that never applied to the
items. The named plaintiffs claim they were misled into believing
they were getting a large discount, and would not have made the
purchase if they knew the items were not heavily discounted.

The class action is just one of a growing number of deceptive
pricing actions filed against retailers. As we previously
reported, retailers can also face an action by the Federal Trade
Commission or public prosecutors for such practices. This growing
trend and Ann Taylor's potential $6.1 million exposure should put
retailers on notice of the repercussions associated with using
phantom prices in an effort to advertise discounts.

The settlement has received preliminary approval from District
Judge Paul Oetken, and provides both monetary and injunctive
relief to a class of more than a million consumers who purchased
one or more items between May 5, 2012, and May 4, 2016, from Ann
Taylor Factory and LOFT Outlet stores.

If approved, the settlement would consist of 425,000 vouchers to
Ann Inc. stores valuing $5.1 million, $500,000 for class members
who opt for a cash award of $5 instead of a voucher worth $12,
and $500,000 for administrative costs. Ann Inc. will have 60 days
to change the labeling of its merchandise and comply with federal
and state laws regarding pricing and advertising. The retailer
must also pay $1,500 to each named plaintiff and up to $1,525,000
in attorneys' fees and costs.

A final approval hearing is set for March 15, 2018. The case is
Siobhan Morrow and Ashley Gennock, et al. v. Ann Inc., No. 16-cv-
3340-JPO, pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. [GN]


APPLE INC: Miller et al. Sue over Performance of Older Phones
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARK MILLER, CHRIS SPEARMAN, and CRAIG STANFORD, on behalf of
themselves individually and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. APPLE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-
00889-ALM-KPJ (E.D. Tex., Dec. 27, 2017), seeks to recover
damages and other harm, including, but not limited to, loss of
use and enjoyment of their iPhones, loss of value, and losses in
the form of costs to upgrade or otherwise replace their iPhones.

According to the complaint, Apple promised that its recent iOS 10
and iOS 11 software updates to the iPhone 6 and iPhone 7 models
would improve those devices' performance and it strongly
encouraged its customers to accept those updates. But Apple
didn't tell its customers that it had intentionally designed
those software updates to slow the devices' processing speed to
correct a battery defect. Apple then happily took its customers'
money when the customers, dissatisfied with their now-slower
devices, purchased new and more expensive iPhones. Apple came
clean only this month under public pressure, admitting its
software updates slowed processor speed. Now Plaintiffs and Class
Members must either purchase new phones for hundreds, if not
thousands, of dollars or continue to struggle with their slowed
devices.

The Plaintiffs assert a class action on behalf of owners of the
iPhone SE, iPhone 6, iPhone 6s, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6s Plus,
and the iPhone 7 and iPhone 7 Plus whose devices were harmed by
Apple's updating of their devices' software to iOS 10.2.1, 10.3,
10.3.1, 10.3.3 -- iOS 10 Update -- and to iOS 11.0.1, 11.02,
11.03, 11.1.1, 11.1.2, 11.2, and 11.2.1 -- iOS 11 Update -- those
updates were released between January 23, 2017 and December 13,
2017.

The Defendant intentionally and tortuously interfered with
Plaintiffs' and Class Members' peaceful use and enjoyment of
their iPhones by materially impairing their iPhones' performance
and functionality by reducing the Affected Phones' processing
speed. The Plaintiffs and Class Members never consented to
Defendant interfering with their iPhones and, indeed, could not
so consent, because Defendant never informed them that the iOS 10
and iOS 11 Update would decrease their phones' processing speed.
Defendant's interference was done with neither just cause nor
legal excuse.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth C. Johnston, Esq.
          Robert W. Gifford, Esq.
          JOHNSTON PRATT PLLC
          1717 Main Street, Suite 3000
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 974 8000
          Facsimile: (972) 474 1750
          E-mail: kjohnston@johnstonpratt.com
                  rgifford@johnstonpratt.com


APPLE INC: Schroeder Sues over Slow Down of Older iPhones Models
----------------------------------------------------------------
PETER A. SCHROEDER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. APPLE INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-04750-JMS-MPB (S.D. Ind., Dec. 28, 2017), seeks
injunctive relief and damages arising from Defendants' unlawful
failure to inform consumers that updating their iPhone versions
prior to the iPhone 8 (Legacy Devices) to iOS 10.2.1 (and/or
later to iOS 11.2) would dramatically and artificially reduce the
performance of the Legacy Devices.

According to the complaint, Apple also failed to inform consumers
that phone performance would be restored -- by as much as 70% --
if affected individuals simply replaced the phone's lithium-ion
battery. Replacing the battery at an Apple store costs
approximately $79. The cost of the new iPhone X is over $1,000.

Batteries "wear" over time. The lithium-ion battery used by Apple
slowly diminishes its ability to hold a charge with time and use.
However, normal lithium-ion battery wear does not reduce
performance; a weakening battery has no effect on performance
unless there is software that links the two. And that is
precisely what Apple did. In rolling out iOS 10.2.1, Apple
claimed to provide "bug fixes and improve the security of [the]
iPhone or iPad" and "improve power management during peak
workloads to avoid unexpected shutdowns on the iPhone." What
Apple purposefully failed to disclose, however, was that the
update would act as a latent time-bomb that slowly eroded the
phone's performance to the frustration of the user -- the
software update throttled the iPhone's performance.

The effect of Apple's actions was to purposefully reduce device
performance with time, and deprive consumers of material
information concerning the cause of the decline in performance of
the Legacy Devices.

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

Counsel for the Plaintiff and Proposed Class:

          Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
          Irwin B. Levin, Esq.
          Vess A. Miller, Esq.
          Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
          COHEN & MALAD, LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 636 6481
          Facsimile: (317) 636 2593
          E-mail: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com
                  rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com
                  vmiller@cohenandmalad.com
                  ltoops@cohenandmalad.com


APPLE INC: Shine Lawyers Probes Class Action Over Slowing iPhones
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Duke, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports
that Queensland-based law firm Shine Lawyers is investigating a
class action against Apple Inc to get compensation for users of
older iPhones affected by updates that slow down their
smartphones.

In mid-December, when Reddit members discovered that Apple had
issued updates that caused older iPhones to slow, the tech giant
issued a formal statement that these updates were to prolong the
life of devices.

Class actions were then filed across the United States against
Apple, claiming it defrauded iPhone users by slowing their phones
without warning to make up for poor battery performance. A case
was also filed in Israel.

Now, Australia might have its own class action with Shine Lawyers
saying the firm was considering taking its own legal action
against the technology giant and encouraging affected Australian
iPhone users to come forward.

Shine Lawyers class action expert Jan Saddler said there were
several cases that could be brought against Apple for iPhone 6,
6S, SE and 7 defects.

"In Australia, we will be looking at a class action for strict
product liability, negligence, breach of warranty, and a
violation of consumer trust," she said.

"There was no express consent among iPhone users to have their
phones slowed down."

While it would take "some investigation" to determine whether the
legal action would proceed, with different laws in Australia to
the United States, Ms Saddler said the firm would have made a
decision on whether to commence the action by early 2018.

She said the company had "misled millions of consumers globally
into believing that their iPhones were malfunctioning, causing
them to upgrade to newer and more costly devices" and that
slowing down the devices gave the company an "unfair sales
advantage over their competitors".

These actions could contravene Australian Consumer Law and so the
action would be "likely" to go ahead, she said.

What compensation might result from a class action if successful
is difficult to discern, but she said it would not be
unreasonable for class action members who had upgraded due to a
slowing phone to seek compensation for the cost of the
replacement.

In some cases, the cost of a smartphone upgrade can exceed $1000.

Tech commentator Peter Griffin told Stuff legitimate reasons
existed for the Apple updates, but the reason for a class-action
lawsuit was the lack of transparency.

He said there was a lot of mistrust that technology companies
make things with "built in obsolescence", that companies only
make a phone or computer to last a certain amount of time so
people are "locked into an upgrade".

He also said it was expensive and difficult to change the battery
in the iPhone without going to a third party agent, which would
void the warranty.

An Apple spokeswoman previously issued a statement about the
slowing of iPhones, saying lithium-ion batteries became less
capable in cold conditions, when they had low battery charge or
when they aged over time "which can result in the device
unexpectedly shutting down to protect its electronic components".

She said a feature was released in 2016 to smooth out the peaks
when needed in certain older devices to prevent them from
unexpectedly shutting down.

Apple would not provide further comment. [GN]


APPLE INC: "Honigman" Suit Alleges Breach of Express Warranty
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Honigman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-00046 (E.D. N.Y.,
January 4, 2018), is a class action complaint for breach of
express warranty, negligent misrepresentation, intentional
misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and violations of the New
York General Business Law.

This is a consumer class action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated who acquired, in the
United States and its territories and its protectorates, Apple's
iPhone 6, 6 Plus, 6s, 6s Plus, SE, 7, 7 Plus, 8 and 8 Plus and
experienced reduced functionality on their devices due to Apple's
iOS updates.

Plaintiff Marc Honigman is a citizen and resident of the State of
New York. Mr. Honigman believes that the slowdown of his iPhone 6
occurred in connection with the download of iOS 10 software.

Defendant Apple is a California corporation with its headquarters
and principal place of business in Cupertino, California. Apple
is the designer and manufacturer of the iPhone and iOS software.
Apple manufactures, designs, produces, and sells several types of
electronic products, including, among others, personal computers,
portable music players, cellular phones, and other communication
devices. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
      Mark S. Reich, Esq.
      Avital O. Malina, Esq.
      ROBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200
      Melville, NY 11747
      Tel: (631) 367-7100
      Fax: (631) 367-1173
      E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
              mreich@rgrdlaw.com
              amalina@rgrdlaw.com


APPLE INC: "Mallh" Suit Alleges NY Business Law Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Victor Mallh, et al., on behalf of himself and similarly situated
others v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-00051 (E.D. N.Y., January
4, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for deceptive or
misleading practices in violation of the New York General
Business Law.

Plaintiff Victor Mallh brings this action, inter alia, to address
misrepresentations and omissions made by Defendant Apple Inc. in
connection with its iPhone software updates. The Plaintiff and
similarly situated others bring this matter to address Apple's
failure in its duty to warn iPhone SE, iPhone 6, iPhone 6s,
iPhone 6s Plus, iPhone 7, and iPhone 7 Plus users such as the
Plaintiffs that certain iOS updates could negatively and
significantly impact iPhone performance.

Plaintiff Victor Mallh is a citizen of the United States and a
resident of Queens County, New York.

Defendant Apple is a California corporation with its headquarters
and principal place of business in Cupertino, California. Apple
is the designer and manufacturer of the iPhone and iOS software.
Apple manufactures, designs, produces, and sells several types of
electronic products, including, among others, personal computers,
portable music players, cellular phones, and other communication
devices. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      John Hermina, Esq.
      HERMINA LAW GROUP
      Laurel Lakes Executive Park
      8327 Cherry Lane
      Laurel, MD 20707
      Tel: (301) 776-2003
      Fax: (301) 490-7913
      E-mail: law@herminalaw.com

          - and -

      Gregory Allen, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF GREGORY ALLEN
      120 W. Wilson Avenue
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Tel: (203) 535-4636
      E-mail: greg@gjallenlaw.com


APPLE INC: "Brody" Suit Alleges NY Business Law Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Yisroel Brody, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-00080 (E.D. N.Y.,
January 5, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for fraudulent
misrepresentation and concealment, breach of implied contract and
violations of the New York's General Business Law.

Plaintiff brings this class action case against Apple for its
fraudulent and deceptive interference into the operation and
performance of its iPhone devices which were updated to any of
the 2017 operating system software updates, and its failure to
disclose that Apple has been purposely slowing down the
processing and operations of class iPhones through such updates.

Plaintiff Brody resides in Brooklyn, New York and is the owner of
an iPhone 6.

Defendant Apple is a California corporation with its headquarters
and principal place of business in Cupertino, California. Apple
is the designer and manufacturer of the iPhone and iOS software.
Apple manufactures, designs, produces, and sells several types of
electronic products, including, among others, personal computers,
portable music players, cellular phones, and other communication
devices. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
      Jay I. Brody, Esq.
      KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
      747 Chestnut Ridge Road
      Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
      Tel: (845) 356-2570


ASSET RECOVERY: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit in Dist. of New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Asset Recovery
Solutions, LLC. The case is captioned as ALICIA RODRIGUEZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. ASSET RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC, the Defendant, Case
No. 2:17-cv-13730-KM-MAH (D.N.J., Dec. 28, 2017). The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Kevin McNulty.

Asset Recovery is a full service asset recovery management
company that is committed to establishing unmatched standards of
performance. ARS is a strategic partner to many of the largest
credit issuers in the country.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS ZELMAN, LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (347) 526 4093
          Facsimile: (732) 298 6256
          E-mail: yzelman@marcuszelman.com
                  ari@marcuszelman.com


AUTOMOBILE CLUB: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug Files Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The San Diego Employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug
& Bhowmik filed a class action lawsuit against Automobile Club of
Southern California alleging that the company failed to lawfully
provide meal and rest periods and reimburse their California
Field Sales Agent employees for all their business expenses
incurred while working for the company. The class action lawsuit
against Automobile Club of Southern California is currently
pending in the Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2017-
00960268-CU-OE-CXC.

The lawsuit filed against Automobile Club of Southern California
by the San Diego labor law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug &
Bhowmik alleges the company does not have a policy or practice
which provides legally compliant thirty-minute uninterrupted meal
breaks and paid rest breaks to their Field Sales Agent employees
in California. The lawsuit further alleges that the failure of
Automobile Club of Southern California to provide the legally
required meal and rest period is evidenced by the company's
records.

Additionally, the lawsuit alleges that the employees were not
reimbursed for all their necessary business expenses incurred on
Defendant's behalf.

For more information about the class action lawsuit against
Automobile Club of Southern California call (858) 952-0354 to
speak to Attorney Nicholas De Blouw.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug, & Bhowmik is a labor law firm with law
offices located in San Diego County, Riverside County, Los
Angeles County, Sacramento County, and San Francisco County. The
firm has a statewide practice of representing employees on a
contingency basis for violations involving unpaid wages, overtime
pay, discrimination, harassment, wrongful termination and other
types of illegal workplace conduct. [GN]


BANK OF NEW YORK: Sued over Dividend Conversions Excessive Rates
----------------------------------------------------------------
Edwin Scheibel, in his own capacity and in a representative
capacity on behalf of the ERISA plan in which he is a participant
or beneficiary, and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, and BNY MELLON, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-10231 (S.D.N.Y.,
Dec. 29, 2017), is a civil enforcement action pursuant to the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act, and against the Bank of
New York Mellon and BNY Mellon, National Association on behalf of
the Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund, an ERISA employee
benefit plan in which he is a participant.

The Benefit Plan is responsible for the retirement benefits of
more than 100,000 Plan participants.

The Plaintiff also brings this action as a class action on behalf
of a class of participants, beneficiaries, and named fiduciaries
of similarly-situated employee benefit plans.

According to the lawsuit, the Defendants appropriated excessive,
unauthorized, and undisclosed markups in the course of executing
foreign currency transactions associated with the Plans' holding
of American Depositary Receipts issued by Defendants. Defendants'
breach of their fiduciary duty when they conducted the FX
currency conversions -- ADR FX Dividend Conversions -- increased
their revenues and profits by millions of dollars annually at the
expense of the Plans, their participants and beneficiaries, and
the Class.

According to the complaint, when Defendants converted foreign
dividends and interest for ADR assets of ERISA Plans into U.S.
dollars, Defendants selected a transaction rate at or near the
rate at which the currency traded that day that was virtually the
worst for the ERISA Plans. This scheme increased Defendants'
profits at the expense of their ERISA clients.

The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, which does business as
BNY Mellon, is an American worldwide banking and financial
services holding company headquartered in New York City.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class:

          T. David Copley, Esq.
          Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
          T. David Copley, Esq.
          Elizabeth A. Leland, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623 1900
          Facsimile: (206) 623 8986
          E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
                  dcopley@kellerrohrback.com
                  bleland@kellerrohrback.com


BARRACUDA NETWORKS: Whiteley Seeks to Enjoin Thoma Bravo Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT WHITELEY, On Behalf of Himself and all Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. BARRACUDA NETWORKS, INC., JEFFRY R.
ALLEN, MICHAEL D. PERONE, WILLIAM JENKINS, JR., JOHN H. KISPERT,
CHET KAPOOR, and STEPHEN P. MULLANEY, the Defendants, Case No.
18CV321523 (Cal. Super. Ct., Jan. 8, 2018), seeks to enjoin a
proposed merger transaction or, in the event the proposed
transaction is consummated, to recover damages resulting from
breach of fiduciary duties by Defendants.

The Plaintiff brings this stockholder class action on behalf of
himself and all other public stockholders of Barracuda Networks,
Inc., against the Defendants, for breaches of fiduciary duty as
a result of Defendants' efforts to sell the Company to affiliates
of Thoma Bravo, LLC, namely Project Deep Blue Holdings, LLC, as a
result of an unfair process for an unfair price, and to enjoin a
stockholder vote in which Thoma Bravo will acquire each
outstanding share of Barracuda common stock for $27.55 per share
in cash, with a total valuation of approximately $1.6 billion.

According to the complaint, the terms of the Proposed Transaction
were memorialized in a November 27, 2017 filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Form 8-K attaching the
definitive Agreement and Plan of Merger. On December 27,
Barracuda filed a Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on
Schedule Prem14A with the Securities and Exchange Commission in
support of the Proposed Transaction. Notably, the Preliminary
Proxy reveals that the Proposed Transaction was entered into
without a proper market check and with no oversight by an
independent special committee of the Company Board.

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

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

In violation of their fiduciary duties, Defendants caused to be
filed the materially deficient Preliminary Proxy on December 27,
2017, with the SEC in an effort to solicit stockholders to vote
their Barracuda shares in favor of the Proposed Transaction. The
Preliminary Proxy is materially deficient and deprives Barracuda
stockholders of the information they need to make an intelligent,
informed and rational decision of whether to vote their shares in
favor of the Proposed Transaction.  The Preliminary Proxy omits
and/or misrepresents material information concerning, among other
things: (a) the sales process leading to the Proposed
Transaction; (b) the Company's financial projections; and (c) the
data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses that
purport to support the fairness opinions provided by the
Company's financial advisor, Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC.

Barracuda Networks is a company providing security, networking
and storage products based on network appliances and cloud
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Phone: (877) 534-2590
          Facsimile: (610) 667-9029
          E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com


BAZAARVOICE INC: Stein Seeks to Enjoin Marlin Equity Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
SHIVA STEIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. BAZAARVOICE, INC., THOMAS J.
MEREDITH, GENE AUSTIN, CRAIG A. BARBAROSH, KRISTA BERRY, STEVE H.
BERKOWITZ, JEFFREY HAWN, and ALLISON M. WING, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00067-UNA (D. Del., Jan. 8, 2018), seeks to
enjoin Defendants from taking any steps to consummate a proposed
merger transaction unless and until material information is
disclosed to Bazaarvoice's stockholders or, in the event the
proposed transaction is consummated, to recover damages resulting
from the Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act.

The case is a class action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of
herself and the other ordinary stockholders of Bazaarvoice, Inc.,
except Defendants and their affiliates, against Bazaarvoice, the
members Bazaarvoice's board of directors for their violations of
Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
in connection with the proposed merger between Bazaarvoice and
certain affiliates of Marlin Equity Partners.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have violated the
Exchange Act by causing a materially incomplete and misleading
proxy statement (the "Proxy") to be filed on December 26, 2017
with the SEC and disseminated to Company stockholders. The Proxy
recommends that Company stockholders vote in favor of a proposed
transaction whereby Bazaarvoice will merge with and into BV
Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of BV Parent, LLC,
which is beneficially owned by affiliates of Marlin, with the
Company continuing as a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent.

Pursuant to the terms of the definitive agreement and plan of
merger the companies entered into each Bazaarvoice common share
issued and outstanding will be converted into the right to
receive $5.50 in cash. The consideration Bazaarvoice stockholders
stand to receive in connection with the Proposed Transaction and
the process by which Defendants propose to consummate the
Proposed Transaction are fundamentally unfair to Plaintiff and
the other common stockholders of the Company. Defendants have now
asked Bazaarvoice's stockholders to support the Proposed
Transaction in exchange for inadequate consideration based upon
the materially incomplete and misleading representations and
information contained in the Proxy, in violation of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Specifically, the Proxy contains materially incomplete and
misleading information concerning the financial projections that
were prepared by the Company and relied upon by the Board in
recommending the Company's stockholders vote in favor of the
Proposed Transaction. The financial projections were also
utilized by Bazaarvoice's financial advisor, GCA Advisors, LLC,
in conducting the valuation analyses in support of the fairness
opinion.

The special meeting of Bazaarvoice stockholders to vote on the
Proposed Transaction is scheduled for January 29, 2018. It is
imperative that the material information that has been omitted
from the Proxy is disclosed to the Company's stockholders prior
to the forthcoming stockholder vote so that they can properly
exercise their corporate suffrage rights.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
          Gloria Kui Melwani, Esq.
          Kevin G. Cooper, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, New York 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545 4600
          Facsimile: (212) 686 0114
          E-mail: gmn@whafh.com
                  melwani@whafh.com
                  cooper@whafh.com

               - and -

          Michael Van Gorder, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Telephone: (302) 482 3182
          E-mail: mvangorder@faruqilaw.com


BEAURAYNE BUILDERS: Class Certification Sought in "Valle" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Fredy Reyes, Jose Gutierrez, and Edwin Bonilla move
for conditional class certification, judicial notice, and for
disclosure of the names and addresses of potential "opt-in"
plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned OSCAR VALLE, on behalf of
himself and other persons similarly situated v. BEAURAYNE
BUILDERS LLC, GALINDO Z CONSTRUCTION LLC, ELDRED ROBERT, JR, and
JOSE GALINDO, Case No. 3:17-cv-00274-SDD-RLB (M.D. La.).

The action arises from a "generally applicable rule, policy, or
practice" pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=oPWERgdr

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
          William H. Beaumont, Esq.
          Emily A. Westermeier, Esq.
          BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC
          3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 534-5005
          Facsimile: (504) 272-2956
          E-mail: costaleslawoffice@gmail.com
                  whbeaumont@gmail.com
                  emily.costaleslawoffice@gmail.com


BLUE APRON: Sciabacucchi Sues D&Os in Delaware Chancery
-------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW SCIABACUCCHI, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MATTHEW B. SALZBERG, JULIE
M.B. BRADLEY, TRACY BRITT COOL, KENNETH A. FOX, ROBERT P.
GOODMAN, GARY R. HIRSHBERG, BRIAN P. KELLEY, KATRINA LAKE, STEVEN
ANDERSON, J. WILLIAM URLEY, MARKA HANSEN, SHARON MCCOLLAM,
ANTHONY WOOD, RAVI AHUJA, SHAWN CAROLAN, JEFFREY HASTINGS, ALAN
HENRICKS, NEIL HUNT, DANIEL LEFF, and RAY ROTHROCK, the
Defendants, and BLUE APRON HOLDINGS, INC., STITCH FIX, INC. and
ROKU, INC., the Nominal Defendants, Case No. 2018-0931 (Del. Ch.,
Dec. 29, 2017), is a class action, pursuant to Court of Chancery
Rule 23, on behalf of himself and all other persons who purchased
stock of:

     -- Blue Apron pursuant to any registration statement
        (the "Blue Apron Class"),

     -- Stitch Fix pursuant to any registration statement
        (the "Stitch Fix Class"), and

     -- Roku pursuant to any registration statement
        (the "Roku Class").

Excluded from each Class are Defendants and any person, firm,
trust, corporation, or other entity related to or affiliated with
any Defendant, and their successors in interest.

The Complaint seeks judgment declaring as invalid a provision
included in each of the Companies' respective certificates of
incorporation, purporting to require any claim under the
Securities Act of 1933.

According to the complaint, for the last 19 years, there has been
a lively debate in the federal district courts about whether
class actions filed in state court and asserting only claims
under the Securities Act may be removed to federal court.
Although the lower courts have not been unanimous, the vast
majority of courts -- including 33 in a row in the Ninth Circuit
-- have refused to allow removal.

In June 2017, the United States Supreme Court granted a petition
for a writ of certiorari in Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County
Employees' Retirement Fund, No. 15-1439, a case that will likely
resolve this question conclusively for class actions. No matter
what happens in Cyan, however, there has been no dispute that
stockholders have the right to file an individual action in state
court, asserting claims under the Securities Act and that such an
action could not be removed.

In June 2017, Snap, Inc., a Delaware corporation headquartered in
California, went public with a certificate of incorporation that
included a provision stating that "[u]nless the Company consents
in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, the federal
district courts of the United States of America shall be the
exclusive forum for the resolution of any complaint asserting a
cause of action arising under the Securities Act of 1933." In the
wake of the Snap initial public offering ("IPO"), several other
Delaware corporations -- including Blue Apron, Stitch Fix, and
Roku -- have gone public with substantively identical Federal
Forum Provisions in their organizing documents.

The Plaintiff is, and has been at all relevant times, a
stockholder of Blue Apron common stock, Stitch Fix common stock,
and Roku common stock. Sciabacucchi purchased shares of Blue
Apron common stock on June 29, 2017 pursuant to its registration
statement filed with the SEC on June 1, 2017 (as amended).

Sciabacucchi purchased shares of Stitch Fix common stock on
December 4, 2017, pursuant to its registration statement filed
with the SEC on October 19, 2017 (as amended) (the "Stitch Fix
Registration Statement").

Sciabacucchi purchased shares of Roku common stock on November
14, 2017, pursuant to its registration statement filed with the
SEC on September 1, 2017 (as amended) (the "Roku Registration
Statement"). [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kurt M. Heyman, Esq.
          Melissa N. Donimirski, Esq.
          GATTUSO & HIRZEL LLP
          300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 200
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 472 7300

               - and -

          Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
          Joel A. Fleming, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          155 Federal Street, Suite 400
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 398 5600


BUMBLEE BEE: Rodriguez Files Product Mislabeling Suit in Ca.
------------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, and the general public v. BUMBLEE BEE FOODS, LLC, Case
No. 3:17-cv-02447-MMA-WVG (S.D. Cal., December 6, 2017), seeks to
enjoin Bumble Bee's alleged misleading practices and to recover
restitution and damages relating to the sale of its canned fish
product called "Premium Select Medium Red Smoked Salmon Filets in
Oil."

Through various labeling statements and design elements, Bumble
Bee falsely suggests that BB Medium Red Smoked Salmon is high-
quality, wild-caught salmon, when it is actually low-quality,
farm-raised Chilean salmon that has been colored, Mr. Rodriguez
alleges.  He adds that Bumble Bee also falsely and unlawfully
represents that the product is smoked salmon, when it is actually
unsmoked salmon to which smoke flavor has been added.

Bumble Bee Foods, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company
with its principal place of business in San Diego, California.
Founded in 1899, Bumble Bee is North America's largest branded
shelf-stable seafood company, offering products under several
lines, including its most popular Bumble Bee brand, which Bumble
Bee touts as having "established significant consumer awareness
and loyalty based on the quality, nutritional value, and
affordability of its products."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
          Trevor M. Flynn, Esq.
          Melanie Persinger, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC
          Hillcrest Professional Building
          3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 692-3840
          Facsimile: (619) 362-9555
          E-mail: jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
                  trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
                  melanie@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com


CAPITALA FINANCE: Bronstein, Gewirtz Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, notified investors that a
class action lawsuit has been filed against Capitala Finance
Corp. and certain of its officers, on behalf of a class who
purchased or otherwise acquired Capitala securities between
January 4, 2016 and August 7, 2017, both dates inclusive. Such
investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's
site: www.bgandg.com/cpta.

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

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Capitala Investment Advisors
had been losing professional talent in both underwriting and
portfolio management due to the waiving of its incentive fee, (2)
such loss of talent negatively impacted the quality of Capitala's
investment portfolio, and (3) consequently, Capitala's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/cpta or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss
in Capitala you have until February 26, 2018 to request that the
Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. 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.
         Yael Hurwitz, Esq.
         Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
         Tel: 212-697-6484
         Email: peretz@bgandg.com [GN]


CAPITALA FINANCE: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, filed a class
action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
Capitala Finance Corp. from January 4, 2016 through August 7,
2017, both dates inclusive ("Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for Capitala Finance investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the Capitala Finance class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1261.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) Capitala Investment Advisors had been losing
professional talent in both underwriting and portfolio management
due to the waiving of its incentive fee; (2) such loss of talent
negatively impacted the quality of the Company's investment
portfolio; and (3) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading 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 26, 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-1261.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.

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]


CAPITALA FINANCE: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Capitala Finance Corp.
(NASDAQ:CPTA) securities between January 4, 2016 and August 7,
2017 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until February 26, 2018
to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.

On January 4, 2016, Capitala announced that Capitala Investment
Advisors, LLC ("Capitala Investment Advisors"), the affiliate
that manages the Company's investment activities, had agreed to
waive its quarterly incentive fee. On August 7, 2017, Capitala
disclosed that six of its investments were on non-accrual status
-- twice as many as in the previous quarter. On August 8, 2017,
the Company disclosed that Capitala Investment Advisors had been
losing professional talent in underwriting and portfolio
management since waiving its incentive fee, which had caused an
increase in the number of the Company's non-accrual investments.

On this news, Capitala's share price fell $3.82 per share, or
approximately 30%, over the next three trading days to close at
$8.99 on August 10, 2017.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that Capitala Investment Advisors had
been losing professional talent, which negatively impacted the
quality of Capitala's investment portfolio. Consequently,
Capitala's public statements were materially false and misleading
throughout the Class Period.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Capitala securities and
suffered a loss, continue to hold shares purchased prior to the
Class Period, have information, would like to learn more about
these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Brandon Walker or Melissa Fortunato by email at
investigations@bespc.com, or telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by
filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to
you.

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a New York-based law firm
concentrating in commercial and securities litigation. For
additional information concerning the Capitala lawsuit, please go
to www.bespc.com/cpta.

         Brandon Walker, Esq.
         Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
         Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
         Tel: 212-355-4648
         Website: www.bespc.com
         E-mail: walker@bespc.com [GN]


CARLISLE DEVELOPMENT: "Serrano" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Rodolfo Valdes Serrano, Ricardo
Ruiz Piloto, and other similarly situated individuals, the
Plaintiffs, v. Carlisle Development Group, LLC and Matthew Greer,
the Defendants, Case No. 17-028162-CA-01, was removed from the
11th Judicial Circuit, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-20068-JEM to the proceeding. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Jose E. Martinez.

Carlisle Development Group began operating in 1998 and quickly
grew into one of the largest tax credit affordable housing
developers in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Court House Tower
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416 5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416 5005
          E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Scott Stephan Allen, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          2 S Biscayne Boulevard
          Suite 3500 One Biscayne Tower
          Miami, FL 33131-1802
          Telephone: (305) 577 7600
          Facsimile: (305) 373 4466
          E-mail: allens@jacksonlewis.com


CAVIUM INC: "Raul" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Marvell Tech Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
TAMMY RAUL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CAVIUM, INC. SYED B. ALI, BRAD W.
BUSS, EDWARD H. FRANK SANJAY MEHROTRA, MADHAV V. RAJAN, ANTHONY
S. THORNLEY, MARVELL TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD., KAUAI ACQUISITION
CORP., the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00139 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 8,
2018), seeks to enjoin Defendants from holding the stockholder
vote on a Proposed Merger and taking any steps to consummate the
Proposed Merger unless and until the material information is
disclosed to Cavium stockholders sufficiently in advance of the
vote on the Proposed Merger or, in the event the Proposed Merger
is consummated, to recover damages resulting from the Defendants'
violations of the Securities Exchange Act.

This action is brought as a class action by Plaintiff on behalf
of herself and the other public holders of the common stock of
Cavium against the Company and the members of the Company's board
of directors for violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection with the proposed
sale of Cavium to Marvell Technology Group Ltd.

According to the complaint, on November 20, 2017, the Board
caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger
with Marvell, a Bermuda exempted company, and Kauai Acquisition
Corp., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned indirect
subsidiary of Marvell, providing for the merger of Merger Sub
with and into Cavium, with Cavium surviving as a wholly owned
indirect subsidiary of Marvell.

In connection with the Proposed Merger, each share of Cavium
common stock issued and outstanding will have the right to
receive $40.00 in cash and 2.1757 Marvell common shares for
each Cavium share. The consummation of the Proposed Merger is
subject to certain closing conditions, including the approval of
the stockholders of Cavium. The Company expects the Proposed
Merger to close in mid-calendar 2018.

On December 21, 2017, to convince Cavium shareholders to vote in
favor of the Proposed Merger, the Board authorized the filing of
a joint materially incomplete and misleading registration
statement, which was filed by Marvell on Form S-4 with the SEC,
in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
While Defendants are touting the fairness of the Merger
Consideration to the Company's stockholders in the S-4, they have
failed to disclose certain material information that is necessary
for stockholders to properly assess the fairness of the Proposed
Merger, thereby rendering certain statements in the S-4
incomplete and misleading. It is imperative that the material
information that has been omitted from the S-4 is disclosed to
the Company's stockholders prior to the forthcoming stockholder
vote so that they can properly exercise their corporate suffrage
rights.  Plaintiff asserts claims against Defendants for
violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Cavium is a fabless semiconductor company based in San Jose,
California, specializing in ARM-based and MIPS-based network,
video and security processors and SoCs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


CEDARHURST OF EDWARDSVILLE: "Jamerson" Suit Moved to S.D. Ill.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled DICHA JAMERSON (nee PUCKETT),
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. CEDARHURST OF EDWARDSVILLE HOLDINGS, LLC;
CEDARHURST OF EDWARDSVILLE OPERATOR, LLC; CEDARHURST MEMORY CARE
OF EDWARDSVILLE, LLC; CEDARHURST OF COLLINSVILLE HOLDINGS, LLC;
CEDARHURST OF COLLINSVILLE, LLC; CEDARHURST OF COLLINSVILLE
OPERATOR, LLC; CEDARHURST OF GREENVILLE HOLDINGS, LLC; CEDARHURST
OF GREENVILLE OPERATOR, LLC; CEDARHURST OF GREENVILLE REAL
ESTATE, LLC; CEDARHURST OF JACKSONVILLE HOLDINGS, LLC; CEDARHURST
OF JACKSONVILLE, LLC; CEDARHURST OF JACKSONVILLE OPERATOR, LLC;
CEDARHURST OF SHILOH COTTAGES, LLC; CEDARHURST OF SHILOH, LLC;
CEDARHURST OF SHILOH OPERATOR, LLC; CEDARHURST OF SPARTA
HOLDINGS, LLC; CEDARHURST OF SPARTA, LLC; CEDARHURST OF SPARTA
OPERATOR, LLC; and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-100, the Defendants, Case No.
2017L 001582, was removed from the Circuit Court of the Third
Judicial Circuit Madison County, Illinois, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois on Dec. 29, 2017. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-01401-MJR-DGW to
the proceeding.

Cedarhurst of Edwardsville offers Memory Care that is
specifically designed to meet the needs of people living with
Alzheimer's and related memory loss.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John J. Driscoll, Esq.
          Christopher J. Quinn, Esq.
          THE DRISCOLL FIRM, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 4050
          St. Louis, MI 63012
          Facsimile: (314) 932 3233

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gregory C. Mollett, Esq.
          Abby L. Risner, Esq.
          Clark W. Hedger, Esq.
          GREENSFELDER, HEMKER & GALE, P.C.
          10 S. Broadway, Suite 2000
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 345 4785
          Facsimile: (314) 345 5465
          E-mail: gcm@greensfelder.com
                  alr@greensfelder.com
                  ch1@greensfelder.com


CENTURION GROUP: "Sales" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID SALES, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. THE CENTURION GROUP, INC., a California
corporation; STEVEN LEMMER, an individual; DANIEL CAMPBELL, an
individual; and DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive, the Defendant, Case No.
BC689346 (Cal. Super. Ct., Jan. 8, 2018), seeks to recover
penalties permitted by California Labor Code Section 2699 on
account of Defendants': (i) failure to provide mandated timely
meal periods and rest periods; (ii) failure to pay all wages due
and owing; and (ii) failure to issue accurate itemized wage
statements to employees.  Plaintiff also seeks waiting time
penalties for violations of the California Labor Code, Wage
Orders and Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.

The Centurion Group Inc. operates as a facility maintenance
contractor. It provides custodial services, such as general
cleaning, carpet cleaning and extraction, floor polishing and
buffing, stripping and waxing, and tile scrubbing and cleaning;
and interior and exterior painting, and general painting and
texturing services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael R. Crosner, Esq.
          Zachary M. Crosner, Esq.
          Alfredo Nava, Esq.
          CROSNER LEGAL, PC
          433 N. Camden Dr., Ste. 400
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 496 4818
          Facsimile: (310) 510 6429
          E-mail: mike@crosnerlegal.com
                  zach@crosnerlegal.com
                  alfredo@crosnerlegal.com


CHELSEA REALTY: Faces "Zayas" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chelsea Realty
Group, LLC. The case is captioned as Edwin Zayas, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Chelsea Realty Group, LLC and Barragh, Inc., the Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-10189-JGK (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 18, 2017). The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge John G. Koeltl.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Bahamonde, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JAMES E. BAHAMONDE, PC
          2501 Jody Court
          North Bellmore, NY 11710
          Telephone: (516) 783 9662
          Facsimile: (646) 435 4376
          E-mail: James@CivilRightsNY.com


CHRISTIAN FAITH: "O'Brien" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELISSA O'BRIEN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CHRISTIAN FAITH
PUBLISHING, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00024 (M.D. Tenn.,
Jan. 8, 2018), is a collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, brought on behalf of all persons who worked
remotely from their homes, selling publishing services, for
Defendants, at any time during the past three years and up until
the date of entry of judgment, and were misclassified as
independent contractors and denied proper overtime compensation
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendant
from February 2017 until December 11, 2017, remotely out of her
home, using her telephone and computer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Emily S. Alcorn, Esq.
          GILBERT McWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC
          341 Cool Springs Blvd, Suite 230
          Franklin, TN 37067
          Telephone: (615) 354 1144
          E-mail: ealcorn@gilbertfirm.com


CITGO PETROLEUM: $8MM to Settle Spam Text Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Celia Ampel, writing for the Daily Business Review, reports that
Citgo Petroleum Corp. agreed to pay $8 million to settle a spam-
texting class action that zipped from filing to final approval in
just over a year.

West Palm Beach resident Matthew Gottlieb brought the case after
receiving text messages advertising a chance to win free gas for
a year through the Club Citgo mobile app. The Houston-based
company sent the texts to about 93,000 people who signed up for
Citgo-sponsored sweepstakes, according to the plaintiff.

The lawsuit alleged that Citgo sent the text messages using auto-
dialing software in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act. Gottlieb also claimed he and other recipients did
not give their consent to receive the messages just because they
entered contests.

"You would go to [Coral Sky] Amphitheatre in West Palm Beach for
a Dave Matthews concert, and you would see a sign saying, 'For a
seat upgrade, text Citgo,' " said one of Gottlieb's attorneys,
Jeff Ostrow, Esq. -- ostrow@kolawyers.com -- of Kopelowitz Ostrow
Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert in Fort Lauderdale. Ostrow's
colleagues Scott Edelsberg -- edelsberg@kolawyers.com -- and Avi
Kaufman -- Kaufman@kolawyers.com -- also worked on the case,
along with co-counsel Andrew Shamis --
ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com -- of Shamis & Gentile in Miami.
Gottlieb, who is on the Do Not Call list, received three text
messages in late 2016 and filed his lawsuit in November of that
year.

"His privacy was wrongfully invaded, and plaintiff has become
understandably aggravated with having to deal with the
frustration of unwanted text messages forcing him to divert
attention away from his work and other activities," the lawsuit
claimed.

Class counsel reviewed more than 100,000 pages of documents from
Citgo and collected information from the defendant's text-
messaging vendors, mGage and Black Canyon.

"We learned that they're using computer software that a lot of
companies are using, and right now there's a lot of litigation
out there as to whether that's an auto-dialer," Edelsberg said.

In a Northern District of Georgia case involving an Atlanta
nightclub, a judge ruled in 2016 that mGage did not meet the
Federal Communications Commission's definition of "auto-dialing"
because the platform required human involvement. The same
question is being examined in other TCPA lawsuits across the
country.

In Gottlieb's case, the court did not decide the auto-dialing
issue because the case settled so quickly. U.S. District Judge
Robin Rosenberg in Fort Pierce moved things along by setting the
trial for Dec. 4, 2017, putting the case on a one-year schedule
instead of letting it stretch three or four years, Ostrow said.

"The court wasn't interested in entertaining any extensions," he
said. "So we got a lot of work done."

The parties had two all-day sessions with mediator David Lichter
of the Lichter Law Firm in Aventura. The case settled in July,
and Rosenberg gave final approval Nov. 23.

Citgo agreed to pay $8 million to the class, which includes
anyone who received the texts, regardless of whether they were on
the Do Not Call list. The company will also foot the bill for
about $300,000 in settlement administration fees. Class counsel
will receive one-third of the payout, or about $2.67 million, in
attorney fees.

"What they're having to pay far outweighs what they got out of
the campaign," Ostrow said. "From a business perspective, I don't
believe they'll ever engage in a business practice like this
again."

Citgo and its Miami lawyers, Martin Goldberg, Esq. --
mgoldberg@lashgoldberg.com -- and Greg Weintraub, Esq. --
gweintraub@lashgoldberg.com -- of Lash & Goldberg, did not
respond to a request for comment. Chicago attorneys Scott
Solberg, Esq. -- ssolberg@eimerstahl.com -- and James Kylstra,
Esq. -- jkylstra@eimerstahl.com -- of Eimer Stahl also
represented Citgo.  [GN]


CITRUS VALLEY HEALTH: Underpays Workers, Castanon Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
RAFAEL CASTANON, Individually, and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CITRUS VALLEY HEALTH
PARTNERS, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. (S.D. Fla., Jan. 8, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid wages for all hours worked and overtime
compensation under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have uniformly and
systematically failed and continue to fail to pay all wages owed
for time worked, failed and continue to fail to pay all overtime
compensation owed for time worked in excess of either eight hours
in one work day or 40 hours in one work week, failed and continue
to fail to provide meal periods, failed and continue to fail to
provide rest periods, failed and continue to fail to indemnify
employees for all necessary expenditures incurred in direct
consequence of the discharge of work duties, and failed and
continue to fail to timely furnish complete and accurate itemized
wage.

Citrus Valley Health Partners, Inc. operates a network of
hospitals and a hospice center that provide health care services
to the residents of the East San Gabriel Valley.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raymond P. Boucher, Esq.
          Maria L. Weitz, Esq.
          Neil M. Larsen, Esq.
          Alexander Gamez, Esq.
          BOUCHERLLP
          21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367 4903
          Telephone: (818) 340 5400
          Facsimile: (818) 340 5401
          E-mail: ray@boucher.la
                  weitz@boucher.la
                  larsen@boucher.la
                  gamez@boucher.la

               - and -

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


COMMUNITY HOUSING: Fails to Pay All Earned Wages, De Love Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELO DE LOVE, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff(s), v. COMMUNITY HOUSING PARTNERSHIP, a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the
Defendant(s), Case No. CGC-17-563450 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 29,
2017), seeks to recover all wages earned for all hours worked at
the correct rates of pay under the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are liable to him and other
similarly situated current and former employees in California for
unpaid wages and other related relief. These claims are based on
Defendants' alleged failures to provide all rest and meal
periods, pay all wages earned for all hours worked, indemnify for
business expenses, fairly compete, provide accurate written wage
statements, and timely pay final wages upon termination of
employment.

Community Housing Partnership is a nonprofit organization in San
Francisco, California, that provides housing, job training and
other services to formerly homeless people. Founded in 1990, it
owns and operates 14 residential buildings and collaborates with
other organizations in its goals. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


CONE DRIVE: Joint Bid to Certify Workers Class Filed in UAW Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit captioned INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED
AUTOMOBILE AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW,
and its LOCAL 21, and SALLY KANTZ, DUANE LAUTNER, GEORGE SNYDER,
and EDWARD VAN LEISHOUT, as individuals, on behalf of themselves
and all persons similarly situated v. CONE DRIVE OPERATIONS,
INC., Case No. 1:14-cv-01304-JTN (W.D. Mich.), jointly ask that
the Court:

   1. conditionally certify this class action pursuant to
      Rules 23(b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), and (b)(2) of the Federal
      Rules of Civil Procedure; and

   2. conditionally appoint the Named Plaintiffs and Class
      Counsel as representatives of the Class.

The class is defined as:

     All former bargaining unit employees of Defendant Cone Drive
     Operations, Inc., or its predecessors in interest (together
     "Cone Drive"), who were hired on or before October 26, 2002,
     and retired from Cone Drive's Traverse City facility by
     April 1, 2011, and the spouses, eligible surviving spouses,
     and eligible dependents of the same.

The lawsuit is a proposed class action lawsuit for breach of a
collectively bargained employee benefit plan.  The Plaintiffs
filed a complaint and alleged that members of a proposed class of
retired unionized employees have a vested contractual right to
certain retiree health insurance benefits.  The Defendant filed
an answer denying liability.  Following limited discovery and
extended settlement discussions, the parties have reached a
proposed settlement of the claims raised in the complaint.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=TG3EmfsY

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael L. Fayette, Esq.
          PINSKY, SMITH, FAYETTE & KENNEDY, LLP
          146 Monroe Center, NW, Suite 805
          Grand Rapids, MI 49503
          Telephone: (616) 451 -8496
          E-mail: mfayette@psfklaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Timothy J. Ryan, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS PC
          61 Commerce Ave. SW, 5th Floor
          Grand Rapids, MI 49503-4124
          Telephone: (616) 940-0240
          E-mail: Ryan@jacksonlewis.com


CONNECTICUT: Faces "Eisenlohr" Suit in Dist. of Connecticut
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against State of
Connecticut. The case is captioned as Pamela Dudgeon Eisenlohr
and S. D. E., minor, Brought by next friend and parent, Pamela
Dudgeon Eisenlohr and those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs,
v. State of Connecticut; State of CT Judicial Branch; State of
Connecticut Attorney General; and Office of the State's Attorney
Connecticut, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-02174-SRU
(D. Conn., Dec. 19, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Stefan R. Underhill.

Connecticut is a U.S. state in southern New England that has a
mix of coastal cities and rural areas dotted with small towns.
Mystic is famed for its Seaport museum filled with centuries-old
ships, and the beluga whale exhibits at Mystic Aquarium. On Long
Island Sound, the city of New Haven is known as the home of Yale
University and its acclaimed Peabody Museum of Natural
History.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


COOKIES UNITED: "Cruz" Suit Seeks OT Premium Pay under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
FELIPE CRUZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. COOKIES UNITED, LLC and UNITED
BAKING CO., INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-07557-JMA-SIL
(E.D.N.Y., Dec. 28, 2017), seeks to recover overtime premium pay
as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and by the
New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have violated the FLSA
by failing to pay the Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective, proper
overtime wages as required by law for morning and afternoon
breaks of 15 minutes each, for a total break time of at least one
half hour daily, and by failing to compensate employees when they
were required.  These violations arose out of the Defendant's
uniform, company-wide policies, pattern and/or practice of
violating wage and hour law.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven J. Moser, Esq.
          MOSER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          Three School Street, Suite 207B
          Glen Cove, NY 11542
          Telephone: (516) 671 1150
          Facsimile: (516) 882 5420


CORECIVIC INC: Sued Over Immigrants' Forced Labor in Detention
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kate Morrissey, writing for The San Diego Union-Tribune, reports
that immigrants in detention in San Diego are suing a private
prison company, alleging exploitation and forced labor that their
attorneys say breaks human trafficking laws.

The class-action lawsuit, filed December 27 in San Diego federal
court, alleges that immigrants at Otay Mesa Detention Center are
paid at most $1.50 per day, and sometimes not paid at all, for
their work as kitchen staff, janitors, barbers and various other
roles. It further alleges that the facility doesn't provide all
of the basic necessities that detainees need for daily life, like
soap, which means they have to work in order to buy those items
at the commissary.

Sometimes, the lawsuit says, facility staff threatened to put
detainees in solitary confinement or take away visitation rights
if they said they didn't want to work.

CoreCivic, the company that contracts with the government to
operate the facility, said that it does not comment on pending
litigation and has not yet been served with the lawsuit.

"Our complaint alleges CoreCivic illegally enriches itself on the
backs of a captive workforce," said Korey Nelson, Esq. --
knelson@burnscharest.com -- partner at Burns Charest, a law firm
with offices in Dallas and New Orleans that specializes in
complex class action suits.

Otay Mesa Detention Center holds detainees in the custody of U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency responsible for
those with pending cases in immigration court.

A spokeswoman for ICE deferred to CoreCivic when asked about the
case. ICE is not named as a defendant.

While work programs that pay little are common in prisons, the
complaint argues that there is a legal difference for those in
the immigration system.

The complaint hinges on the fact that immigration court is a
civil court system, not a criminal one. That means that, unlike
people in jail or prison, those going through the immigration
court system cannot be detained as punishment.

ICE has authority to detain someone only if the agency believes
that person won't show up in court or if the agency suspects the
person would be dangerous to society if released.

Because of the distinction between civil detention and criminal
detention, there are different legal standards for what can be
expected of those held in the two systems, explained Chris
Morris, Esq. a local civil rights attorney.

"They're supposed to treat you better than jail," said Morris,
who is not affiliated with the lawsuit. "If it's in any level a
punishment, that's a problem."

A separate area of the Otay Mesa facility holds people charged
with federal crimes who are in the custody of the U.S. Marshals
Service. The lawsuit does not include them.

Tony Cerone, senior adviser to the local chapter of the ICE
union, said that all work at the facility outside of cleaning
individual quarters and pod common areas is voluntary.

"Detainees are required to keep their quarters and the common
area clean," Cerone said. "They don't get maid service."

He said some of the detainee jobs at the facility are so popular
that they have waiting lists.

"Kitchen workers get extra food to consume and can make special
concoctions while working," Cerone said. "Many detainees enjoy
getting out of the units and getting the perks that go along with
it."

ICE's detention standard, which sets conditions that contracting
companies like CoreCivic must meet, says that work beyond making
their beds, stacking loose papers, keeping the floor free of
debris and refraining from hanging items from lighting fixtures
and furniture is voluntary and should be compensated by a minimum
of $1 per day.

The lawsuit argues that by creating conditions where detainees
feel forced to work and paying far less than minimum wage,
CoreCivic is breaking state and federal human trafficking laws.

"This labor is not voluntary in any meaningful sense," the
complaint says.

It alleges that CoreCivic makes an "exponentially" higher profit
because of cheap or free detainee labor.

Other lawsuits with similar allegations have been filed against
private prison companies that operate immigration facilities in
Colorado and Washington state, as well as in Adelanto.

The five detainees named in the Otay Mesa complaint are all
asylum seekers, meaning they say they are afraid they will be
persecuted if they return to their home countries. Two are a
father and stepson pair from El Salvador who live in Bakersfield
and were held at the San Diego facility from May through
November.

The two men, according to the complaint, were told that they had
to waive any rights to worker's compensation when they started
working in the facility's kitchen.

Juan Jose Merino-Rodas, the stepson, was badly burned on his arm
during his work in the kitchen. The complaint alleges that he was
denied worker's compensation and required to return to work one
day later.

The other three people named in the case are women, from Mexico,
Guatemala and Honduras. All three are still detained, according
to the complaint.

The woman from Honduras, Jennye Pagoada-Lopez, has spoken out
before about conditions in detention.

Pagoada-Lopez said that when she came to the San Ysidro Port of
Entry to ask for asylum, she was pregnant and that she miscarried
while in border officials' custody.

She spoke out about medical care at the facility because she has
a blood condition that she worried was not being adequately
treated by the facility's staff. She spoke out again after her
unit was temporarily evacuated in the middle of the night because
a detainee cleaning crew used a noxious chemical that made many
of them ill. [GN]


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Suit in New York Alleging False Labeling
----------------------------------------------------------------
THE PRESERVE AT CONNETQUOT HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, CVS HEALTH CORPORATION, KIMBERLY-
CLARK CORPORATION, THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, TARGET
CORPORATION, WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC. and WAL-MART STORES,
INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-07050 (E.D.N.Y., December 4, 2017), seeks
to recover for the harm being caused by the Defendants' alleged
deceptive, improper or unlawful conduct in the design, marketing,
manufacturing, distribution and sale of wipes labeled as
"flushable."

Purportedly flushable wipes include all moist wipe products
marketed and labeled as safe to flush, safe for plumbing, safe
for sewer systems and/or biodegradable.

The Preserve at Connetquot Homeowners Association, Inc., brings
this action on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated
entities that own and/or operate sewage or wastewater treatment
plants or facilities, including homeowners associations,
municipalities and wastewater districts.  The Plaintiff alleges
that the Flushable Wipes do not break up into small pieces or
disintegrate during or soon after flushing and, thus, are not
flushable under any definition of the term -- even under
Defendants' own industry guidelines that were specifically
designed for their products to pass.

Costco, a Washington corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
operates membership warehouses.  Headquartered in Issaquah,
Washington, Costco offers branded and private-label products in a
range of merchandise categories, including Kirkland Signature,
its generic line, under which Costco manufactures and sells
Kirkland Signature Moist Flushable Wipes.

CVS, a Delaware corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
provides integrated pharmacy health care services in the United
States.  Headquartered in Woonsocket, Rhode Island, CVS offers
branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise
categories, including Total Home, its generic line.

Kimberly-Clark, a Delaware corporation, together with its
subsidiaries, manufactures and markets personal care, consumer
tissue, and health care products worldwide.  Kimberly-Clark is
headquartered in Dallas, Texas.

Headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, Procter & Gamble, an Ohio
corporation, together with its subsidiaries, manufactures and
sells branded consumer packaged goods.  Target, a Minnesota
corporation, operates general merchandise stores in the United
States.  Target is headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Walgreens, an Illinois corporation, together with its
subsidiaries, operates a network of drugstores in the United
States.  Headquartered in Deerfield, Illinois, Walgreens provides
consumer goods and services, pharmacy, and health and wellness
services through drugstores, as well as through mail, and by
telephone and online.

Wal-Mart, a Delaware corporation, is a retail business offering a
range of merchandise categories.  Headquartered in Bentonville,
Arkansas, Wal-Mart offers candy, snack foods, tobacco, alcoholic
and nonalcoholic beverages, and cleaning and institutional
supplies; appliances, electronics, health and beauty aids,
hardware, office supplies, toys, seasonal items, and automotive
supplies; and dry and institutionally packaged foods.

The Defendants are involved with the manufacturing, distributing,
advertising, marketing and/or sale of the Flushable Wipes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          Mark S. Reich, Esq.
          Vincent M. Serra, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
          E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
                  mreich@rgrdlaw.com
                  vserra@rgrdlaw.com


CRYPTO COMPANY: Brower Piven Files Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A
Professional Corporation, disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of The
Crypto Company securities during the period between August 21,
2017 through December 18, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Investors who wish to become proactively involved in the
litigation have until February 20, 2018 to seek appointment as
lead plaintiff.

If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the class, you
must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the
Court.  The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and
participate in important decisions including whether to accept a
settlement for the class in the action.  The lead plaintiff will
be selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from
investment in Crypto securities during the Class Period.  Members
of the class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and
counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff.  No class has yet been
certified in the above action.

The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants'
failure to disclose during the Class Period that Crypto
unlawfully engaged in a scheme to promote and manipulate the
company's stock.

According to the complaint, on December 19, 2017, U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission suspended the Company's trading due to
concerns regarding the accuracy and adequacy of information in
the marketplace about compensation paid for promotion of the
Company and statements in filings about plans of company insiders
to sell their shares until January 3, 2018.

If you have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from investment
in Crypto securities purchased on or after August 21, 2017 and
held through the revelation of negative information during and/or
at the end of the Class Period and would like to learn more about
this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead plaintiff,
without cost or obligation to you, please contact Brower Piven
either by email at hoffman@browerpiven.com or by telephone at
(410) 415-6616.

Attorneys at Brower Piven have extensive experience in litigating
securities and other class action cases and have been advocating
for the rights of shareholders since the 1980s.  If you choose to
retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven without financial
obligation or cost to you, or you may retain other counsel of
your choice.  You need take no action at this time to be a member
of the class.

         Charles J. Piven, Esq.
         Brower Piven
         Telephone: 410-415-6616
         Email: hoffman@browerpiven.com
                piven@browerpiven.com [GN]


DAKOTA TRAVEL: Sued by "Leonard" Over Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------
Tina Leonard, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Dakota Travel Nurse Home Care, Inc.,
Jamie Fleck and Beverly Unrath, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-00266
(D. N.D., December 14, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime compensation
as well as for liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the North Dakota Wage Law.

Defendants are in the business of in-home healthcare, private
duty nursing and in-home care as a home health agency where
Leonard began working for Defendants on or about December 6, 2016
as a home health care provider often working up to eighty hours
per week without the appropriate overtime compensation. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
      Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
      Kevin M. McDermott, Esq.
      SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
      The Caxton Building
      812 E. Huron Road, Suite 490
      Cleveland, OH 44114
      Tel. (440) 498-9100
      Fax (216) 621-1094
      Email: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
             rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
             kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com


DART CONTAINER: Roberts Sues over Collection of Biometric Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
LAQUANDERIA ROBERTS, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. DART CONTAINER
CORPORATION OF ILLINOIS, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-09295
(N.D. Ill., Dec. 27, 2017), seeks to recover statutory damages
pursuant to Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act.

The Complaint alleges that Dart violated the BIPA by using face
geometry scanning technology at a facility in Chicago, Illinois,
for the purpose of having workers at that facility clock-in and
clock-out for shifts. The Plaintiff alleges that Dart violated
BIPA by obtaining a scan of her facial geometry without first
obtaining her informed consent, and by not having a publicly
available retention policy regarding biometric information such
as facial geometry scans. The Plaintiff alleges that the putative
class consists of "hundreds, if not thousands, of members of the
Class."

Dart Container Corporation of Mason, Michigan, United States, is
the world's largest manufacturer of foam cups and containers,
producing about as many as all competitors combined. Dart
Container is privately held by the Dart family.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Myles McGuire, Esq.
          William P. Kingston, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893 7002
          Facsimile: (312) 275 7895
          E-mail: mmcguire@mcgpc.com
                  wkingston@mcgpc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          J. Hayes Ryan, Esq.
          Brian H. Myers, Esq.
          GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
          One North Franklin, Suite 800
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: 312 619 4913
          Facsimile: 312 565 6511
          E-mail: HayesRyan@grsm.com
                  BMyers@grsm.com


DASUYA ENTERPRISES: "Earin" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
CRYSTAL SMITH AND TIFFANY EARIN, on behalf of themselves and all
those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. DASUYA ENTERPRISES,
LLC; MINAKSHI PANDIT; AND HANU KAUSHAL, the Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-17895-CJB-JVM (E.D. La., Dec. 28, 2017), seeks to recover
overtime and minimum wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, employment with the Defendants was
less than ideal. The work environment was permeated by hostility,
and was a place where the Defendants showed a fundamental lack of
respect for their employees and an indifference to workplace
safety and their working environment. Not surprisingly, the
Defendants also flouted their obligations under the FLSA by
refusing to pay the employees proper wages, including minimum
wages and overtime.

Specifically, under the Defendants' wage compensation system, the
Defendants did (and do) not pay Plaintiffs and the members of the
collective action class time and a half for hours worked in
excess of 40 in a week. Rather, the Defendants merely paid
Plaintiffs and the members of the collective straight time for
hours worked in excess of 40 in a week. Furthermore, the
Defendants unlawfully required Plaintiffs and the FLSA Plaintiffs
to work "off the clock" and did not pay them minimum wage for
these hours. Finally, Defendants made unlawful and unexplained
deductions from Plaintiffs' pay.

The Defendants operate Subway stores in the New Orleans and
Jefferson Parish area.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq.
          Jody Forester Jackson, Esq.
          Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq.
          JACKSON+JACKSON
          201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2500
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Telephone: (504) 599 5953
          Facsimile: (888) 988 6499
          E-mail: jjackson@jackson-law.net
                  mjackson@jackson-law.net


DAVID'S BRIDAL: Mendizabal Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA MENDIZABAL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. DAVID'S BRIDAL, INC. and CLAYTON, DUBILIER & RICE,
INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-09494 (S.D.N.Y., December 4, 2017),
accuses the Defendants of failing to design, construct, maintain,
and operate its Web site to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by blind or visually-impaired people.

Ms. Mendizabal is a visually-impaired and legally blind person,
who requires screen-reading software to read Web site content
using her computer.

David's Bridal, Inc., is a Florida business corporation both
registered and licensed to do business in New York.  Clayton,
Dubilier & Rice, Inc., is a Delaware corporation both registered
and licensed to do business in New York.

The Defendants operate http://www.davidsbridal.com/and its Web
site, and advertises, markets, distributes, and sells wedding
dresses, prom gowns, and other related formalwear products in the
state of New York and throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          JOSEPH H. MIZRAHI LAW P.C.
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (917) 299-6612
          Facsimile: (718) 425-8954
          E-mail: Joseph@Jmizrahilaw.com

               - and -

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


DCT ENTERPRISES: Underpays Pizza Delivery Drivers, Rich Says
------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL RICH, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, the Plaintiff, v. DCT ENTERPRISES OF OKLAHOMA, INC.,
MATT O'DONNELL and JASON OPIE, the Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-
00020-W (W.D. Okla., Jan. 8, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate Papa John's pizza franchise stores
in Oklahoma and other states. Defendants employ delivery drivers
who use their own automobiles to deliver pizza and other food
items to their customers. Instead of reimbursing delivery drivers
for the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their
vehicles, Defendants used a flawed method to determine
reimbursement rates that provides such an unreasonably low rate
beneath any reasonable approximation of the expenses they incur
that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall
below the federal minimum wage during some or all workweeks.

The Plaintiff further brings an individual claim under the FLSA
to recover unpaid compensation at time and a half owed for work
in excess of 40 hours per workweek and a wage claim under
Oklahoma law for recovery of unpaid wages.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeff A. Taylor, Esq.
          THE OFFICES AT DEEP FORK CREEK
          5613 N. Classen Blvd
          Oklahoma City, OK 73118
          Telephone: (405) 286 1600
          Telecopy: (405) 842 6132


DECISIONHR XIII: "Ladicani" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Mayda Mercedes Ladicani, and
other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v.
Decisionhr XIII, Inc.; James J. Dauria, individually; Michael J.
Zanakis, individually, jointly, and severally liable; and North
Miami Motorsports, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 17-27358-CA-01
was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade
County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida (Miami) on Jan. 8, 2018. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-20073-RNS to the proceeding. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Court House Tower
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416 5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416 5005
          E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Douglas Barry Melamed, Esq.
          BANKER LOPEZ GASSLER PA
          1200 South Pine Island Road, Suite 170
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 703 3597
          Facsimile: (954) 533 3051
          E-mail: service-dmelamed@bankerlopez.com


DEN-MAT HOLDINGS: Monette Says Toothbrush Heads Defective
---------------------------------------------------------
RENAE MONETTE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. DEN-MAT HOLDINGS, LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 37-2017-00049950-CU-NP-NC (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 27,
2017), alleges that DEN-MAT knew, through internal sources,
testing, and consume complaints available online, that its
toothbrush heads were defective. Owners of the products publicly
complain about these brush heads. Yet despite this knowledge,
DEN-MAT failed to disclose and actively concealed the brush heads
defects from Class Members and the public, and continued to force
consumers to pay for out of warranty changes, without remedying
the internal issue.

The Plaintiff purchased this product for personal and family use.
The Defendant's representatives did not mention their knowledge
of the defect, and did not suggest any repairs that could be
made. The Plaintiff paid out-of-pocket brush head replacement, as
suggested by Defendant' representatives to remedy the issue, for
a charge of over $400.  To date, Plaintiff's toothbrush continues
to be inoperable, and has not been or remedied whatsoever by the
multiple replacements that she paid out-of-pocket for. As a
result of DEN-MAT's alleged misconduct, Plaintiffs and Class
Members were harmed and suffered actual damages.

DenMat is a worldwide dental lab products manufacturer of dental
supplies including impressions, pharmaceuticals, restoratives,
curing lights, dental labs, lesion detection, soft-tissue lasers,
magnification, illumination, oral hygiene, whitening, instruments
and dental events offering CE credits.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DEV MEDICAL: Wins Prelim. OK of "Moreno" Deal; Hearing on March 6
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber granted the motion for preliminary
approval of class action settlement in the lawsuit titled
Ernestina Moreno et al. v. DEV Medical Associates S.C., Case No.
1:16-cv-09519 (N.D. Ill.).

Final approval hearing is set for March 6, 2018, at 9:00 a.m.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3OdA3BM8


DNA DIAGNOSTICS: Advantage Healthcare Hits Illegally-faxed Ads
--------------------------------------------------------------
Advantage Healthcare, Ltd., an Illinois corporation, individually
and as the representatives of a class of similarly-situated
persons, Plaintiff, v. DNA Diagnostics Center, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 17-cv-09001 (N.D. Ill., December 14, 2017), seeks
statutory damages for each violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, injunctive relief, compensation and attorney fees
and all other relief.

The complaint says Defendant faxed two advertisements about its
DNA testing services. Advantage Healthcare did not expressly
consent to receive any advertisement them. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
      Robert M. Hatch, Esq.
      BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
      134 N. La Salle St., Ste. 1000
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 658-5500
      Fax: (312) 658-5555
      Email: service@classlawyers.com


DNA DIAGNOSTICS: Advantage Healthcare Seeks to Certify TCPA Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned ADVANTAGE HEALTHCARE,
LTD., an Illinois corporation, individually and as the
representatives of a class of similarly-situated persons v. DNA
DIAGNOSTICS CENTER, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-09001 (N.D. Ill.),
moves for entry of an order certifying this class:

     Each person or entity that was sent one or more telephone
     facsimile messages after October 12, 2013 offering
     laboratory testing services available through
     1-800-DNA-CENTER (1-800-362-2368) that did not inform the
     fax recipient that he or she may make a request to the
     sender of the advertisement not to send any future facsimile
     advertisements and that failure to comply with the request
     within 30 days in unlawful.

Advantage Healthcare tells the Court that it files this motion
soon after the filing of its Class Action Complaint in order to
avoid an attempt by the Defendant to moot Plaintiff's individual
claims in the class action.  However, in this case, the Plaintiff
contends, additional discovery is necessary for the court to
determine whether to certify the class Plaintiff seeks to
represent.  As a result, the Plaintiff will seek leave to pursue
class discovery as soon as practicable.

The case involves common fact questions about the Defendant's fax
campaign and common legal questions under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=DCXZAawF

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          Tod A. Lewis, Esq.
          David. M. Oppenheim, Esq.
          BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          134 N. La Salle St., Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658-5500
          Facsimile: (312) 658-5555
          E-mail: phil@bockhatchllc.com
                  tod@bockhatchllc.com
                  david@classlawyers.com


DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Shapiro Sues over Debt Collection Calls
---------------------------------------------------------
RACHEL A. SHAPIRO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DYNAMIC RECOVERY SOLUTIONS,
LLC, a foreign limited liability company, the Defendant, Case No.
0:18-cv-60035-BB (S.D. Fla., Jan. 8, 2018), seeks to halt
Defendant's unlawful conduct which has resulted in the invasion
of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily
life of thousands of individuals.  The case also seeks statutory
damages on behalf of herself and members of the class, and any
other available legal or equitable remedies.

The case is a putative class action under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, arising from Defendant's knowing and willful
violations of the TCPA. The Defendant is a nationwide debt
collector providing collection services to banking, student loan,
health care, and retail businesses. This case arises from
Defendant's transmission of automated and prerecorded debt
collection calls to the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and
others, without consumers' prior express consent.

Various lawsuits have been filed against Defendant for violating
the TCPA. Nevertheless, Defendant continues to violate the
statute and consumers' privacy rights.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL
          Telephone: (954) 400 4713
          E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

               - and -

          Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq.
          Ross H. Schmierer, Esq.
          DeNITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE P.C.
          525 Route 73 North, Suite 410
          Marlton, NJ 08083
          Telephone: (856) 797 9951
          E-mail: sdenittis@denittislaw.com
                  rschmierer@denittislaw.com


DYNEGY INC: "Paskowitz" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Paskowitz, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Dynegy Inc., Pat Wood, III, Robert C.
Flexon, Hilary E. Ackermann, Paul M. Barbas, Richard Kuersteiner,
Jeffrey S. Stein, John R. Sult, and Vistra Energy Corp., Case No.
4:18-cv-00027 (S.D. Tex., January 4, 2018), is brought against
the Defendants for violation of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on
October 30, 2017, pursuant to which Dynegy Inc. will be acquired
by Vistra Energy Corp. On December 13, 2017, defendants filed a
Form S-4 Registration Statement with the United States Securities
and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed
Transaction.

The complaint says the Registration Statement omits material
information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which
renders the Registration Statement false and misleading.

Plaintiff is, and has been continuously throughout all times
relevant hereto, the owner of Dynegy common stock.

Defendant Dynergy Inc. began operations in 1984 and incorporated
in Delaware in 2007. Defendant is a holding company that conducts
substantially all of its business operations through its
subsidiaries. Dynegy's primary business is the production and
sale of electric energy, capacity, and ancillary services from
its fleet of 50 power plants in 12 states totaling approximately
31,000 megawatts of generating capacity.

Defendant Vistra Energy is a Delaware corporation and maintains
its principal executive offices at 6555 Sierra Drive, Irving,
Texas 75039. Vistra Energy's common stock is traded on the NYSE
under the ticker symbol "VST." Vistra Energy is a party to the
Merger Agreement.

The Individual Defendants are directors of Dynergy. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joe Kendall, Esq.
      Jamie J. McKey, Esq.
      KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
      3232 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700
      Dallas, TX 75204
      Tel: (214) 744-3000
      Fax: (214) 744-3015
      E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
              jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com


ELECTROLUX HOME: Mauro Says Microwave Oven Handles Defective
------------------------------------------------------------
DEAN MAURO, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC.,
LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-01397-
TJM-DEP (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Dec. 30, 2017), seeks to redress a
defective condition present in Electrolux Over-The-Range
Microwave Ovens with stainless steel handles bearing part number
5304481502 that were warranted, advertised, distributed, and sold
by Defendants throughout the State of New York.

The Microwaves are designed for installation on a vertical wall
directly above the cooking surface of the range, but when the
cooking surface below is in operation the Microwave's STAINLESS
STEEL HANDLE heats to excessive temperatures rendering the handle
unfit for use with a bare hand and exposing anyone who touches it
to a substantial risk of permanent and/or serious injury.

This Handle Defect is unreasonably dangerous and renders the
Microwaves' handles unfit to use when opening the Microwave door
-- its intended and ordinary purpose. As a result of the hollow
handle construction comprised of thin walls of stainless steel,
the STAINLESS STEEL HANDLES with the Handle Defect heat to
temperatures in excess of those permitted under ASTM Standard
C1055-03 (Reapproved 2014). As a result of this Handle Defect and
Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff brings claims for: New York
General Business Law sections 349, 350; negligence; strict
liability-design defect and failure to warn; negligent failure to
warn; violations of the Magnuson-Moss Consumer Products
Warranties Act, 15 U.S.C. section 2301, et seq. ("MMWA"); breach
of implied warranty of merchantability; and unjust enrichment.

Electrolux Home manufactures and sells household appliances in
North America. It offers products in the categories of kitchen
that include cooktops, wall ovens, ranges, warmer drawers,
ventilators, microwaves, dishwashers, refrigerators, and small
kitchen appliances; laundry; vacuums and homecare; and filters.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason Zweig, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 752 5455
          Facsimile: (917) 210 3980
          E-mail: jasonz@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Simon B. Paris, Esq.
          Patrick Howard, Esq.
          Charles J. Kocher, Esq.
          SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT
          & BENDESKY, P.C.
          1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496 8282
          Facsimile: (215) 496 0999
          E-mail: sparis@smbb.com
                  phoward@smbb.com
                  ckocher@smbb.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Jason S. Kilene, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333 8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339 6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  jkilene@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          Anthony D. Shapiro, Esq.
          Jeniphr Breckenridge, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623 7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623 0594
          E-mail: tony@hbsslaw.com
                  jeniphr@hbsslaw.com


ENCORE HOSPITALITY: Accused by Ramos-Rios of Not Paying Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL RAMOS-RIOS, an individual, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. ENCORE HOSPITALITY SERVICES, LLC, a
Kansas limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. BC685624 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.,
December 5, 2017), accuses the Defendants of failure to pay
overtime wages and pay minimum wages, among other failures.

Encore Hospitality Services, LLC, a Kansas limited liability
company, authorized to conduct business in the state of
California, and does conduct business in the California.  Encore
Hospitality maintains offices and facilities in California.  The
true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are unknown to
the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          Matthew W. Gordon, Esq.
          Braunson C. Virjee, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531-1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
          E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
                  mgordon@maternlawgroup.com


EXPERIAN INFO: Clements et al. Sue over Antedated Trade Lines
-------------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA CLEMENTS, EDUARDO LUCIO, STEVEN LOSS, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC, and TXU Energy Retail
Company, LLC and JOHN DOES 1-25, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-
00390 (S.D. Tex., Dec. 27, 2017), is brought under the Fair
Credit Reporting Act, alleging that Defendant Experian has been
and is continuing to report a TXU account on a Experian credit
report that antedates the report by more than seven years and six
months, in violation of the FCRA.

Additionally, Experian continues to report the antedated trade
lines even after some Plaintiffs' disputed the same and as such
failed to properly investigate Plaintiffs' dispute.

Furthermore, Plaintiffs allege that Experian has failed to follow
reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy in its
reporting of antedated TXU trade lines. If Experian had proper
procedures in place, it would not allow antedated trade lines to
report on Plaintiffs' Experian credit reports over seven years
and six months from the original delinquency date.

Experian is one of the largest credit reporting agencies in the
United States, and is engaged in the business of assembling and
disseminating credit reports concerning hundreds of millions of
consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dennis McCarty, Esq.
          Jonathan Raburn, Esq.
          MCCARTY & RABURN, PLLC
          P.O. Box 1448
          Cedar Hill, TX 75106-1448
          Telephone: (817) 704 3375
          Facsimile: (817) 887 5069

               - and -

          Ari Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 695 3282
          Facsimile: (732) 298 6256


FCA US: Faces "Wildin" Suit in Southern District of California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FCA US LLC. The
case is captioned as Ryan Wildin and Sarah Wildin, individually,
and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, the
Plaintiffs, v. FCA US LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-02594-GPC-MDD (S.D. Cal., Dec.
30, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Gonzalo P.
Curiel.

FCA US LLC is the American subsidiary of Fiat Chrysler
Automobiles N.V., an Italian-American automobile manufacturer
registered in the Netherlands with headquarters in London, U.K.,
for tax purposes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan L Lurie, Esq.
          WEISS AND LURIE
          10940 Wilshire Boulevard, 23rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 208 2800
          Facsimile: (310) 209 2348
          E-mail: jordan.lurie@capstonelawyers.com


FIRSTSOURCE SOLUTIONS: Bernardez Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled ALAN BERNARDEZ and TAWANNA
PITTMAN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. FIRSTSOURCE SOLUTIONS USA, LLC d/b/a MEDASSIST, Case
No. 3:17-cv-00613-DJH-DW (W.D. Ky.), pursuant to Section 16(b) of
the Fair Labor Standards Act moves for entry of an order:

   (1) conditionally certifying the proposed FLSA collective,
       defined as:

       All current and former Patient Service Representatives,
       Floaters/Trainers, and/or Team Leads employed by Defendant
       Firstsource Solutions USA, LLC d/b/a MedAssist at any time
       during the period of three years preceding the
       commencement of this action through the date on which
       conditional certification is granted;

   (2) approving Plaintiffs' proposed "Notice of Right to Join
       Lawsuit" and "Consent to Join Lawsuit" forms and
       authorizing Plaintiffs' counsel to circulate the
       court-approved Notice via first-class mail and e-mail to
       the proposed FLSA collective as well as send a text
       message informing them of their right to opt in to the
       case;

   (3) directing Defendant to identify all potential opt-in
       plaintiffs by providing their names, last known addresses,
       e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, job
       titles, dates of employment and locations of employment in
       an electronic and importable format such as an
       unrestricted Excel spreadsheet within 14 calendar days of
       the entry of the order; and

   (4) allowing putative FLSA collective members an opt-in period
       of 60 days from circulation of the court-approved Notice
       to file their written consent forms.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=bvJuBfpT

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
          155 2nd Street, Suite 4
          Jersey City, NJ 07302
          Telephone: (877) 561-0000
          Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
          E-mail: nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
                  jtb@jtblawgroup.com

               - and -

          Trent Taylor, Esq.
          Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
          BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
          250 E. Broad Street, 10th Floor
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (800) 274-5297
          Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
          E-mail: ttaylor@barkanmeizlish.com
                  rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com


FLEX FLORIDA: "Bejerano" Suit Alleges Overtime Wage Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dionys Bejerano, Jorge L. Granados Millan, and all others
similarly situated v. Flex Florida Corp. dba Best Awnings and
Felix G. Arbucias, Case No. 1:18-cv-20049 (S.D. Fla., January 5,
2018), is brought against Defendants for overtime wage violations
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs worked for Defendants as awning installers and awning
welders.

Defendants provide aluminum and retractable awnings, cabanas,
canvas, carport, deck & patio covers, canopies & other shade
structures.  [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


GAS FIREPLACE: Court Approves Class-Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------
Dan Fumano, writing for Vancouver Sun, reports that a "hard-
fought" five-year class action lawsuit has drawn to a close this
month, with a B.C. Supreme Court judge approving a settlement
agreement between gas fireplace manufacturers and plaintiffs
representing children who suffered burns.

In the settlement, three defendant companies agreed to retrofit
screens and provide barriers, free of charge, for gas fireplaces
installed over a 14-year period some of which, court heard, had
caused injury to young children. The defendants did not admit any
liability or guilt in the settlement, which was approved this
month by B.C. Supreme Court Justice Robert Sewell.

"This proceeding has been hard-fought from the beginning," says
the notice of application filed Dec. 4 by lawyers representing
the plaintiffs, seeking the judge's approval of a settlement
agreed upon after years of sometimes contentious legal wrangling.

This month's settlement follows a partial settlement in 2015
which was approved, according to court filings, only after
several lawyers for both sides "engaged in a protracted, at times
difficult and ultimately successful arm's-length negotiation over
a period of many months." This month's settlement covers the
remaining defendant corporations who did not agree to the 2015
settlement.

Mike Wagner, Esq. -- mwagner@farris.com -- a lawyer representing
the plaintiffs, said this week: "We went toe-to-toe against huge
corporations and got a good result on behalf of consumers."

"Class actions tend to take longer than you think when you start
them, but this was really an odyssey for us," said Wagner, of the
firm Farris, Vaughan, Wills & Murphy.

This month's settlement is largely the same as the 2015
agreement, but also requires the defendant companies to make a
charitable donation of $25,000 to the B.C. Children's Hospital,
to be matched by a donation from Farris.

The lawsuit involved gas fireplaces installed between 2001 and
2014 from manufacturers including Lennox, Montigo and Miles
Industries.

The class-action comes to a close almost exactly five years after
it was commenced in December 2012 by Charity and Craig Cantlie, a
month after the Vancouver couple's one-year-old son Owen
seriously burned his hand when he touched a gas fireplace.

Craig Cantlie said December 28: "The wheels of justice go slow
sometimes . . . but it's nice that's there's been a positive
settlement to it all."

"Realistically, it's probably the best outcome we could have
hoped for," Cantlie said. "We got in this to hopefully just make
a change."

In recognition of the Cantlies' time and service to the case,
they were each awarded a $4,000 honorarium in the 2015
settlement.

They decided not to keep the money, but instead to donate all
$8,000 to the B.C. Professional Firefighters' Burn Fund for the
creation of the Owen Cantlie Bursary, Craig Cantlie swore in an
affidavit filed this month, writing: "The Owen Cantlie Bursary
will be awarded annually to support the educational pursuits of
young burn victims."

The bursary has been awarded twice so far to young burn victims
to support their educations, Cantlie said.

In support of the class action, Dr. Cynthia Verchere, medical
director of the burn program at B.C. Children's Hospital, swore
in an affidavit she had personally treated or supervised the
treatment of "well over 100 children from British Columbia whose
hands and/or faces were burned through contact with gas
fireplaces," and co-authored a study documenting more than 600
serious burns suffered by Canadian children from glass-fronted
gas fireplaces.

That study reported a "greater than 20-fold increase over 20
years" in the number of burns from glass-fronted fireplaces,
demonstrating "a growing risk from glass-fronted fireplace burns,
likely due to the increasing popularity of household gas
fireplace units."

Reached by phone this week, Verchere said: "I just kept seeing
these kids come into my clinic (with burns) . . . There's lots of
things that we just can't prevent, but for something that's
completely preventable, it just seemed to me to be a big
problem."

Canadians who own a fireplace from the settling defendant
companies are encouraged to contact the settlement administrator
at 1-800-801-2521 or through the website
www.gasfireplaceclaim.ca, so they can get more information and
find out whether they can get a free screen or barrier.

The defendants have also agreed to pay legal fees for Farris'
work on behalf of the plaintiffs, which came to approximately
$1.8 million between the two settlements. [GN]


GOOGLE LLC: Damore and Gudeman Allege Gender & Racial Bias
----------------------------------------------------------
JAMES DAMORE and DAVID GUDEMAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. GOOGLE, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1-10, the Defendant,
Case No. 18CV321529 (Cal. Super. Ct., Jan. 8, 2018), seeks to
stop Google from repeating discrimination practices against other
employees or prospective employees now, and in the future.

The Plaintiffs bring this individual and class action on behalf
of themselves and on behalf of a class and subclasses defined as
all employees of Google discriminated against (i) due to their
perceived conservative political views by Google in California at
any time during the time period beginning four years prior to the
filing of this Complaint through the date of trial in this action
("Political Class Period"); (ii) due to their male gender by
Google in California at any time during the time period beginning
one year prior to the filing of this Complaint through the date
of trial in this action ("Gender Class Period"); and/or (iii) due
to their Caucasian race by Google in California at any time
during the time period beginning one year prior to the filing of
this Complaint through the date of trial in this action ("Race
Class Period") (Political Class Period, Gender Class Period, and
Race Class Period referred to collectively, as "Class Periods").
These violations also subject Google to claims for violation of
California's Business and Professions Code.

Throughout the Class Periods, and in violation of California law,
Google employees who expressed views deviating from the majority
view at Google on political subjects raised in the workplace and
relevant to Google's employment policies and its business, such
as "diversity" hiring policies, "bias sensitivity," or "social
justice," were/are singled out, mistreated, and systematically
punished and terminated from Google, in violation of their legal
rights.

Google's open hostility for conservative thought is paired with
invidious discrimination on the basis of race and gender, barred
by law. Google's management goes to extreme -- and illegal --
lengths to encourage hiring managers to take protected categories
such as race and/or gender into consideration as determinative
hiring factors, to the detriment of Caucasian and male employees
and potential employees at Google.

According to the lawsuit, Damore, Gudeman, and other class
members were ostracized, belittled, and punished for their
heterodox political views, and for the added sin of their birth
circumstances of being Caucasians and/or males. This is the
essence of discrimination -- Google formed opinions about and
then treated Plaintiffs not based on their individual merits, but
rather on their membership in groups with assumed
characteristics.

According to the lawsuit, Google employees and managers strongly
preferred to hear the same orthodox opinions regurgitated
repeatedly, producing an ideological echo chamber, a protected,
distorted bubble of groupthink. When Plaintiffs challenged
Google's illegal employment practices, they were openly
threatened and subjected to harassment and retaliation from
Google. Google created an environment of protecting employees who
harassed individuals who spoke out against Google's view or the
"Googley way," as it is sometimes known internally. Google
employees knew they could harass Plaintiffs with impunity, given
the tone set by managers -- and they did so.

According to the lawsuit, Google employs illegal hiring quotas to
fill its desired percentages of women and favored minority
candidates, and openly shames managers of business units who fail
to meet their quotas -- in the process, openly denigrating male
and Caucasian employees as less favored than others. Not only was
the numerical presence of women celebrated at Google solely due
to their gender, but the presence of Caucasians and males was
mocked with "boos" during companywide weekly meetings. This
unacceptable behavior occurred at the hands of high-level
managers at Google who were responsible for hundreds, if not
thousands, of hiring and firing decisions during the Class
Periods.

Google is an American multinational technology company that
specializes in Internet-related services and products. These
include online advertising technologies, search, cloud computing,
software, and hardware.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Harmeet K. Dhillon, Esq.
          Ravdeep S. Grewal, Esq.
          Gregory R. Michael, Esq.
          DHILLON LAW GROUP INC.
          177 Post Street, Suite 700
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 433 1700
          Facsimile: (415) 520 6593
          E-mail: harmeet@dhillonlaw.com
                  rgrewal@dhillonlaw.com
                  gmichael@dhillonlaw.com


HIG CAPITAL: Faces "Klein" Stockholder Suit in Delaware Ch. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
MELVYN KLEIN v. H.I.G. CAPITAL, L.L.C.; H.I.G. SURGERY CENTERS,
LLC; H.I.G. BAYSIDE DEBT & LBO FUND II; BCPE SEMINOLE HOLDINGS
LP; BAIN CAPITAL INVESTORS, LLC; BAIN CAPITAL PRIVATE EQUITY, LP;
MICHAEL DOYLE; MATTHEW LOZOW; ADAM FEINSTEIN; TERESA DELUCA; and
BRENT TURNER, Defendants, and SURGERY PARTNERS, INC., Nominal
Defendant, Case No. 2017-0862 (Del. Ch. Ct., December 4, 2017),
is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class of similarly
situated stockholders, asserting claims for breaches of fiduciary
duty and, in the alternative, against Bain Capital for aiding-
and-abetting breaches of fiduciary duty by the other Defendants.

The action arises from a conflicted three-part transaction
involving Surgery Partners, the Company's former majority
stockholder (HIG) and the Company's current majority stockholder
(Bain Capital), according to the complaint.  On May 9, 2017, the
Company entered into three linked transactions, all of which were
approved by HIG via written consent:

   a. The NSH Acquisition.  Surgery Partners agreed to acquire
      National Surgical Healthcare ("NSH") from Irving Place
      Capital for approximately $760 million;

   b. The HIG Share Sale.  HIG agreed to sell all of its common
      shares of Surgery Partners -- representing a 54% stake in
      the Company -- to Bain Capital at a price of $19 per share
      for a total purchase price of approximately $502.7 million
      (the "HIG Share Sale"); and

   c. The Bain Capital Share Issuance.  Surgery Partners agreed
      to issue and sell to Bain Capital 310,000 shares of a newly
      created class of Series A Preferred Stock (the "Preferred
      Stock"), at a price per share of $1,000 (i.e., a total
      price of $310 million) (the "Bain Capital Share Issuance").

H.I.G. Capital, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company.
H.I.G. Capital is a private investment management firm that
focuses on private equity, venture capital, debt/credit, real
estate and public equity investments.  H.I.G. Surgery Centers,
LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company and is an affiliate
of and managed by H.I.G. Capital, LLC.  H.I.G. Bayside Debt & LBO
Fund II is a Delaware limited partnership and is an affiliate of
and managed by H.I.G. Capital, LLC.

BCPE Seminole Holdings LP is a Delaware limited partnership and
an affiliate of Bain Capital Private Equity, LP.  Bain Capital
Investors, LLC, is the sole member of BCPE Seminole GP LLC, which
is the general partner of BCPE Seminole Holdings LP.

Bain Capital Private Equity, LP, is a Delaware limited
partnership.  Bain Capital Private Equity is an investment
advisory firm focused on researching and advising on private
equity investments, including leveraged acquisitions and
recapitalizations, investments in growth companies, turnarounds
and traditional buyouts in a wide variety of industries.  BCI is
the general partner of Bain Capital Private Equity GP LLC, which,
in turn, is the general partner of Bain Capital Private Equity,
LP.

Surgery Partners, Inc. is a Delaware corporation, headquartered
in Nashville, Tennessee, providing surgical services across 29
states.  The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of
Surgery Partners.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kurt M. Heyman, Esq.
          Melissa N. Donimirski, Esq.
          HEYMAN ENERIO GATTUSO & HIRZEL LLP
          300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 200
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 472-7300
          E-mail: kheyman@hegh.law
                  mdonimirski@hegh.law

               - and -

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


HOBSON PROPERTIES: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Waite" Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM WAITE, AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED UNDER 29 USC
216(B) v. HOBSON PROPERTIES, d/b/a U-LOC-IT SELF STORAGE, 377
SELF STORAGE, OAK HILL STORAGE, and PHILIP RAY HOBSON,
Individually, Case No. 3:17-cv-03278-M (N.D. Tex., December 4,
2017), alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act by failing to pay the Plaintiff at the rate of time
and one-half his regular rate of pay when he was required to work
in excess of 40 hours in a given week.

Hobson Properties is a corporation that does business throughout
this District.  Hobson Properties owns and operates various
properties and businesses, including U-Loc-It Self Storage, 377
Self Storage, and Oak Hill Storage.  Philip R. Hobson is an owner
or officer of Hobson Properties and its associated
properties.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Forester, Esq.
          FORESTER LAW PC
          1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 288-8519
          Facsimile: (214) 346-5909
          E-mail: jay@thewagelawyers.com


HONEYWELL INTL: Brief Due Feb. 21 in "Pacheco" 4th Cir. Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Augustine Pacheco and Vicki Hansen, for themselves and others
similarly-situated, the Plaintiff - Appellees, v. Honeywell
International Inc., the Defendant - Appellant, Case No. 18-1006
(8th Cir, Jan. 2, 2018), is an appeal filed before the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit from a lower court
decision in a fraud class action, Case No. 0:17-cv-05048-SRN (D.
Minn., Nov 7, 2017).

Appellant brief is due on Feb. 21, 2018. Appellee brief is due 30
days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity
filing the brief of appellant.

Appellant reply brief is due 14 days from the date the court
issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the appellee brief.

Vicki Hansen and Augustine Pacheco's response were due Jan 8,
2018.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff - Appellees:

          John G. Adam, Esq.
          LEGGHIO & ISRAEL
          306 S. Washington, Suite 600
          Royal Oak, MI 48607
          Telephone: (248) 398 5900

               - and -

          Katrina E. Joseph, Esq.
          TEAMSTERS LOCAL 120
          9422 Ulysses Street, N.E., Suite 120
          Blaine, MN 55434
          Telephone: 763-267-6146

Attorneys for Honeywell International, Inc.:

          Kenneth Winn Allen, Esq.
          Kathleen Ann Brogan, Esq.
          Craig Scott Primis, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS
          655 15th Street, N.W., Suite 1200
          Washington, DC 20005-0000

               - and -

          Donald Marion Lewis, Esq.
          Jeremy D. Robb, Esq.
          Joseph George Schmitt, Esq.
          NILAN & JOHNSON
          400 One Financial Plaza
          120 S. Sixth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Business: 612-305-7500
          Personal: 612-338-1838


ICOT HEARING: Sued by "Charvat" Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Charvat, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Icot Hearing Systems, LLC D/B/A
Listenclear and Icot Holdings, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-
00245 (S.D. Ga., December 14, 2017), seeks statutory damages for
each violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
injunctive relief, compensation and attorney fees and all other
relief.

Defendants market hearing aids under the Listenclear brand via
telemarketing. They attempted to call Charvat despite being on
the Do-Not-Call Registry using auto-dialers. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven H. Koval, Esq.
      THE KOVAL FIRM, LLC
      3575 Piedmont Road
      Building 15, Suite 120
      Atlanta, GA 30305
      Telephone: (404) 513-6651
      Facsimile: (404) 549-4654
      Email: Steve@KovalFirm.com

             - and -

     Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
     BRODERICK & PARONICH, P.C.
     99 High St., Suite 304
     Boston, MA 02110
     Tel: (508) 221-1510
     Email: anthony@broderick-law.com


IDREAMSKY TECHNOLOGY: Rosen Law, Glancy Propose Class Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., and Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP
disclosed that the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York has approved the following announcement of a
proposed class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of
American Depository Shares of iDreamSky Technology Limited:

Summary Notice Of Pendency And Settlement Of Action
And Settlement Hearing

TO:    ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED IDREAMSKY
TECHNOLOGY LIMITED ("IDS") AMERICAN DEPOSITARY SHARES ("ADS")
BETWEEN AUGUST 7, 2014 AND MARCH 13, 2015, INCLUSIVE.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, that
a hearing will be held on April 3, 2018, at 4:00 p.m. before the
Honorable J. Paul Oetken, United States District Judge of the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley
Square, Courtroom 706, New York, New York, 10007, for the purpose
of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the claims
in the above-captioned Action for consideration including the sum
of $4,150,000.00 should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the proposed plan to
distribute the Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and
adequate; (3) whether the application of Co-Lead Counsel for an
award of attorneys' fees of up to thirty three and one-third
percent (33 1/3%) plus interest of the Settlement Amount,
reimbursement of expenses of not more than $30,000, and an award
of no more than $10,000, in aggregate, or $2,000 each, to Lead
Plaintiff and named plaintiffs ("Plaintiffs"), should be
approved; (4) whether an order should be entered barring and
enjoining Lead Plaintiff and all Class Members from instituting,
commencing, assisting, maintaining or prosecuting, either
directly, indirectly, or in a representative capacity, any action
in any court or tribunal asserting any Released Claims and (5)
whether this Action should be dismissed with prejudice as set
forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated November 28, 2017
(the "Stipulation").

If you purchased IDS ADSs during the period from August 7, 2014
to March 13, 2015, both dates inclusive (the "Settlement Class
Period"), your rights may be affected by this Settlement,
including the release and extinguishment of claims you may
possess relating to your ownership interest in IDS ADSs.  If you
have not received a Notice of (I) Pendency and Proposed
Settlement of Class Action; (II) Motion for Attorneys' Fees and
Expenses; and (III) Settlement Fairness Hearing ("Notice") and a
copy of the Proof of Claim and Release Form ("Proof of Claim"),
you may obtain copies by writing to or calling the Claims
Administrator: iDreamSky Technology Limited Securities
Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, 600 N. Jackson St.,
Ste. 3, P.O. Box 230, Media, PA 19063; (Tel) (866) 274-4004;
(Fax) (610) 565-7985; info@strategicclaims.net, or going to the
website, www.strategicclaims.net.  If you are a member of the
Settlement Class, to share in the distribution of the Net
Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim postmarked no
later than March 20, 2018 to the Claims Administrator,
establishing that you are entitled to recovery.  Unless you
submit a written exclusion request ("Request for Exclusion"), you
will be bound by any judgment rendered in the Action whether or
not you make a claim.

If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
submit a Request for Exclusion, postmarked no later than March 5,
2018, in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice to
the Claims Administrator.  All members of the Settlement Class
who have not requested exclusion from the Settlement Class will
be bound by any judgment entered in the Action.

Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Co-Lead
Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses and award to Plaintiffs must be in the
manner and form explained in the Notice and filed and served so
that it is received no later than March 13, 2018, by each of the
following:

Clerk of the Court
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street
New York, New York 10007

CO-LEAD COUNSEL:

Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq.
Keith Lorenze
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440
Jenkintown, PA  19046

Joshua L. Crowell, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067

COUNSEL FOR IDS:

Scott D. Musoff, Esq.
Robert A. Fumerton, Esq.
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
Four Times Square
New York, NY 10036

COUNSEL FOR THE UNDERWRITER DEFENDANTS:

Peter Eric Kazanoff, Esq.
Sarah Emily Phillips, Esq.
SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
425 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017

If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or
write to Co-Lead Counsel:

Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq.
Keith Lorenze, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440
Jenkintown, PA 19046
Tel.: 215-600-2817

Joshua L. Crowell, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Tel.: (619) 238-1333 [GN]


INTEL CORP: "Jones" Suit Alleges Consumer Act Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Carl Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Intel Corp. and Does 1-10, Case No. 5:18-cv-00105
(N.D. Calif., January 5, 2018), is brought against the Defendant
for violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the
California Business & Professional Code, Song-Beverly Warranty
Act and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

This is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of consumers who
purchased computers containing an Intel x89-64x series of CPUs.
Defendant Intel's x86-64x CPUs suffer from a security defect,
which causes the CPUs to be exposed to troubling security
vulnerabilities by allowing potential access to extremely secure
kernel data (the "Defect").

Plaintiff Carl Jones resides in Santa Clara County, California.
Plaintiff Jones purchased an MSI GT80 series laptop computer in
this State online through Amazon.com for the sum certain of
$3,047.91 on or about January 22, 2016.

Defendant Intel Corp. is engaged in the business of designing,
manufacturing, selling and/or distributing CPUs. Defendants
design, manufacture, develop and ship their products to
purchasers, resellers and distributors in and from California,
maintain a direct sales force and customer service department in
California, sell their products through retail outlets in
California, and create the specifications for their products in
and/or disseminates them from California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeff S. Westerman, Esq.
      Kenneth A. Remson, Esq.
      WESTERMAN LAW CORP.
      1875 Century Park East, Suite 2200
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Tel: (310) 698-7880
      Fax: (310) 698-7452
      E-mail: jwesterman@jswlegal.com
              kremson@jswlegal.com

          - and -

      Alan M. Mansfield, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP OF CALIFORNIA
      16870 W. Bernardo Dr., Suite 400
      San Diego, CA  92127
      Tel: (619) 308-5034
      Fax: (855) 274-1888
      E-mail: alan@clgca.com


INTERCONTINENTAL EXPORT: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Saulton, writing for The Marietta Times, reports that two
filings, one to dismiss and one to amend the original complaint
in the Intercontinental Export Import fire, were filed December
26 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia.

In the motion to dismiss, attorneys for the Surnaik Holdings of
West Virginia claim due to the hasty filings of claims there are
a number of legal flaws.

All cases related to the fire at the former Ames plant in
Parkersburg were removed to U.S. District Court in November from
Wood County Circuit Court to become class action suits.

Attorneys for Surnaik Holdings claim the speed in which the
claims were made, two days after the fire began in October and a
week before it was extinguished, marked an uncertain beginning of
the litigation.

"Plaintiffs' hasty filing necessitated an equally hasty
'investigation of the factual and legal bases,'" the filing
states. "As a result, plaintiffs' limited allegation and bare
legal conclusions fail to provide defendants fair notice of the
claims against them."

The defendants claim the tort claims are barred by the economic
loss rule, the trespass claim fails for lack of tangible
interference, there is no claim for private nuisance and they
lack standing to assert public nuisance, according to the court
filing. The negligence claims cannot proceed because there are no
plausible allegations to present or reasonably certain future
injury and the plaintiffs' request for declaratory relief does
not constitute a cause of action, according to the court filing.

"Accordingly, the array of defendants that plaintiffs sue just
two days after the fire started now asks this court to hold the
pleading accountable to the law," the filing states. "It cannot
withstand the scrutiny."

Parkersburg attorney David A. Sims, Esq. one of the plaintiffs'
attorneys, said he does not expect the court to grant the motion
to dismiss.

"We are preparing a response to the filing by the defendants in
the case," he said December 28. "Motions to dismiss are rarely
granted, even in federal court, and we don't anticipate this one
being any different."

At the same time a third amended class action complaint was filed
to add defendants. In addition to IEI, SirNaik LLC, Surnaik
Holdings of West Virginia LLC, Polymer Alliance Services LLC and
Green Sustainable Solutions LLC and DuPont, the suit adds
Evergreen Transportation, Green Research Center LLC, Kuraray
America, Inc., SABIC Innovative Plastics U.S, LLC and individuals
Upendra Naik, Saurabh Naik, Rajiv Naik and Shraddha Naik.

Evergreen Transportation and Green Research Center LLC are
companies listed as joint ventures of SirNaik LLC, Surnaik
Holdings of West Virginia LLC, Polymer Alliance Services LLC,
Green Sustainable Solutions LLC, Green Research Center LLC, IEI
and John Does 1-25 and John Doe Corps. 26-50.

In the amended suit, the individuals known as the Naik defendants
are listed as being in joint ventures with DuPont, Kuraray
America, Inc., and SABIC Innovative Plastics U.S., LLC, known as
"manufacturer defendants."

It is not specified as to what ventures in which they are
involved. [GN]


JAMES MAYER: Faces "Latteri" Suit in District of New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against James Mayer. The
case is captioned as LORAINE LATTERI, on behalf of herself and
those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. JAMES MAYER and JOHN
DOES 1 to 10, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-13707-JLL-JAD
(D.N.J., Dec. 27, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Chief
Judge Jose L. Linares.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM LLC
          411 Hackensack Ave 2 Fl.
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 273 7117
          Facsimile: (201) 273 7117
          E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com


KOBE STEEL: Bronstein, Gewirtz Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, notifies investors that a
class action lawsuit has been filed against Kobe Steel, Ltd. and
certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased
Kobe American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") of Kobe Steel on the
open market in the U.S., during the period May 29, 2013 through
October 12, 2017, and were damaged thereby. Such investors are
encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/kbsty.

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

The complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and failed to disclose the quality of its
products and integrity of its operations by emphasizing that it
offers "excellent products and services" with "special attention
to product safety" as it has "an organizational culture that is
highly sensitive to compliance issues." The lawsuit claims that
the Company withheld data on many of its aluminum, copper, iron
and steel products, and knowingly sold products that failed
quality control tests.

On October 8, 2017, Kobe Steel stated that it "has discovered
that in its Aluminum & Copper Business, including group
companies, a portion of the products traded with customers did
not comply with the product specifications which were agreed
between the Company and its customers. Data in inspection
certificates had been improperly rewritten etc., and the products
were shipped as having met the specifications concerned."
Following this news, shares of Kobe ADRs dropped $2.37 per share
or roughly 40% during that week.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/kbstyor you may contact Peretz Bronstein,
Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you
suffered a loss in Kobe you have until February 26, 2018 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve
as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  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.
         Yael Hurwit, Esq.
         Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
         Tel.No.: 212-697-6484
         Email: peretz@bgandg.com [GN]


KOBE STEEL: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP, a securities litigation firm representing
investors nationwide, disclosed that a class action has been
filed against Kobe Steel, Ltd. and certain of its officers and
directors, alleging violations of the federal securities laws.

In October of 2017, Kobe issued several statements admitting that
it had "improperly rewritten" the data inspection certificates
for thousands of tons of its copper and aluminum shipped to its
customers, which include Toyota Motor Corp. and Honda Motor Co.,
among others. On this news, the Company's stock plunged, causing
hundreds of millions in losses to investors.

The complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (Aude v. Kobe Steel, Ltd, et al.,
17-cv-10085), alleges that between May 29, 2013 and October 12,
2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"), the defendants repeatedly
misrepresented the quality of the Company's products, knowing
that Kobe had falsified data on many of its copper, aluminum,
iron, and steel products, misrepresenting that such products had
passed quality control tests.

If you purchased Kobe American Depository Receipts during the
Class Period and wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must move
the Court no later than February 26, 2018.  As a member of the
class, you may seek to file a motion to serve as a lead plaintiff
or take no action and remain an absent class member. If you wish
to become involved in the litigation or have questions about your
legal rights, you are encouraged to contact attorney Bradley
Vettraino at (617) 398-5600, by email at bradley@blockesq.com, or
by visiting www.blockesq.com/kobe.

Confidentiality to whistleblowers or others with information
relevant to this investigation is assured.

Block & Leviton LLP is a Boston-based law firm representing
investors nationwide. The firm's lawyers have collectively been
prosecuting securities cases on behalf of individual and
institutional investors for over 50 years, and have recovered
billions of dollars on their behalf. Block & Leviton's
investigations into corporate wrongdoing were recently covered by
the New York Times.

The court in which the case is pending is located at 500 Pearl
Street, New York, NY 10007.

This notice may constitute attorney advertising.

         CONTACT:

         Bradley J. Vettraino, Esq.
         Block & Leviton LLP
         Tel.No.: (617) 398-5600
         Email: bradley@blockesq.com [GN]


KOBE STEEL: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against Kobe Steel Ltd. and certain of its officers.  The
class action, filed in United States District Court, for the
Southern District of New York, is on behalf of a class consisting
of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Kobe Steel's
American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") between May 29, 2013 and
October 12, 2017, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking to recover damages caused by defendants' violations of
the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against
the Company and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Kobe Steel securities
between May 29, 2013, and October 12, 2017, both dates inclusive,
you have until February 26, 2018, to ask the Court to appoint you
as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be
obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.  To discuss this action,
contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing
address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

Kobe Steel is one of Japan's largest steel manufacturers and a
major supplier of aluminum and copper products. The Company's
other business segments include wholesale power supply machinery,
construction machinery, real estate and electronic materials.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance
policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that:  (i) the Company
falsified data on many of its aluminum, copper and steel products
sold to customers; (ii) the Company sold products that in reality
failed quality control tests in violation of laws and
regulations; (iii) the Company's financial performance relied on
selling products that did not meet quality standards in violation
of laws and regulations; (iv) the Company would incur significant
costs and lose customers if customers became aware of the
substandard quality of products they purchased; (v) the Company's
compliance initiatives, corporate governance and risk management
activities were ineffective and inadequate at preventing product
data manipulation, fraud and other related misconduct; (vi) the
Company's internal reporting systems failed to foster employee
participation and adequately address employee concerns, and there
was an excessive propensity by senior management, including the
Individual Defendants, to hyper-emphasize profitability at all
costs, that promoted a pervasive culture of corner-cutting, and
looking the other way in the face of compliance violations, as
long as profits were achieved, which deterred employees from
making claims over product quality for fear of retribution and/or
management failing to properly investigate claims; and (vii) as a
result of the foregoing, Kobe Steel's shares traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, and class
members suffered significant losses and damages.

On October 8, 2017, the Company issued a press release entitled
"Improper conduct concerning a portion of the aluminum and copper
products manufactured by Kobe Steel." The press release disclosed
that certain of Kobe Steel's products "did not comply with the
product specifications" and "[d]ata in inspection certificates
had been improperly rewritten etc., and the products were shipped
as having met the specifications concerned."

On this news, Kobe Steel's ADR price fell $0.62, or over 10% from
its previous closing price, to close at $5.30 per share on
October 9, 2017.

On October 10, 2017, before the U.S. market opened, Reuters
published an article entitled, "Kobe Steel's data-fabrication
stuns Japanese manufacturers," which disclosed that several major
manufacturers had confirmed use of the affected Kobe Steel
products.

On this news, Kobe Steel's ADR price fell $1.30, or over 24% from
its previous closing price, to close at $4.00 per share on
October 10, 2017.

On October 12, 2017, post-market, Bloomberg published an article
entitled, "Kobe Steel Scandal Expands Into Core Business
Overseas," which reported that the Company's fake data scandal
included its core business of providing steel to numerous
international companies.

On October 13, 2017, Kobe Steel issued a press release entitled,
"Report on improper conduct concerning Kobe Steel and its group
of companies." The press release provided updated information
about an investigation into the falsified data and related
wrongdoing and listed numerous nonconforming products the Company
had identified to date. On the same day, several media outlets
reported that the number of impacted customers had more than
doubled from the initial estimates of 200 customers.

Following these news, Kobe Steel's ADR price fell $0.40, or over
10% from its previous closing price, to close at $3.55 per share
on October 13, 2017.

Subsequent news reports and the Company's own internal
investigation revealed that Kobe Steel's lack of quality controls
and data tampering was a result of, among other things, wholly
inadequate and ineffective corporate governance and compliance
initiatives.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los
Angeles, and Paris, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms
in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as
the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com

         Robert S. Willoughby, Esq.
         Pomerantz LLP
         Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]


LET'S EAT OUT: Morehouse Seeks to Recover Overtime Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
TIAUNA MOREHOUSE, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. LET'S EAT OUT, INCORPORATED, Case No. 5:17-
cv-02025-UJH-LSC (N.D. Ala., December 4, 2017), is brought on
behalf of those employees, who were paid by the hour but were
denied compensation for all hours worked, denied payment for
overtime, denied minimum wage, and suffered illegal deductions
from their pay for the three years preceding the filing of the
original complaint and through the final disposition of this
matter.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensation, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the provisions of Section
216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Let's Eat Out, Incorporated, is a foreign for-profit corporation,
licensed to and doing business in Alabama.  LEO operates food
service franchises throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David A. Hughes, Esq.
          HARDIN & HUGHES, LLP
          2121 14th Street
          Tuscaloosa, AL 35401
          Telephone: (205) 523-0463
          Facsimile: (205) 344-6188
          E-mail: dhughes@hardinhughes.com

               - and -

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
          ANDERSON2X, PLLC
          819 N. Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452-1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
          E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
                  austin@a2xlaw.com


LOS ANGELES, CA: Garris Moves to Certify Landlord, Renter Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Switzer and Jason Teague, two of the Plaintiffs in the
lawsuit titled BRANDI GARRIS, JOHN SWITZER and JASON TEAGUE v.
CITY OF LOS ANGELES and LOS ANGELES HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
INVESTMENT DEPARTMENT, f/k/a LOS ANGELES HOUSING DEPARTMENT, Case
No. 2:17-cv-01452-MWF-E (C.D. Cal.), move for an order certifying
the matter to proceed as a class action.

The Plaintiffs ask that the Court define two Classes as follows:

   (1) The Landlord Class:

       All landlords who, between October 9, 2014 and class
       certification, owned a residential rental property subject
       to the Los Angeles Housing Code, Section 161.101 to
       161.1201, and paid a fee pursuant to Section 161.352.

   (2) The Renter Class:

       All renters who, between October 9, 2014 and class
       certification, rented a residential rental unit subject to
       the Los Angeles Housing Code, Section 161.101 to 161.1201,
       and reimbursed their landlords for a fee the landlord paid
       pursuant to Section 161.352.

Excluded from both Classes are the Defendants, their employees,
agents and attorneys, the Court, and any landlords or renters
whose units were only inspected pursuant to an administrative
warrant or exigent circumstances.

The Plaintiffs seek certification of both Classes for claims
arising under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and
under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.

The Plaintiffs also seek appointment of Mr. Teague as class
representative for the Landlord Class and Mr. Switzer as class
representative for the Renter Class.  The Plaintiffs further ask
that Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan be appointed as class
counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on January 22, 2018, at 10:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=KfRc3oNa

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Dominic Surprenant, Esq.
          Michael Lombardo, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543
          Telephone: (213) 443-3000
          Facsimile: (213) 443-3100
          E-mail: dominicsurprenant@quinnemanuel.com
                  mikelombardo@quinnemanuel.com


LUCERNE BAKERY: "Mendoza" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
VILMA M. MENDOZA, and other similarly-situated individuals, the
Plaintiff (s), v. LUCERNE BAKERY, INC. and JORGE J. ROMERO,
individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-24731-JEM (S.D.
Fla., Dec. 29, 2017), is brought by Plaintiff as a collective
action on behalf of Plaintiff and all other current and former
employees similarly situated to Plaintiff and who worked in
excess of 40 hours during one or more weeks on or after October
2014, without being properly compensated.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a bakery and coffee shop
attendant, cahier, and cleaning person from August 2014 through
September 24, 2017, or more than 3 years. The Plaintiff was paid
as a tipped employee $5.15 an hour plus tips received from
customers. These tips were collected in a jar, and at the end of
the week, were distributed to employees participating in the tip
sharing agreement.

While employed by Defendants, Plaintiff worked a regular schedule
of 6 days per week, from Monday to Saturday; from 1:00 PM to 6:00
PM (5 hours daily), or 30 hours weekly. However, within the
period from August 2015, to February 2017, Plaintiff worked every
week more than 40 hours. For at least 65 weeks Plaintiff worked
in the morning shift, and then her regular afternoon shift. The
Plaintiff worked weeks of 46, 54, 56, and 62 hours. Plaintiff did
not take bona fide lunch breaks. The Plaintiff worked more than
40 hours every week, but she was not compensated adequately for
overtime hours.

The Defendant is a bakery/coffee shop located at 7415 Coral Way,
Miami, Florida 33155.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LUNG INSTITUTE: "Rivero" Suit Moved to Middle District of Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Tammy Rivero and Howard Bennett,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Lung Institute, LLC and Regenerative Medicine
Solutions, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 16-CA7765 Div F, was
removed from the 13th Judicial Circuit - Hillsborough County, to
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
(Tampa) on Dec. 29, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 8:17-cv-03113-SDM-MAP to the proceeding. The case is assigned
to the Hon. Judge Steven D. Merryday.

The Lung Institute treats chronic lung disease with stem cell
therapies to offer an alternative to traditional treatments.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Ben A. Vinson, Jr., Esq.
          VINSON LAW LLC
          505 E Jackson St Suite 207
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 839 5708
          Facsimile: (813) 831 5043
          E-mail: ben@vinsonlawoffice.com

Attorneys for Lung Institute, LLC

          Megan R. Stelljes, Esq.
          Naikang Tsao, Esq.
          Nicholas E. Williams, Esq.
          Foley & Lardner, LLP
          150 E Gilman St
          PO Box 1497
          Madison, WI 53701-1497
          Telephone: (608) 257 5035
          E-mail: ntsao@foley.com
                  nwilliams@foley.com


MARKETSOURCE INC: "Hoel" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
SIVI HOEL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. MARKETSOURCE, INC. (MARYLAND), the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05547-LMM (N.D. Ga., Dec. 29, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and
the costs of reasonable attorney's fees under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Marketsource had a common pay
practice and policy of denying its Account Managers overtime pay
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per work week without any
good faith basis under the FLSA for doing so. From the time
Plaintiff was hired in April 2012 until her last date of
employment or about March 2016, Marketsource treated Plaintiff
and all others in the putative class as salaried exempt
employees.

Sometime in or about November, 2016, Defendant announced it was
changing everyone in these positions to hourly, non-exempt
employees because of alleged "changes in the Federal Law". At no
time did Defendant offer to pay Plaintiff or the classes of
similarly situated employees overtime wages for all their hours
worked prior to November 2016; and Defendant never made any
inquiry about the overtime hours Plaintiff and the class of
similarly situated worked prior to this date.

Further, Defendant never discussed the exemption previously
claimed and the rights of the Plaintiff and the classes of
similarly situated to overtime pay, the applicable and proper
overtime rates they were now entitled to be paid for overtime
hours worked, and the fact that bonuses were required to be
included in the calculation of the regular rate and overtime
rates of pay.

Marketsource required its Account Managers to work in excess of
40 hours a week, and knew by communications with Account
Managers, review of records and assessment of the territories
assigned that the position required over 40 hours routinely in
order to meet job requirements. Defendant knew that, for
Plaintiff and the classes of similarly situated account managers
meet metrics and goals that they had to work overtime hours,
including travel times which would compel them to work from early
in the morning until late at night, as well as on the weekends
and days off. Defendant willfully misclassified Plaintiff and the
Class of similarly situated present and former account managers
as exempt employees on a uniform basis, without regard to any
individualized analysis of the work performed.

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

Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell L. Feldman Esq.
          FELDMAN WILLIAMS PLLC
          1201 Peachtree Street NW
          400 Colony Square, suite 200
          Atlanta, GA 30361
          Telephone: (813) 639 9366
          Facsimile: (813) 639 9376
          E-mail: mitch@feldmanwilliams.com


MARKETSOURCE INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Sabile Says
----------------------------------------------------------
DANA RHEA SABILE, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MARKETSOURCE INC.
(MARYLAND), the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05546-SCJ (N.D. Ga.,
Dec. 29, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Account Representatives were paid on
a salary basis and classified as Exempt employees up through
November, 2016, and thereafter, were reclassified to hourly, non-
exempt employees but, as Plaintiff contends, were still not paid
a premium for all overtime hours worked, and were underpaid the
lawfully required rate.

Account Representatives routinely worked in excess of 40 hours
per week, as the job commanded, and with the encouragement,
urging and knowledge of management, but even after Defendant's
changing of all Account Reps to non-exempt status and payment of
some overtime wages, Account Representatives were unable to claim
all the overtime hours worked and continued to be permitted to
suffer to work off the clock. Although Marketsource may have paid
some overtime compensation to the Account representatives from on
or about November 2016 to the present, its procedures and pay
practices also precluded Account Representatives from being able
to record and report all their overtime hours, and encouraged
Account Reps to work off the clock.

Marketsource carelessly, recklessly and willfully failed to
institute systems in place to track and record all the work hours
for Account Representatives prior to 2016, and even after the
change to hourly, non-exempt status on or about November 2016
they willfully continued to avoid instituting an actual,
contemporaneous and accurate time tracking system.

Marketsource as well, upon information and belief, has failed to
include the Account Representatives' bonuses in the calculation
of the regular overtime rates of pay. By failing to include all
income earned in the calculation of their 'regular rate',
Marketsource underpaid Account Representatives at artificially
low overtime rates -- withholding millions of dollars in overtime
wages.

Further, by underpaying the overtime due and also not paying
overtime wages throughout the past 3 to 5 years for account
representatives, Marketsource also has breached its obligations
to Account Representatives under the company 401(k) Plan by
underfunding the individual plans and underfunding the corporate
match funding.

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

Attorney for Plaintiff and Classes:

          Mitchell L. Feldman Esq.
          FELDMAN WILLIAMS PLLC
          1201 Peachtree Street NW
          400 Colony Square, suite 200
          Atlanta, GA 30361
          Telephone: (813) 639 9366
          Facsimile: (813) 639 9376
          E-mail: mitch@feldmanwilliams.com


MARKETSOURCE INC: Underpays Account Sales Reps, Nunamacher Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GLENN NUNAMACHER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. MARKETSOURCE, INC.,
(MARYLAND), the Defendants, Case No. 8:18-cv-00057-CEH-JSS (M.D.
Fla., Jan. 8, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Florida's Minimum Wage Act.

According to the complaint, Marketsource had a common pay
practice and policy of denying its Account Sales Reps (ASR)
minimum wages for all hours worked up to 40 hours per work week,
without any good faith basis under the FLSA or the FMWA for doing
so, first by requiring and permitting Plaintiff and the class of
similarly situated to suffer to work off the clock.  Even when
Defendant did provide the opportunity to clock work hours, when
factoring in the costs of business related expenses: gasoline,
maintenance on vehicles, mileage, automobile insurance, cellular
telephone and cellular service and data plan costs, Plaintiff and
the class of similar situated fell short of being paid minimum
wages for each work week.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
          FELDMAN WILLIAMS PLLC
          6940 W. Linebaugh Ave, No. 101
          Tampa, FL 33625
          Telephone: (877) 946 8293
          Facsimile: (813) 639 9376
          E-mail: mitch@feldmanwilliams.com


MAXIMUM BOOTING: "Burke" Suit Moved to N.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled James E. Burke and Logistics and
Distribution Services, Inc., Individually, and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiffs, v. Maximum
Booting Company, LLC; Kenneth P. McElwaney, doing business as:
Maximum Booting Company; JDN Realty Corporation; DDR Property
Management LLC; Cymona West; and XYZ Company, the Defendants,
Case No., 17EV004847 was removed from the State Court of Fulton
County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia (Atlanta) on Dec. 31, 2017. The Northern District of
Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05553-WSD to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William S.
Duffey, Jr.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kevin Charles Patrick, Esq.
          KEVIN PATRICK LAW, LLC
          2860 Piedmont Road, Suite 195
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (404) 566-8964
          E-mail: kevin@patricktriallaw.com

               - and -

          Matthew Q. Wetherington, Esq.
          Michael L. Werner, Esq.
          Robert Neil Friedman, Esq.
          THE WERNER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          2860 Piedmont Rd, NE
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (404) 564 4329
          E-mail: matt@wernerlaw.com
                  mike@wernerlaw.com
                  Robert@wernerlaw.com

Attorneys for Maximum Booting Company, LLC and Kenneth P.
McElwaney, doing business as: Maximum Booting Company:

          Brynda Rodriguez Insley, Esq.
          Kenneth James Bentley, Esq.
          INSLEY & RACE
          The Mayfair Royal
          181 14th Street, N.E., Suite 200
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 876 9818
          Facsimile: (404) 876 9817
          E-mail: binsley@insleyrace.com
                  kbentley@insleyrace.com

Attorneys for JDN Realty Corporation, DDR Property Management
LLC, and Cymona West:

          Jeffrey Robert Daniel, Esq.
          Kenneth Drew Jones, Esq.
          HALL BOOTH SMITH, P.C.
          191 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 2900
          Atlanta, GA 30303-1775
          Telephone: (404) 954 -5000
          E-mail: jdaniel@hallboothsmith.com
                  kjones@hallboothsmith.com


MBTA RAMIREZ: Federal Judge Dismisses Shareholder Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Meghna Chakrabarti, writing for WBUR News, reports that a Texas
federal judge has dismissed a class action lawsuit against MBTA
General Manager Luis Ramirez. The lawsuit, filed by shareholders
of Global Power Equipment Group in May 2017, alleged that Ramirez
violated federal securities laws while he was CEO of the Dallas-
based company.

In a decision filed December 27, Chief District Judge Barbara
M.G. Lynn of the Northern District of Texas, found that the
plaintiffs failed to establish that Ramirez and other former
Global Power executives had knowingly acted "with intent to
deceive, manipulate, or defraud."

Ramirez and the MBTA both declined to comment on the ruling.

Ramirez served as Global Power's CEO from July 2012 to March
2015. It was his last job leading a large organization prior to
his appointment to head the MBTA. The Baker administration
celebrated Ramirez as the "turnaround" specialist the MBTA
needed, pointing to his record at Global Power and as a former
executive at GE.

But Ramirez's tenure at Global Power was marred with controversy.
The company filed erroneous financial statements to the
Securities and Exchange Commission under his leadership.
Immediately following Ramirez's resignation in March 2015, the
company had to announce that it would refile several years of SEC
statements.

That announcement triggered a massive drop in Global Power's
share price and put the company at risk of bankruptcy. Investors
sued.

Jeffrey Block, the Boston attorney who represents the
shareholders, told WBUR in August that "we allege Mr. Ramirez
didn't take proper steps to report errors. And in fact, the
company reported those financials with errors in place."

Plaintiffs also alleged that Ramirez attempted to hide the
company's financial problems.

Judge Lynn disagreed. "These allegations do not support the
contention that . . . Ramirez knew that financial reports, at the
time they were published, were false," she wrote in her dismissal
ruling.

Global Power investors also alleged that Ramirez misrepresented
the company's severe accounting troubles because his compensation
was tied to Global Power's financial performance. Lynn cut down
that argument, citing previous federal securities cases.

"Incentive compensation 'can hardly be the basis for which an
allegation of fraud is predicated' because if the Court were to
hold otherwise, 'the executives of virtually every corporation in
the United States would be subject to fraud allegations,'" she
wrote in the ruling.

The majority of federal securities class action lawsuits are
dismissed, according to NERA, an economics consulting firm. The
group's recent analysis found that between 2000 to 2016, more
than 70-percent of shareholder class action suits were dismissed
by federal judges.

Lawyers for Global Power's shareholders declined to comment to
WBUR about the dismissal, saying they are reviewing the judge's
decision.

The ruling, however, did leave open the possibility for further
litigation. Glynn wrote that plaintiffs have the opportunity to
address questions she raised in her ruling and file an amended
complaint by January 15.

The SEC is also investigating the company's financial reporting.
The SEC does not comment on ongoing inquiries. The status of the
Global Power investigation is unknown. [GN]


MCBRIDE RESEARCH: Faces "Campbell" Suit in New York State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against McBride Research
Laboratories, Inc. The case is captioned as CAMPBELL, KATHLEEN
INDIVIDUALLY ON BEHALF OF HERSELF & ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. MCBRIDE RESEARCH LABORATORIES, INC.
D/B/A DESIGN ESSENTIALS, the Defendant, Case No. 26761/2016 (N.Y.
Sup., Ct., Dec. 27, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Alison Y. Tuitt.

McBride Research was launched in 1990. Cornell McBride envisioned
a program that combined direct distribution of premium, quality
hair care solutions with the education and knowledge to
effectively use them in the salon and at home.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C.
          85 Civic Center Plaza, Ste 104
          Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
          Telephone: (845) 483 7100


MDL 2740: Parker Sues Over Taxotere-Related Hair Loss
-----------------------------------------------------
CAROLYN PARKER v. SANOFI S.A.; AVENTIS PHARMA S.A; SANOFI U.S.
SERVICES INC. F/K/A SANOFI-AVENTIS, U.S. LLC; SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S.
LLC, separately, and doing business as WINTHROP U.S.; SANDOZ,
INC.; HOSPIRA WORLDWIDE, LLC F/K/A HOSPIRA WORLDWIDE, INC.;
HOSPIRA INC.; ACCORD HEALTHCARE, INC.; PFIZER INC.; EAGLE
PHARMACEUTICAL, INC. and NORTHSTAR RX, LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-
14984 (E.D. La., December 6, 2017), alleges that the warning and
precautions in the Taxotere Label do not warn against permanent
hair loss, and the adverse reactions do not state that use of
Taxotere could cause permanent hair loss.

The lawsuit is part of the multidistrict litigation styled In Re:
TAXOTERE (DOCETAXEL) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2:16-
md-02740-KDE-MBN.  The actions in the litigation involve product
liability suits alleging, inter alia, that Defendants Sanofi
S.A., Aventis Pharma S.A. and Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC
manufactured, marketed, distributed, supplied, promoted and sold
Taxotere(R), which is defective and unreasonably dangerous in
that it causes permanent hair loss (alopecia); that Sanofi knew
or should have known of the risk of alopecia associated with
Taxotere(R) usage; that Sanofi marketed, distributed and/or sold
Taxotere(R) without adequate warnings concerning its risks; and
that as a direct and proximate result of using Taxotere(R), women
across the nation have suffered serious injuries, physical and
mental pain and suffering, as well as economic loss.

Sanofi is a global healthcare company, focused on patient needs
and engaged in the research, development, manufacture and
marketing of therapeutic solutions.  Aventis Pharma S.A.
manufactures and markets pharmaceutical products under various
brands such as NUXEPTIL.  Aventis Pharma was incorporated in 1982
and is based in Antony, France.

Sandoz, Inc. is a Colorado corporation with its principal place
of business in Princeton, New Jersey.  Sandoz, a subsidiary of
Novartis AG, develops, produces and markets generic
pharmaceuticals, including generic Clobetasol, throughout the
United States.  Based in Lake Forest, Illinois, Hospira is in the
business of manufacturing and selling prescription drugs and
medical devices.

Accord Healthcare, Inc., a generic pharmaceutical company,
provides products in the areas of oncology, cardiology,
neurology, nephrology, urology, psychiatry, diabetology, pain
management, and gastroenterology.

Pfizer Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in New York City.  Pfizer and/or its predecessors in
interest are engaged in the business of research, designing,
testing, formulating, inspecting, labeling, manufacturing,
packaging, marketing, distributing, producing, processing,
promoting, and selling drugs.

Eagle Pharmaceuticals Inc. of Delaware is a specialty
pharmaceutical company.  Eagle develops and distributes
injectable products, primarily in the critical care and oncology
areas.

Northstar Rx LLC operates as a subsidiary of McKesson
Corporation.  McKesson provides pharmaceuticals and medical
supplies in the United States and internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lydia Murphy, Esq.
          BARON & BUDD, P.C.
          3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Telephone: (214) 521-3605
          Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
          E-mail: lymurphy@baronbudd.com


MDL 2740: Wooten Sues Over Docetaxel Injection-Related Hair Loss
----------------------------------------------------------------
KIMELIA WOOTEN and ELTON WOOTEN JR. v. SANOFI US SERVICES INC.
f/k/a SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. INC.; SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC; SANDOZ,
INC., ACCORD HEALTHCARE, INC.; MCKESSON CORPORATION d/b/a
MCKESSON PACKAGING; HOSPIRA WORLDWIDE, LLC f/k/a HOSPIRA
WORLDWIDE, INC.; HOSPIRA INC.; SUN PHARMA GLOBAL FZE, SUN
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, INC. f/k/a CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL
LABORATORIES LTD.; PFIZER INC.; ACTAVIS LLC f/k/a ACTAVIS INC.;
and ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-14439-KDE-MBN (E.D.
La., December 4, 2017), alleges injury -- permanent hair loss --
as a result of using Taxotere, Docefrez, Docetaxel Injection and
Docetaxel Injection Concentrate.

The Defendants expressly warranted to the Plaintiffs and their
healthcare providers that Taxotere, Docefrez, Docetaxel
Injection, and Docetaxel Injection Concentrate were safe and fit
for use for the purposes intended, that they did not produce any
dangerous side effects in excess of those risks associated with
other forms of treatment for cancer, that the side effects they
did produce were accurately reflected in the warnings, and that
they were adequately tested, the Plaintiffs contend.  The
Plaintiffs argue that the Products do not conform to the
Defendants' express warranties, because the drugs are not safe,
were not adequately tested, and have numerous serious side
effects, which are in excess of those risks associated with other
forms of treatment.

The lawsuit is part of the multidistrict litigation styled In Re:
TAXOTERE (DOCETAXEL) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2:16-
md-02740-KDE-MBN.

Sanofi is a global healthcare company, focused on patient needs
and engaged in the research, development, manufacture and
marketing of therapeutic solutions.

Sandoz, Inc. is a Colorado corporation with its principal place
of business in Princeton, New Jersey.  Sandoz, a subsidiary of
Novartis AG, develops, produces and markets generic
pharmaceuticals, including generic Clobetasol, throughout the
United States.

Accord Healthcare, Inc., a generic pharmaceutical company,
provides products in the areas of oncology, cardiology,
neurology, nephrology, urology, psychiatry, diabetology, pain
management, and gastroenterology.

McKesson Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business in San Francisco, California.  The Doe
Defendants will be identified through discovery, but are not
presently known.  Based in Lake Forest, Illinois, Hospira is in
the business of manufacturing and selling prescription drugs and
medical devices.  Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
manufactures and distributes pharmaceuticals.

Pfizer Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in New York City.  Pfizer and/or its predecessors in
interest are engaged in the business of research, designing,
testing, formulating, inspecting, labeling, manufacturing,
packaging, marketing, distributing, producing, processing,
promoting, and selling drugs.  Actavis Pharma, Inc., is a
Delaware corporation headquartered in Parsippany, New Jersey.
Actavis is a pharmaceutical company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Debra Humphrey, Esq.
          MARC J. BERN & PARTNERS LLP
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 950
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 702-5000
          Facsimile: (212) 818-0164
          E-mail: dhumphrey@bernllp.com


MICHIGAN: Rhodes, et al. Sue over Right to Vote
-----------------------------------------------
DEBRA RHODES, GLORIA MOUNGER, THOMAS WILLIAMS, LAURA DENNIS,
VIVIAN WORDLAW, and for all similarly situated voters of the
Thirteenth Congressional District in the State of Michigan, the
Plaintiffs, v. RICHARD D. SNYDER, in his official capacity as
Governor of the State of Michigan, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-
cv-14186-MAG-MKM (E.D. Mich., Dec. 27, 2017), seeks temporary and
permanent mandatory injunctive and declaratory relief based upon
the violation, by Defendant Governor Richard D. Snyder, of the
United States Constitution and the Michigan Constitution.

This action, in the interest of the public, seeks to protect
civil rights and liberties of the highest order, specifically,
the constitutional right to legislative representation and the
fundamental right to vote, both secured by the Constitution of
the United States. The Plaintiffs, who are electors in the
Thirteenth Congressional District, seek an order requiring the
Governor of the State of Michigan to cease deprivation, upon the
people of the Thirteenth Congressional District, of the
constitutional right to congressional representation and the
fundamental right to vote for said representative.

The Congressional seat in question was vacated on December 5,
2017, and, at the Defendant's discretion, will remain vacant
until a general election scheduled on the date as the normally-
scheduled election date for that seat on November 6, 2018.

As a result, Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief from the latest
action of systemic discrimination, by the Governor of the State
of Michigan toward regions of the state containing primarily
people of color, where the Governor has created a substantial
delay in filling the congressional vacancy, based on the race or
color of the residents, contrary to the United States
Constitution and the Michigan Constitution.

The Plaintiffs seek declaration that Michigan Compiled Law
section 168.633, which provides direction to the Governor on
whether to fill a vacancy, is impermissibly overboard and grants
discretion to the Governor so wide that it is contrary to the
requirement of the United States Constitution.

Michigan is a midwestern U.S. state bordering 4 of the Great
Lakes. It contains more than 11,000 inland lakes, spread across
its lower and upper peninsulas. Its largest city, Detroit, is
famed as the seat of the U.S. auto industry, which inspired Diego
Rivera's murals at the Detroit Institute of Arts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Gilmore, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL GILMORE
          P.O. Box 211156
          Detroit, MI 48221
          Telephone: (313) 231 3329
          E-mail: Gilmore.Esq@gmail.com


MICHIGAN: Jones Moves for Certification of Prisoners Class
----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled Curtis Lewis Jones v.
Kenneth McKee, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-00094-PLM-TPG (W.D.
Mich.), moves for certification of prisoners class.

Kenneth McKee is the director of the Correctional Facilities
Administration.  The CFA is responsible for the operation of the
state's prisons, including the Special Alternative Incarceration
Facility.

On May 25, 2017, the Plaintiff filed the civil action against
certain officials of the Michigan Department of Corrections
alleging, among other things, that they have failed to provide
winter boots and/or shoes to a particular class of prisoners, who
are indigent, to protect the prisoners from the harsh Michigan
winter conditions.

The Plaintiff, who appears pro se, also asks the Court to appoint
counsel to represent him and the proposed class members.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Z0MktkxH


MIDLAND CREDIT: "Colontorres" Suit Moved to N.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Luis Colontorres, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated consumers, the
Plaintiff, v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., the Defendant,
Case No. 2017EF3222, was removed from the Supreme Court, County
of Onondaga, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of New York in Syracuse on Jan. 8, 2018. The Northern District of
New York Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:18-cv-00035-FJS-TWD to
the proceeding.  The case is assigned to the Senior Judge
Frederick J. Scullin, Jr. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Zemel, Esq.
          ZEMEL LAW LLC
          70 Clinton Avenue, Suite 3
          Newark, NJ 07114
          Telephone: (862) 227 3106
          E-mail: dz@zemellawllc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Joseph Adam Hess, Esq.
          MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER
          COLEMAN & GOGGIN, P.C.
          88 Pine Street, 21st Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 376 6400
          Facsimile: (212) 376 6490
          E-mail: JAHESS@MDWCG.COM


MONSANTO CO: Bootheel Farmers File Lawsuit Over Herbicide Damage
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Bliss, writing for Southeast Missourian, reports that the
operators of two Southeast Missouri soybean farms have filed a
class-action lawsuit against St. Louis-based Monsanto Co.,
alleging their crops were damaged by exposure to dicamba
herbicide.

The 35-page suit was filed December 27 in Mississippi County
Circuit Court.

Plaintiffs in the case are McIvan Farms Inc., which operates in
Mississippi County, and Steve and Vickie Jackson, who are
partners of V & S Jackson Farms in Dunklin County.

Dicamba, a Monsanto product, is a type of herbicide designed for
use on genetically modified soybeans and cotton. While it can be
an effective tool for farmers battling weeds, improper use can be
devastating to crops not designed to withstand it.

According to the Missouri Department of Agriculture, dicamba
herbicide sprayed on fields can drift onto adjacent farm fields
and damage crops that are not dicamba-resistant.

St. Louis attorney Don Downing, Esq. who represents the
plaintiffs, said Monsanto has been hit with numerous lawsuits
over the use of dicamba.

Downing said damage has been widespread. In 2017, there were
thousands of complaints across the nation, according to the suit.

The federal Environmental Protection Agency reported more than
3.6 million acres of soybeans planted in the United States were
damaged by dicamba in 2017 alone, he wrote in the suit.

As of late October, the Missouri Department of Agriculture had
received more than 300 dicamba-related complaints as compared
with 27 in 2016 and three in 2015. The majority of complaints
came from Southeast Missouri, primarily Mississippi, Scott,
Stoddard, New Madrid and Dunklin counties, the suit states.

It is estimated at least 325,000 acres of soybeans were damaged
by the herbicide, Downing said in the suit.

Nationally, more than 2,000 "dicamba-related injury
investigations have been or are being conducted," according to
the lawsuit.

The four-count suit alleges Monsanto's dicamba crop system is
"ultrahazardous" and accuses the company of negligence, defective
design of the seed and (herbicide) trespass. The suit seeks
unspecified punitive damages.

Downing, who grew up in Kennett, Missouri, said a judge will have
to decide whether to allow the litigation to proceed as a class-
action case on behalf of all Missouri farmers whose crops were
damaged by the herbicide.

If the judge does not allow the case to proceed as a class-action
suit, more farmers will file individual lawsuits against
Monsanto, Downing predicted.

Monsanto developed seed genetically engineered to be resistant to
dicamba, which "meant that the new dicamba formulations would be
sprayed over the top of crops after their emergence from the
ground," according to the suit.

The suit alleges that as a result, dicamba was sprayed on fields
much later in the growing season, "in months that are hot and
humid -- and in the vicinity of susceptible nonresistant crops
also emerging."

The suit states that "from the early stages of Monsanto's
development of a crop system using dicamba, weed scientists and
others warned of harm from large-scale dicamba use in summer
months."

Downing wrote in the suit Monsanto decided to sell dicamba-
resistant cotton seeds, starting in 2015, rather than wait for
the EPA to register a "supposed low volatility" dicamba herbicide
for in-crop use.

Monsanto's "public stance" was dicamba herbicides were not to be
sprayed over the top of crops, the suit states.

"Monsanto representatives, however, advised farmers to do just
the opposite -- to spray existing dicamba products over the top
of their crops in 2015," the lawsuit alleges.

In 2016, Monsanto put its "own financial interests ahead of
safety and moved forward with commercialization of dicamba-
resistant soybeans," the suit alleges.

But Michael Aide of Southeast Missouri State University's
agriculture department told the Southeast Missourian earlier this
year Monsanto advised farmers not to use the old herbicide
recommendations.

"Some farmers ignored it," Aide said.

Monsanto has yet to file a response to the lawsuit in Mississippi
County court. [GN]


NATIONAL CREDIT: Debt Collection Violates FDCPA, Woodard Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Melisa Woodard, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. National Credit Adjusters, LLC, a Kansas
limited liability company, and Reviver Financial, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, Case No. 3:17-cv-02032-HNJ (N.D. Ala.,
December 5, 2017), accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

Ms. Woodard alleges that demanding payment of a debt that is no
longer owed, due to a bankruptcy, is false and deceptive or
misleading, in violation of Section 1692e of the FDCPA.

National Credit Adjusters, LLC, is a Kansas limited liability
company, which acts as a debt collector.  Reviver Financial, LLC,
is a Delaware limited liability company that acts as a debt
collector.

Reviver is a bad debt buyer that buys large portfolios of
defaulted consumer debts for pennies on the dollar, which it then
collects upon through other collection agencies, like its sister
company, NCA, Ms. Woodard asserts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Philipps, Esq.
          Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
          PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
          9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
          Palos Hills, IL 60465
          Telephone: (708) 974-2900
          Facsimile: (708) 974-2907
          E-mail: davephilipps@aol.com
                  mephilipps@aol.com

               - and -

          Ronald C. Sykstus, Esq.
          BOND, BOTES, SYKSTUS, TANNER & EZZELL, P.C.
          225 Pratt Avenue
          Huntsville, AL 35801
          Telephone: (256) 539-9899
          Facsimile: (256) 713-0237
          E-mail: Rsykstus@bondnbotes.com


NEIMAN MARCUS: Enters Agreement to Settle "Rubenstein" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. James Otero denied as moot the Plaintiff's Motion to
Certify Class in the lawsuit entitled Linda Rubenstein v. The
Neiman Marcus Group LLC, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-07155-SJO-JPR
(C.D. Cal.).

According to the Court's civil minutes, the Court is in receipt
of Plaintiff's Notice of Settlement, filed December 13, 2017.

Judge Otero ordered the Plaintiff to file her Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement within 60 days of
the date of the Order.

A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=sjdmQ9A3


NEWSTAR FINANCIAL: Sharpenter Suit Challenges Sale to First Eagle
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TED SHARPENTER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. NEWSTAR FINANCIAL, INC., CHARLES N.
BRALVER, TIMOTHY J. CONWAY, BRADLEY E. COOPER, BRIAN L.P. FALLON,
FRANK R. NOONAN, MAUREEN P. O'HARA, and RICHARD E. THORNBURGH,
Case No. 1:17-cv-12379 (D. Mass., December 4, 2017), stems from a
proposed transaction, pursuant to which NewStar will be acquired
by affiliates of First Eagle Investment Management, LLC.

On October 16, 2017, NewStar's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with First
Eagle Holdings, Inc. ("Parent"), FE Holdco, LLC ("FE Holdco"),
and FE Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub").  Under the terms of the
Merger Agreement, shareholders of NewStar will receive $11.44 per
share in cash and one contractual contingent value right.

NewStar is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal
executive offices in Boston, Massachusetts.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

NewStar is an internally-managed, commercial finance company with
$7.3 billion of assets managed across two complementary business
lines: middle market direct lending and asset management.  The
Company's direct lending activities are focused on meeting the
complex financing needs of companies and private investors in the
middle markets through specialized lending groups that offer a
range of flexible debt financing options.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell J. Matorin, Esq.
          MATORIN LAW OFFICE, LLC
          18 Grove Street, Suite 5
          Wellesley, MA 02482
          Telephone: (781) 453-0100
          E-mail: mmatorin@matorinlaw.com

               - and -

          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
          Wilmington, DE 19803
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310
          Facsimile: (302) 654-7530

               - and -

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


NIKE INC: Operates Blind-Inaccessible Web Sites, Mendizabal Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA MENDIZABAL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. NIKE, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-09498 (S.D.N.Y.,
December 4, 2017), arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its Web site to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired people.

Ms. Mendizabal is a visually-impaired and legally blind person,
who requires screen-reading software to read Web site content
using her computer.

Nike, Inc., is an Oregon business corporation registered to do
business in New York.  The Company operates two separate Web
sites, http://www.Nike.com/,and http://www.Converse.com/,and
advertises, markets, distributes, and sells Men and Women
clothing and footwear products in the state of New York and
throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          JOSEPH H. MIZRAHI LAW P.C.
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (917) 299-6612
          Facsimile: (718) 425-8954
          E-mail: Joseph@Jmizrahilaw.com

               - and -

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


NONGSHIM CO: Ramen Price-Fixing Class Suit Headed for U.S. Trial
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal
judge in San Francisco has refused to dismiss antitrust class
action litigation accusing two big South Korean ramen producers
of conspiring to fix prices in the United States, clearing the
way for a trial.

U.S. District Judge William Orrick on December 28 rejected
efforts by market leader Nongshim Co and Ottogi Corp to dismiss
claims brought by food retailers and distributors, and by
consumers in 23 U.S. states and Washington, D.C.

Lawyers in the United States for Nongshim and Ottogi did not
immediately respond on December 29 to requests for comment. Mark
Kindall, Esq. -- mkindall@ikrlaw.com -- a lawyer for the
consumers, said he was "obviously very pleased with the
resolution and the judge's determination that this case is ready
to go to a jury."

The plaintiffs accused ramen makers of coordinating six price
increases from 2001 to 2008 in a scheme hatched at a meeting at
the Renaissance Seoul Hotel, causing them to overpay for their
noodles from early 2003 through January 2010.

In a 59-page decision, Orrick said there was "ample (although
hotly disputed) evidence" that the defendants conspired to fix
ramen prices in South Korea.

Although calling it a "much closer question," Orrick found
sufficient evidence that this alleged conspiracy affected ramen
prices in the United States, including ramen made there.

"That there may have been minor differences (according to
plaintiffs) between the products destined for the U.S. market and
destined elsewhere does not, on this record, make the products so
fundamentally different that the differences undermine
plaintiffs' ability to sue," Orrick wrote.

A trial is scheduled for Feb. 23. The litigation began in 2013.

Ramen noodles are typically sold in packages, cups or bowls, with
seasoning and dehydrated vegetables, to which consumers add
boiling water.

In court papers, Nongshim and Ottogi have said they acted
independently when setting prices.

They also accused the plaintiffs of improperly piggybacking off
since-abandoned findings by the Korea Fair Trade Commission of a
price-fixing conspiracy in South Korea.

Another Korean ramen maker, Samyang Foods Co, reached $1.5
million of settlements with the plaintiffs in 2016.

"We are pleased to have cleared the last hurdle before trial, and
our clients look forward to presenting their case to a jury,"
Christopher Lebsock, a lawyer for the retailers and distributors,
said in an email.

The case is In re: Korean Ramen Antitrust Litigation, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California, No. 13-04115.
[GN]


NORTHSTAR REALTY: Brief in "Boothe" 4th Cir. Appeal Due Jan 26
--------------------------------------------------------------
JACK BOOTHE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. LAWRENCE B. DVORES, Appellant and
NORTHSTAR REALTY FINANCE CORP., DAVID T. HAMAMOTO, JUDITH A.
HANNAWAY, WESLEY D. MINAMI, LOUIS J. PAGLIA, GREGORY RUSH, and
CHARLES W. SCHOENHERR, the Defendant - Appellees, Case No. 18-
1001 (4th Cir, Jan. 2, 2018), is an appeal filed before the
United States Court of Appeals for the fourth Circuit from a
lower court decision in a fraud class action, Case No. 1:16-cv-
03742-JKB (D. Md., Nov. 18, 2016).

Opening brief is due Jan. 26, 2018.

Informal response brief, if any, is due 14 days after informal
opening brief is filed.[BN]

Attorneys for Jack Boothe, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated:

          Yelena Trepetin, Esq.
          BROWER PIVEN
          1925 Old Valley Road
          Stevenson, MD 21153
          Personal: (410) 332 0030

Attorneys for Appellant Lawrence B. Dvores:

          Lawrence B. Dvores, Esq.
          28 Sherbrooke Parkway
          Livingston, NJ 07039
          Personal: 973-535-5000
          Pro Se

Attorneys for Defendant - Appellee Northstar Realty Finance
Corp.; David T. Hamamoto; Judith A. Hannaway; Wesley D. Minami
Louis J. Paglia; Gregory Rush; and Charles W. Schoenherr.

          Andrew Gendron, Esq.
          VENABLE, LLP
          750 East Pratt Street
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Personal: (410) 244 7439


NOVAN INC: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors that purchased
Novan, Inc. securities between September 26, 2016 and August 1,
2017, inclusive (the "Class Period") and/or pursuant to its
September 26, 2016 initial public offering. Novan investors have
until January 2, 2018 to file a lead plaintiff motion.

Investors suffering losses on their Novan investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to
discuss their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847
or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.

On January 27, 2017, the Company announced that its two
"replicate" Phase 3 clinical trials for its topical acne
treatment had yielded different results. The Company revealed
that one trial showed statistical significance for all three co-
primary endpoints and the other trial showed statistical
significance for only one co-primary endpoint.

On this news, shares of Novan fell 74% to a close of $4.86 per
share on January 27, 2017.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that, throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Novan
had initiated and conducted two identical Phase 3 clinical trials
for its lead product candidate SB204; (2) in fact, the two SB204
Phase 3 clinical trials were not identical; and (3) consequently,
Novan's financial statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times.

If you purchased shares of Novan, have information or would like
to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith,
Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike,
Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215)
638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.

         Howard G. Smith, Esq.
         Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
         Tel.No.: 215-638-4847, 888-638-4847
         E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com [GN]


OSI SYSTEMS: "Kerbs" Suit Alleges Securities Fraud
--------------------------------------------------
Eric Kerbs, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. OSI Systems, Inc., Deepak Chopra, Ajay
Mehra and Alan Edrick, Case No. 17-cv-08991 (C.D. Cal., December
14, 2017), seeks damages, including interest, awarding reasonable
costs, including attorneys' fees and such equitable/injunctive
relief under the Securities and Exchange Act.

OSI designs and manufactures specialized electronic systems and
components and provides related services in diversified markets,
including homeland security, healthcare, defense, and aerospace.

The complaint says OSI failed to disclose that it obtained a
major turnkey contract in Albania through corruption or bribery
and transferred 49% of its project company in Albania, S2 Albania
SHPK, for consideration of less than $5.00, that its Mexico
turnkey contract was materially overpriced and was based on false
representations about the capabilities and equipment, that its
business experienced material accounting problems, that its
financial statements were not prepared in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles and that these practices
caused the Company to be vulnerable to potential civil and
criminal liability and adverse regulatory action.

Plaintiff purchased OSI common stock and lost when the 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.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence D. King, Esq.
      Mario M. Choi, Esq.
      KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
      350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 772-4700
      Facsimile: (415) 772-4707
      Email: lking@kaplanfox.com
             mchoi@kaplanfox.com

             - and -

      Justin B. Farar, Esq.
      KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
      11111 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 620
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Telephone: (310) 575-8670
      Facsimile: (310) 575-8697
      Email: jfarar@kaplanfox.com

             - and -

      Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq.
      KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
      850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 687-1980
      Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
      Email: jcampisi@kaplanfox.com


PATRIOT NATIONAL: "Cole" Seeks Unpaid Benefits Due to Closure
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle L. Cole and Andrea Scarlett, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Patriot National,
Inc. and Guarantee Insurance Co., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-
62461 (S.D. Fla., December 14, 2017), seeks unpaid wages, salary,
commissions, bonuses, accrued holiday pay, accrued vacation pay,
pension and 401(k) contributions and other benefits for 60 days,
that would have been covered and paid under the then-applicable
employee benefit plans had that coverage continued for that
period, civil penalties, pursuant to the relevant state wage
payment laws, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and such other
and further relief under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act.

Plaintiffs are former employees who worked for Patriot National,
Inc. and were terminated without cause, as part of, the mass
reduction in force or layoffs and who were not provided 60 days
advance written notice of their terminations.

Patriot National is a national insurance technology firm which
provides general agency services, technology outsourcing,
software solutions, specialty underwriting and policyholder
services, claims administration services and self-funded health
plans to its insurance carrier and other clients. It reportedly
provided Guarantee, its largest customer, with $30 million in
exchange for a 10-year services contract.

Guarantee agreed to enter into state-supervised receivership
after a financial audit found the company overstated its level of
capitalization in 2016. In August 2017, Guarantee entered into a
consent order barring it from writing new business while
implementing a plan of reorganization. On November 27, 2017,
Guarantee was ordered liquidated by the Second Judicial Circuit
Court in Leon County, Florida while the New York Stock Exchange
commenced proceedings to delist the common stock of Patriot
National from the NYSE the following day. Trading in Patriot
National's common stock was suspended immediately. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mitchell Bierman, Esq.
      Michael S. Kantor, Esq.
      WEISS SEROTA HELFMAN COLE & BIERMAN P.L.
      200 E. Broward Blvd., Suite 1900
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Tel: (954) 763-4242
      Fax: (954) 764-7770
      Email: mbierman@wsh-law.com
             LPimienta@wsh-law.com
             mkantor@wsh-law.com
             falonso@wsh-law.com

             - and -

      Charles A. Ercole, Esq.
      Lee D. Moylan, Esq.
      Sally E. Veghte, Esq.
      KLEHR HARRISON HARVEY BRANZBURG LLP
      1835 Market Street, Suite 1400
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 569-2700
      Email: cercole@klehr.com
             lmoylan@klehr.com
             sveghte@klehr.com


PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Sgarlata Sues Over PI Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------
RONALD SGARLATA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. PAYPAL HOLDINGS, INC., DANIEL H. SCHULMAN,
JOHN D. RAINEY JR., and HAMED SHAHBAZI, Case No. 3:17-cv-06956
(N.D. Cal., December 6, 2017), alleges that the Defendants made
false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that,
among other things, TIO Networks Corp.'s data security program
was inadequate to safeguard the personally identifiable
information of its users.

On February 14, 2017, PayPal announced an agreement to purchase
TIO Networks Corp. for $233 million.  TIO is a bill-pay
management company that processed roughly $7 billion in bill
payments on behalf of 14 million customers in 2016.  On July 18,
2017, PayPal announced the completion of the TIO Acquisition.

On November 10, 2017, PayPal suspended its TIO services, pending
a security review, stating that it had discovered security
vulnerabilities on the TIO platform and that the TIO data
security program did not meet PayPal's standards.  On December 1,
2017, post-market, PayPal disclosed that personally identifiable
information -- including names, addresses, bank-account details,
and Social Security numbers -- for roughly 1.6 million TIO users
had potentially been compromised as a result of the previously
announced security vulnerabilities.

PayPal is incorporated in Delaware, and the Company's principal
executive offices are located in San Jose, California.  The
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.  PayPal
operates as a technology platform company that provides online
payment systems through a variety of services on behalf of
consumers and merchants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          468 North Camden Drive
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (818) 532-6499
          E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          Ten South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

               - and -

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


PETEZA PROSE: Kile Sues to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
MORGEN KILE, Individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. PETER D'ANDREA, an Individual, PETEZA PROSE, LLC, a
Tennessee Limited Liability Company, 5 STAR PIZZA INC., a
Tennessee Corporation, and JOHANAS ROBERSON, an Individual, Case
No. 1:17-cv-01225 (W.D. Tenn., December 4, 2017), is brought as a
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover
alleged unpaid wages, minimum wages, and overtime wages.

Peteza Prose, LLC, is a Tennessee Limited Liability Company with
a Domino's Franchise in Ripley, Lauderdale County, Tennessee, and
owns multiple Domino's Pizza franchises in Tennessee and
Virginia.  5 Star Pizza Inc., is a Tennessee Corporation that
owns multiple Domino's Pizza franchises in Tennessee and
Virginia.

Peter D'Andrea, a resident of Knox County, Tennessee, is a co-
owner/principal of Peteza Prose, LLC and 5 Star Pizza, Inc.
Johanas Roberson is a manager or principal of Peteza Prose.

The Defendants own and operate approximately 32 Domino's
franchise restaurants in Tennessee and are doing business as
Peteza Prose.  The primary function of the Defendants'
restaurants is to sell food and beverage items to customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 759-1745
          E-mail: rbryant@jsyc.com

               - and -

          William A. Wooten, Esq.
          EVANS PETREE, P.C.
          120 Court Square East
          Covington, TN 38019
          Telephone: (901) 475-1050
          Facsimile: (901) 475-0032
          E-mail: wwooten@evanspetree.com


PHEAA: Morris et al Sue over Collection of Student Loans
--------------------------------------------------------
ADAM MORRIS, ARTHUR BURKLE, DENISE GRAHAM, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER EDUCATION ASSISTANCE AGENCY, D/B/A FEDLOAN
SERVICING, D/B/A AMERICAN EDUCATION SERVICES, the Defendant, Case
No. 2:18-cv-00031-CDJ (E.D. Pa., Jan. 8, 2018), seeks to enjoin
unlawful actions of the Defendant to distribute false and
misleading information regarding borrowers' loans, process
borrowers' payments incorrectly, and delay applications for PSLF,
TEACH grant and IDR programs.

PHEAA acts as a middleman between the Department of Education and
the borrowers of federally-owned loans. PHEAA is responsible for
not only collecting loan payments, but also offering payment
plans and administering federal programs designed to help
borrowers effectively manage the increasing cost of higher
education. This includes several Alternative Loan Repayment
Programs ("ALRPs"), which provide qualifying borrowers with
relief from student loan debt by adjusting their payments to a
reasonably affordable amount based on their income, occupation,
and family size. Borrowers enrolled in an ALRP can also apply to
have their federal loans forgiven after a certain number of
payments and/or meeting other criteria.

In February 2012, the Department of Education made PHEAA solely
responsible for administering two ALRPs: the Public Service Loan
Forgiveness (PSLF) program and the Teacher Education Assistance
for College and Higher Education (TEACH) grant program. Congress
specifically designed the PSLF and TEACH programs to make higher
education more affordable for public servants by providing
financial assistance to reduce the burden of their student loans.
This included complete forgiveness of federal student debt for
borrowers who committed to ten years of qualifying public service
employment.

PHEAA implemented a scheme during the Class Period to boost
revenue by extending the duration of loans in its portfolio
through at least three unlawful means:

     1. PHEAA delayed or failed to process applications under the
        PSLF and TEACH programs.

     2. PHEAA delayed or failed to process applications for
        federal Income Driven Repayment ("IDR") plans, including
        specifically the new Revised Pay As You Earn ("REPAYE")
        program created in 2015.

     3. PHEAA improperly placed borrowers making timely loan
        payments into deferment or forbearance status -- a
        designation typically reserved for situations where the
        borrower seeks relief from its payment obligations due
        to financial hardship.

According to the lawsuit, reports published by the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau describe complaints from borrowers
nationwide of identical, widespread misconduct by PHEAA in its
exploitation of the PSLF, TEACH, and IDR programs. These unlawful
acts not only caused borrowers to deal with inconvenience and
headaches but also to suffer measurable financial harm when: (a)
the duration of their loans were extended; (b) interest accrued
on the principal balance of loans during unrequested periods of
deferment or forbearance; (c) monthly payments under IDR programs
were billed at inaccurate levels; and (d) they were charged
additional fees due to delay in processing their applications for
the PSLF, TEACH, and IDR programs.

The lawsuit contends that PHEAA's comprehensive strategy to
increase loan duration and generate greater servicing fees during
the Class Period was hugely successful. Financial statements show
that PHEAA's revenue from servicing federally-owned student loans
has increased each year, a direct result of the unlawful acts
alleged in this Complaint.

This increase in revenue comes at the expense of borrowers, like
Plaintiffs and the Class, who were subjected to one or more of
PHEAA's illegal tactics while their loans were serviced by
FedLoan. As a result, Plaintiffs and the Class have either lost
out on months or years of qualifying loan payments that would
have brought them closer to loan forgiveness under the PSLF,
TEACH, and IDR programs; been overcharged; or otherwise
disadvantaged when they were unable to utilize federal programs
designed to make their education more affordable.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class:

          Peter D. St. Phillip, Esq.
          Christian Levis, Esq.
          Roland R. St. Louis, III, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
          44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
          White Plains, New York 10601
          Telephone: 914-997-0500
          Facsimile: 914-997-0035
          E-mail: pstphillip@lowey.com
                  clevis@lowey.com
                  rstlouis@lowey.com

               - and -

          Anthony M. Christina, Esq.
          200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400
          West Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Telephone: 914 733 7268
          Facsimile: 914 997 0035
          E-mail: achristina@lowey.com


PIER 1 IMPORT: Pier 1 Settles Class Action for $3.5-Mil.
--------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Cave, writing for JDSUPRA, reports that Pier 1 Import has
agreed to pay $3.5 million to settle a class action lawsuit
brought on behalf of about 9,300 retail store associates in
California.  The lawsuit alleged the company owed workers pay for
when they are scheduled to call the store to ask if they should
report for work or stay home.

California requires employers to provide "reporting time pay" to
employees.  Employers must provide a few hours of pay when an
employee reports to work for a scheduled shift but is dismissed a
short time later because business is slow.

The complaint alleged that Pier 1 violated this law by requiring
employees to call in one to two hours before the scheduled shift.
Employees complained that the call-in shifts were mandatory, and
required employees to schedule their time around the possibility
that they may work after a call-in shift.  Pier 1 Import has
since discontinued the scheduling practice at issue, which it
called a "Flex Shift" policy.

Judge Dale A. Drozd of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California granted preliminary approval of
the settlement on December 12, 2017.  Class members will have an
opportunity to object to the settlement or opt out before Judge
Drozd decides whether to grant final approval. [GN]


PREET GOURMET: "Cano" Sues Over Unpaid Spread-of-Hours, Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gregorio Larios Cano, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Preet Gourmet Inc., Famous
Golden Pizza Inc., Manjinder Singh, Harjinder Singh and
Lakhwinder Singh, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-09788, (S.D. N.Y.,
December 14, 2017), seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, New York Labor
Law and spread-of-hours and overtime wage orders of the New York
Commissioner of Labor, including applicable liquidated damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

Defendants own, operate, or control a pizzeria, located at 504 E.
138th St. Bronx, NY 10454 under the name "Golden Pizza" where
Cano was employed as a counter attendant and pizza maker. Larios
worked in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate
minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the
hours that he worked, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PREFERRED CARE: "Assael" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Steven F. Assael, individually
and on behalf of other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Preferred Care Partners, Inc. and iCare Health Solutions LLC,
Defendants, Case No. CACE-17020761, was removed from the 17th
Judicial Circuit of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida (Ft Lauderdale) on Dec. 29, 2017.
The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
0:17-cv-62584-KMM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Chief Judge K. Michael Moore.

Preferred Care Partners, Inc. provides Medicare advantage health
plans. It offers Medicare advantage plans in various Florida
counties, including Broward, Hernando, Hillsborough, Manatee,
Miami-Dade, Orange, Osceola, Palm Beach, Pasco, Pinellas, Polk,
Seminole, and Volusia counties.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua Harris Eggnatz, Esq.
          Michael James Pascucci, Esq.
          EGGNATZ PASCUCCI, P.A.
          5400 S. University Drive, Suite 417
          Davie, FL 33328
          Telephone: (954) 889 3359
          Facsimile: (954) 889 5913
          E-mail: JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com
                  mpascucci@ELPLawyers.com

               - and -

          Steven Saul, Esq.
          3263 Barbados Ave
          Cooper City, FL 33026
          Telephone: (954) 629 6564
          Facsimile: (954) 629 6564

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Craig Hamilton Smith, Esq.
          Dwayne Antonio Robinson, Esq.
          Paige Spencer Comparato, Esq.
          Allen Paige Pegg, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2700
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 459 6500
          Facsimile: (305) 459 6550
          E-mail: craig.smith@hoganlovells.com
                  dwayne.robinson@hoganlovells.com
                  allen.pegg@hoganlovells.com


PRODUCERS SERVICE: "Casarez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus Casarez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Producers Service Corporation, Defendant,
Case No. 17-cv-01086, (S.D. Ohio, December 14, 2017), seeks
actual damages in the amount of unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, court costs,
reasonable attorneys' fees and all other relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, Ohio's Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act and
the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

Producers Service Corporation provides products and services in
the oil and gas industry, throughout the United States in those
areas in which fracking is a viable business. Cesarez worked for
Defendant as a non-management oilfield operations employee,
specifically as an equipment operator, from approximately July of
2016 through November of 2016.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
     Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
     BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
     250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
     Columbus, OH 43215
     Telephone: (614) 221-4221
     Fax: (614) 744-2300
     Email: rderose@barkanmeizlish.com
            rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com

            - and -

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


PURDUE PHARMA: 2 Puerto Rico Towns File Opioid Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
MUNICIPALITY OF SABANA GRANDE, and MUNICIPALITY OF CAYEY, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P.; PURDUE PHARMA, INC.; THE
PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY, INC.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES,
LTD.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; CEPHALON, INC.; JOHNSON &
JOHNSON; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ORTHO- MCNEIL-JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.;
JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA INC. n/k/a JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.;
NORAMCO, INC.; ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC.; ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC.; ALLERGAN PLC f/k/a ACTAVIS PLS; WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC. n/k/a ACTAVIS, INC.; WATSON LABORATORIES, INC.; ACTAVIS LLC;
ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC. f/k/a WATSON PHARMA, INC.; MALLINCKRODT PLC;
MALLINCKRODT LLC; AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG CORPORATION; CARDINAL
HEALTH, INC.; and MCKESSON CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No.
3:17-cv-02380-JAG (D.P.R., Dec. 27, 2017), seeks to enjoin
Defendants' illegal conduct and to hold Defendants responsible
for the harm that conduct has caused the cities and towns of
Puerto Rico relating to opioid manufacture and distribution.

Since morphine was first isolated for medicinal use, physicians
have understood that opioids are risky medications that leave
patients prone to addiction and overdose. That is why heroin was
made illegal in 1924, and it is why the first synthetic opioids
(Percocet and Vicodin) were prescribed only for short-term pain.

But after Purdue created and patented oxycodone in the 1990s, it
marketed the drug as safe, non-addictive, and appropriate for
chronic pain -- even though it had no legitimate scientific
evidence to support these claims. And as other opioid
manufacturers likewise invented proprietary opioid formulations,
they also marketed their drugs as safe, non-addictive, and
appropriate for chronic pain.

According to the complaint, the opioid manufacturers ran a
decades-long misinformation campaign to convince doctors and
patients everywhere that prescription opioids are a miracle cure
for chronic pain, and should be prescribed widely -- whether to
treat recurring pain from work injuries, joint pain from
arthritis, or neck pain resulting from a car accident.

To win over those who might be skeptical of the drug makers'
claims, the manufacturers hired well-regarded doctors, who styled
themselves as pain management experts, to advocate for use of
opioids all across the country. They also sponsored "pain
advocacy" groups, which acted as fronts for the drug companies'
message. These same tactics were used by cigarette manufacturers,
who used industry-funded scientists and front groups to try to
convince the public that cigarettes were safe, despite a wealth
of scientific evidence to the contrary.

Doctors believed the misinformation that was carefully and
systematically presented to them over the years. Believing that
the opioids were indeed safe and effective for chronic pain,
doctors prescribed the opioid manufacturers' products in larger
and larger numbers.

Meanwhile, the opioid manufacturers knew that their claims lacked
scientific basis and that, in fact, their prescription opioids
were highly addictive and ultimately ineffective at treating
long-term pain. Pain patients develop tolerance to the drugs over
time and are forced to take stronger and stronger doses, until
they become so sedated that they risk falling asleep at the wheel
of their car or having their central nervous system (and
breathing) shut down.

As doctors prescribed more and more prescription opioids, and the
manufacturers continued to conceal and obscure the truth about
their drugs, the rates of opioid addiction and overdose
skyrocketed. Addicted individuals spent their life savings
fueling their drug addiction and were often forced to switch to a
cheaper opioid: heroin. Rates of heroin addiction skyrocketed as
well.

Rather than seeing a national crisis, pharmaceutical distributors
saw an opportunity for massive profits. They sent prescription
opioids to any and every prescriber or pharmacy who placed
orders, even though they are required by federal law to stop
shipment on suspicious orders and report them to law enforcement.
Stopping suspicious shipments would mean losing out on millions
of dollars in illicit profits, and so the opioid distributors did
nothing. They stood aside and allowed select prescribers and
pharmacies to divert massive amounts of prescription opioids into
the black market.

The opioid epidemic has enriched both opioid manufacturers and
distributors. But it has destroyed communities, and left state
and local governments to bear much of the costs. For example,
state-funded healthcare costs surged as overdose patients were
increasingly admitted to emergency rooms across the country. So
did law-enforcement and criminal-justice costs, as police and
jails struggled to cope with an increased number of drug
offenders. And as addicted parents are unable to care for their
children, the government has often been forced to pay the cost of
raising them.

With many of Puerto Rico's cities and towns dealing with the
aftermath of Hurricane Maria, the worst national disaster in
Puerto Rico's history, Plaintiffs believe that a class action
will be the most efficient and effective manner of prosecuting
Defendants' illegal conduct. They ask that the Court certify this
case as a class action on behalf of all of Puerto Rico's
municipalities, and award the class-member municipalities damages
and injunctive relief according to proof.

Purdue Pharma L.P. is a privately held pharmaceutical company
owned principally by parties and descendants of Mortimer and
Raymond Sackler.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Douglas Sanders, Esq.
          SANDERS PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
          1311 Ponce de Leon Ave. Suite 600
          San Juan, PR 00907
          Telephone: (516) 741 5600
          Facsimile: (516) 741 0128
          E-mail: dsanders@thesandersfirm.com

               - and -

          Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
          A.J. De Bartolomeo, Esq.
          Aaron Blumenthal, Esq.
          GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
          505 14th Street, Ste. 1110
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 350 9700
          Facsimile: (510) 350 9701
          E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com
                  ajd@classlawgroup.com
                  ab@classlawgroup.com


QBE: Settles Class Action for $132.5-Mil.
-----------------------------------------
Sarah Danckert, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports
that insurance giant QBE has agreed to pay $132.5 million to
settle a class action launched by shareholders who were angry
about a plunge in its share price in 2013.

QBE was sued by shareholders in 2015 after a swingeing profit
downgrade two years earlier wiped $5 billion from the company's
market capitalisation.

The settlement is the third-largest shareholder claim in
Australian history, following class actions against shopping
centre owner Centro and its auditor PwC ($200 million) in 2012
and pokies machine maker Aristocrat ($144.5 million) in 2008.

Shareholders had alleged QBE engaged in false and misleading
conduct and breached its continuous disclosure obligations ahead
of the downgrade. They claimed to have purchased shares at an
inflated price due to QBE's alleged misleading conduct.

Investors who had purchased shares between August 20, 2013 and
December, 6, 2013 were eligible to participate in the action.

QBE stunned the market in December 2013 when it flagged a loss of
$250 million for the financial year due to write-downs of its US
business and unexpectedly large claims brought by its customers.
Analysts had been expecting QBE's profit to be more than $1
billion.

QBE's shares plunged 22 per cent in a single day following the
shock announcement. Its shares continued to fall the following
day, taking shareholder losses to 30 per cent.

QBE has not admitted any wrongdoing as part of its settlement,
which is subject to court approval. It came ahead of a Federal
Court trial due next year before Justice Bernard Murphy.

Lawyers for QBE and Maurice Blackburn, which was acting for
shareholders, spent the days before and after Christmas nutting
out the final details of the settlement and agreed to the final
terms on December 28 evening.

"QBE has agreed to pay $132.5 million in full and final
settlement of the proceedings including interest and the
applicant's costs," the company said in an ASX statement.

"The settlement will not have a material impact on 2017 second
half earnings."

The amount that will go towards Maurice Blackburn's fees is not
known. The action was funded by International Litigation Fundings
Partners (ILFP). The cut the funder will take will be determined
by the court when the settlement is approved. As a result of an
earlier judgment in the case, ILFP is expected to seek a lower
share of the settlement proceeds.

Maurice Blackburn class actions principal Andrew Watson said the
firm was very happy with the result.

"A settlement like this shows that our class action system does
function to provide significant returns for claimants and to
those who allege they are the victims of corporate misconduct,"
Mr Watson said.

"These settlements send a very strong signal to corporate
Australia of the need to ongoing scrupulousness in relation to
their compliance with continuous disclosure and corporate
governance obligations." [GN]


QUDIAN INC: Vincent Wong Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce 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 Qudian Inc. ("Qudian") (NYSE:QD) American Depository
Shares pursuant to the October 17, 2017 Initial Public Offering
and/or between October 18, 2017 and November 20, 20.

Click here to learn about the case: http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-
sbm/qudian-inc. There is no cost or obligation to you.

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement issued in
connection with the IPO failed to disclose that: (1) Qudian
engaged in unethical business and accounting practices; (2)
Qudian failed to maintain adequate control to ensure the
protection and safety of its users' personal information; and (3)
as a result, Qudian was exposing detailed user data to leakages
and online resale.

If you suffered a loss in Qudian you have until February 12, 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-
sbm/qudian-inc.

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.
         Law Offices of Vincent Wong
         Tel.No.: 212-425-1140
         Fax: 866-699-3880
         Email: vw@wongesq.com [GN]


QUDIAN INC: "Maia" Sues Over Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------
Carlos Maia, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. Qudian Inc., Min Luo, Chao Zhu, Li Du,
Shilei Li, Yi Cao, Lianzhu Lv, Carl Yeung, Morgan Stanley & Co.
International PLC, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Citigroup
Global Markets Inc., China International Capital Corporation Hong
Kong Securities Limited, UBS Securities LLC, Stifel, Nicolaus &
Company, Inc., Needham & Company, LLC, and Nomura Securities
International, Inc., Case No. 17-cv-9796, (S.D. N.Y., December
14, 2017), seeks compensatory damages, reasonable costs and
expenses incurred in this action, including counsel fees and
expert fees and such equitable/injunctive or other relief under
the Securities and Exchange Act of 1933

Qudian is an online provider of credit products in China.
Plaintiff purchased Qudian American Depository Shares in the
Company's October 17, 2017 initial public offering.

Qudian was involved in security breaches and unauthorized access
to its customers confidential information. Plaintiff sustained
damages when the value of Qudian American Depository Shares
declined substantially subsequent to this incident, says the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq.
      KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
      850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 687-1980
      Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
      Email: jcampisi@kaplanfox.com


QUDIAN INC: Klein Law Firm Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm disclosed that a class action complaint has
been filed on behalf of shareholders of Qudian Inc. (NYSE:QD) who
purchased American Depositary Shares pursuant to the October 17,
2017 Initial Public Offering and/or between October 18, 2017 and
November 20, 2017. The action, which was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
alleges that the Company violated federal securities laws.

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement issued in
connection with the IPO failed to disclose that: (1) Qudian
engaged in unethical business and accounting practices; (2)
Qudian failed to maintain adequate control to ensure the
protection and safety of its users' personal information; and (3)
as a result, Qudian was exposing detailed user data to leakages
and online resale.

Shareholders have until February 12, 2018 to petition the court
for lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery
does not require that you serve as lead plaintiff. You may choose
to be an absent class member.

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

Joseph Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in
securities litigations involving financial fraud throughout the
nation.

         Joseph Klein, Esq
         Telephone: (212) 616-4899
         Fax: (347) 558-9665
         Website: www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]


QUEENS LAND: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Gonzalez Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FERNANDO GONZALEZ, individually, and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. QUEENS LAND BUILDER, INC; KINGS LAND
DEVELOPMENT, INC.; NING WANG, an individual; HONG CHEN, an
individual; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC685765
(Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., December 5, 2017), alleges
violations of the California Labor Code in connection with unpaid
overtime, meal period premiums, rest period premiums and minimum
wages.

Queens Land Builder, Inc., and Kings Land Development, Inc., are
corporations organized and existing under the laws of the state
of California and conduct business in California.  The Individual
Defendants are residents of the County of Los Angeles,
California, and are principals, officers or employees of the
Defendant Corporations.  The Plaintiff is ignorant of the
identities of the Doe Defendants.

Queens Land Builder is a home building contractor, offering wine
cellar design, custom home construction, custom home design, and
residential construction.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amir Nayebdadash, Esq.
          Cody Payne, Esq.
          PROTECTION LAW GROUP, LLP
          136 Main Street, Suite A
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 290-3095
          Facsimile: (866) 264-7880
          E-mail: amir@protectionlawgroup.com
                  heather@protectionlawgroup.com


ROUND LAKE PARK, IL: Willoughby Moves for Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled RAYMOND WILLOUGHBY, DAMIEN
WARD, and DAN COOPER, Individually, and On Behalf of All
Similarly Situated Persons v. VILLAGE OF FOX LAKE, a Municipal
Corporation, CHIEF MICHAEL BEHAN, in his Official Capacity on
behalf of VILLAGE OF FOX LAKE, VILLAGE OF ROUND LAKE, a Municipal
Corporation, VILLAGE OF ROUND LAKE BEACH, a Municipal
Corporation, VILLAGE OF ROUND LAKE PARK, a Municipal Corporation,
CITY OF McHENRY, a Municipal Corporation, COMMANDER GEORGE
FILENKO, Individually, JOHN DOE POLICE OFFICERS, JOHN DOE DEPUTY
SHERIFFS, JOHN DOE STATE POLICE AGENTS, and JOHN DOE FEDERAL
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONS AGENTS, Case No. 1:17-cv-02800 (N.D.
Ill.), move for entry of an order that the case may be maintained
as a class action on behalf of:

     all persons that were stopped, questioned, arrested, or
     otherwise detained and deprived of their liberty as
     purported suspects in the nationally-publicized murder
     investigation of Fox Lake police lieutenant Charles Joseph
     Gliniewicz from September 1, 2015 and continuing through
     September 5, 2015.

The Plaintiffs further seek an order appointing their attorneys
as class counsel.

On the morning of September 1, 2015, Fox Lake Police Lieutenant
Charles Joseph Gliniewicz committed suicide by shooting himself
twice in a secluded area in or near Fox Lake, Illinois.  Prior to
taking his own life, Mr. Gliniewicz sent a radio transmission to
the Fox Lake police department, fictitiously stating that he was
in pursuit of three individuals that he described only as two
"male whites" and one "male black."  Mr. Gliniewicz's actions are
now universally believed to have been motivated by a probe of the
Fox Lake police department by its Village Manager, which was then
on the verge of discovering that he had embezzled funds from a
Village program he spearheaded that specializes in education and
training for youths in the community with an interest in law
enforcement (commonly known as the "Explorer program").  Fox Lake
police personnel responded to the scene of Mr. Gliniewicz's call
for assistance and discovered his deceased body.

In the ensuing days, numerous individuals were stopped, detained,
arrested, searched, and/or otherwise deprived of their liberty in
conjunction with the investigation into Gliniewicz's fictitious
"murder," the Plaintiffs assert.  The Plaintiffs contend that the
individuals were arrested and/or detained for questioning in
conjunction with the death of Lt. Gliniewicz, except for those
persons that were: (a) detained pursuant to probable cause for
another offense; (b) already in custody at the time they were
questioned; or (c) were the subject of credible information that
he/they was/were involved in Mr. Gliniewicz's death provided by
third parties are the persons that comprise the putative class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fpF0W5CS


SANOFI US: Faces "Arnett" Suit over Taxotere and Docetaxel Risks
----------------------------------------------------------------
IN RE: TAXOTERE (DOCETAXEL) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, BRENDA
ARNETT, the Plaintiff, v. SANOFI US SERVICES INC. f/k/a SANOFI-
AVENTIS U.S. INC.; SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC; SANDOZ, INC.,
ACCORD HEALTHCARE, INC.; MCKESSON CORPORATION d/b/a MCKESSON
PACKAGING; HOSPIRA WORLDWIDE, LLC f/k/a HOSPIRA WORLDWIDE, INC.;
HOSPIRA INC.; SUN PHARMA GLOBAL FZE, SUN PHARMACEUTICAL
INDUSTRIES, INC. f/k/a CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL LABORATORIES LTD.;
PFIZER INC.; ACTAVIS LLC f/k/a ACTAVIS INC.; and ACTAVIS PHARMA,
INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-17837-KDE-MBN (E.D. La.,
Dec. 27, 2017), seeks to recover damages from direct and
proximate result of the breaches of warranty over Taxotere
(Docetaxel) Products.

According to the complaint, the Defendants published and
disseminated Taxotere safety labels and Patient Information
leaflets, which expressly stated that "[o]nce you have completed
all your treatments, hair generally grows back." Defendants'
Patient Information leaflets contained this statement until at
least 2010. Defendants made representations that the risk of
permanent hair loss associated with Taxotere use was no higher
than its competitor's alternatives.

The lawsuit says Defendants' representations were false.
Defendants knew these representations were false. Defendants
disclosed these risks in other markets, such as Europe (in 2005)
and Canada (in 2012), but the same warning was not provided to
American consumers until late 2015. Defendants' representations
were made to induce Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' healthcare
providers to purchase and use Taxotere for Defendants' own
financial gain. Plaintiffs' physicians and others similarly
situated relied upon these representations before prescribing
Taxotere.

Defendants' misrepresentations were made to potential prescribers
and/or purchasers or users as members of the public at large.
Defendants' representations were material, and directly and
adversely impacted the risk-benefit analysis taken by plaintiffs'
physicians and others similarly situated prior to the
administration of Taxotere. As purchasers or users, Plaintiffs
and/or their healthcare providers reasonably relied on the
misrepresentations Plaintiffs were persons who would reasonably
be expected to use, consume, or be affected by the Taxotere,
Docetaxel Injection, Docetaxel Injection Concentrate, and
Docefrez. As a result of the foregoing acts and omissions,
Defendants caused Plaintiffs' injuries as alleged.[BN]


SECURITY NATIONAL: Gregory Haskin Sues over Reimbursements
----------------------------------------------------------
GREGORY HASKIN CHIROPRACTIC CLINICS, INC., a Florida corporation,
a/a/o Noman Maqsood, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
a Florida corporation, the Defendant, Case No. CACE-17-023577
(Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Dec. 28,
2017), seeks monetary, declaratory and injunctive relief for
Defendant's failure to pay proper amount of reimbursements to the
Plaintiff and the Class for certain medical services provided to
the Defendant's insureds.

Specifically, Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and the Class, seeks
the determination that the Defendant engaged in an improper
uniform business practice of reducing by 2% their payments of all
claims submitted by Plaintiff and the Class for medical services
provided and billed under CPT codes 98940, 98941 and 98942, in
violation of the Defendant's insurance policies and the Florida
Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law.

According to the complaint, on July 21, 2014, Noman Maqsood was
involved in a motor vehicle accident, and as a result, sustained
bodily injuries related to the operation, maintenance, or use of
a motor vehicle. Maqsood was a contracting party and/or a named
insured and/or an omnibus insured under an automobile insurance
policy issued by Security National, which policy was in full
force and effect and provided Personal Injury Protection ("PIP")
benefits coverage as required by Florida law.

Security National Insurance Company operates as a stock property
and casualty insurer. It covers private passenger auto physical
damage, private passenger auto liability, commercial automobile
liability, and commercial auto physical damage. The company was
incorporated in 1989 and is based in Davie, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tod Aronovitz, Esq.
          Barbara Perez, Esq.
          ARONOVITZ LAW
          2 South Biscayne Boulevard
          One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3700
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 372 2772
          Facsimile: (305) 397 1886
          E-mail: ta@aronovitzlaw.com
                  bp@aronovitzlaw.com

               - and -

          Theophilos Poulopoulos, Esq.
          SCHILLER, KESSLER & GOMEZ, PLC
          7501 W. Oakland Park Boulevard, Suite 201
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33319
          Telephone: (954) 933 3000
          Facsimile: (954) 667 5805
          E-mail: theo@injuredinflorida.com


SELECTMEN OF HINGHAM: Faces "Belezos" Suit in D. Massachusetts
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Board of Selectmen
of Hingham. The case is captioned as Nicholas G. Belezos, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Board of Selectmen of Hingham, Massachusetts in
their official capacity, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-12570-FDS
(D. Mass., Dec. 28, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
F. Dennis Saylor, IV.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frederick P. Zotos, Esq.
          PATHOGENICS, INC.
          28 Old Coach Road
          Cohasset, MA 02025
          Telephone: (781) 836 4295
          E-mail: fzotos@pathogenics.com


SHERATON OPERATING: "Kim" Suit Moved to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Daniel Kim, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Sheraton Operating Corporation, a Delaware Corporation and Does
1 to 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC684546, was
removed from the Los Angeles County Superior Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California (Western
Division - Los Angeles) on Dec. 27, 2017. The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-09247-FMO-E to the proceeding.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Fernando M. Olguin.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig J Ackermann, Esq.
          ACKERMANN AND TILAJEF PC
          1180 South Beverly Drive Suite 610
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          Telephone: (310) 277 0614
          Facsimile: (310) 277 0635
          E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com

               - and -

          David S. Winston, Esq.
          WINSTON LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1180 S Beverly Dr. Suite 610
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          Telephone: (424) 288 4568
          Facsimile: (424) 532 4062
          E-mail: david@employmentlitigators.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
          MELMED LAW GROUP PC
          1180 South Beverly Drive Suite 610
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          Telephone: (310) 824 3828
          Facsimile: (310) 862 6851
          E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Christopher J. Truxler, Esq.
          William J. Dritsas, Esq.
          Michael W Kopp, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          400 Capitol Mall Suite 2350
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: (916) 448 0159
          Facsimile: (916) 558 4839
          E-mail: ctruxler@seyfarth.com
                  wdritsas@seyfarth.com
                  mkopp@seyfarth.com


SIGNET JEWELERS: Brower Piven Files Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A
Professional Corporation, 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 purchasers of Signet
Jewelers Limited (NYSE:SIG) ("Signet" or the "Company")
securities during the period between August 24, 2017 and November
21, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period").  Investors who wish to
become proactively involved in the litigation have until February
13, 2018 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff.

If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the class, you
must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the
Court.  The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and
participate in important decisions including whether to accept a
settlement for the class in the action.  The lead plaintiff will
be selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from
investment in Signet securities during the Class Period.  Members
of the class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and
counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff.  No class has yet been
certified in the above action.

The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants'
failure to disclose during the Class Period that the Company's
efforts to convert IT systems in connection with the credit
portfolio transition were negatively impacting sales, the
magnitude of in-store process changes related to the new credit
program were negatively impacting sales, and the Company was
experiencing systems and process disruptions associated with the
outsourcing of its credit portfolio.

According to the complaint, following a November 21, 2017 press
release announcing that store sales were down five percent due to
systems and process disruptions, the value of Signet declined
significantly.

If you have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from investment
in Signet securities purchased on or after August 24, 2017 and
held through the revelation of negative information during and/or
at the end of the Class Period and would like to learn more about
this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead plaintiff,
without cost or obligation to you, please contact Brower Piven
either by email at hoffman@browerpiven.com or by telephone at
(410) 415-6616.

Attorneys at Brower Piven have extensive experience in litigating
securities and other class action cases and have been advocating
for the rights of shareholders since the 1980s.  If you choose to
retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven without financial
obligation or cost to you, or you may retain other counsel of
your choice.  You need take no action at this time to be a member
of the class. [GN]


SNS TRANSPORTATION: Reyes Sues over Unpaid Wages & Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
ALBERTO REYES, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SNS TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
INC., a California Corporation, dba AMERICAN TRANSPORTATION
SERVICES; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case
No. (S.D. Fla., Jan. 8, 2018), seeks to recover minimum and
straight time wages and overtime compensation under the
California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants failed to pay minimum and
straight time wages, failed to pay overtime wages, failed to
provide meal periods, failed to authorize and permit rest
periods, failed to maintain accurate records of hours worked and
meal periods, failed to indemnify necessary business expenses,
failed to pay vested vacation wages at termination, failed to
timely pay all wages to terminated employees, and failed to
furnish accurate wage.

SNS Transportation is in the Trailer Repair business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wages, Hofer Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
GREG HOFER, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, and as aggrieved employees
pursuant to the Private Attorneys 13 11 General Act ("PAGA"), the
Plaintiff, v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES, CO., a Texas corporation; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
RG17887504 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 29, 2017), alleges that the
airline's flight attendants were not paid for all hours worked
because those hours were not recorded.

Defendants provide retail air transportation both throughout the
State of California and on a national and international basis and
is purported to be the world's largest low-cost air travel
carrier.

The Defendants employed Plaintiff as a Flight Attendant within
the State of California from 1994 through the present. The
Defendants continue to employ Flight Attendants at multiple
airport locations throughout California.

The Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants knew or should have
known that Plaintiff and class members were entitled to receive
certain wages for overtime compensation and that they were not
receiving certain wages for overtime compensation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew R. Bainer, Esq.
          THE BAINER LAW FIRM
          Harrison St., Suite 1100
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 922 1802
          Facsimile: (510) 844 7701
          E-mail: mbainer@bainerlawfirm.com


SOUTHWEST HAZARD: Fails to Pay Wages and Overtime, Barajas Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCISCO BARAJAS, an individual, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. SOUTHWEST HAZARD CONTROL, INC.; SHCCA,
INC.; and DOES 1 thru 50, inclusive, Case No. RG17884833 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., December 5, 2017), accuses the
Defendants of failing to pay wages and overtime under the
California Labor Code.

Southwest Hazard Control, Inc., is an Arizona corporation
operating within the state of California.  SHCCA, Inc., is a
California corporation operating within California.  The true
names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown
to the Plaintiff.

Southwest Hazard Control provides environmental abatement and
remediation services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SUBWAY 273: "De La Torre" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Ivett De La Torre, and other
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, v. Subway 273,
Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation; Steven Bracken, individually;
and Timothy Johnson, individually, Case No. 17-0928163-CA-01, was
removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit for Miami Dade County,
Florida, to the Southern District of Florida (Miami) on Jan. 8,
2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-20067-
JEM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Jose E. Martinez.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Court House Tower
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416 5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416 5005
          E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com

Attorneys for Subway 273, Inc.:

          Elizabeth Mercedes Rodriguez, Esq.
          FORD & HARRISON LLP
          One S.E. 3rd Avenue, Suite 2130
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 808 2143
          Facsimile: (305) 808 2101
          E-mail: erodriguez@fordharrison.com


SWISSPORT USA: "Courtney" Wants to Stop Capture of Biometric Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY COURTNEY and DOMONIQUE BOONE, individually and on behalf
of a class of similarly situated individuals v. SWISSPORT USA,
INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2017CH16020 (Ill. Cir.
Ct., Cook Cty., December 5, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendant's
capture, collection, use and storage of individuals' biometric
identifiers and biometric information in violation of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

Choosing to shun more traditional timekeeping methods to track
its employees, the Defendant has instead implemented an invasive
program that captures, collects, stores, and uses Plaintiffs' and
other workers' biometric identifiers and/or biometric information
in the form of finger scans, which capture a person's
fingerprint, and which Defendant then uses to identify that same
person in the future, according to the complaint.

Swissport is an aviation services company, which provides ground
and cargo handling services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Myles McGuire, Esq.
          William P. Kingston, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893-7002
          Facsimile: (312) 275-7895
          E-mail: mmcguire@mcgpc.com
                  wkingston@mcgpc.com


TAMNINE LLC: "Cullum" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Cullum, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. Tamnine LLC and Ayman Nasser, Defendants,
Case No. 17-cv-00858 (E.D. Tex., December 14, 2017), seeks
overtime compensation for all unpaid hours worked in excess of
forty hours in any workweek, liquidated damages, reasonable
attorney's fees, expert fees, costs and expenses, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest and such other relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Tamnine operates convenience stores in Northeast Texas, where
Cullum worked as a convenience store clerk at their Seven Points
location. Defendants did not pay Plaintiff overtime rates for
hours worked over 40 per week, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TATA CONSULTANCY: Termination Class Certified in "Buchanan" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order in the lawsuit
styled BRIAN BUCHANAN, et al. v. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES, LTD,
Case No. 4:15-cv-01696-YGR (N.D. Cal.):

   1. granting in part -- as to amending to add Seyed Amir
      Masoudi and Nobel Mandili as named plaintiffs -- the
      Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a fourth amended
      complaint, and denying in part as to adding Steven Webber.
      The Plaintiffs shall file a fourth amended complaint, and
      the Defendant shall respond by January 22, 2018;

   2. denying the Defendants' motion to exclude the expert
      opinion of Dr. David Neumark;

   3. denying the Defendants' motion for summary judgment as
      premature as to Plaintiff Christopher Slaight and denying
      as to Plaintiff Brian Buchanan;

   4. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as
      to the proposed Termination Class and denying as to the
      proposed Hiring Class;

   5. appointing Plaintiffs' counsel, Kotchen & Low, as class
      counsel.

A case management conference is scheduled for January 29, 2018,
at 2:00 p.m.

Plaintiffs Brian Buchanan and Christopher Slaight bring this
putative class action against Tata Consultancy Services, Ltd. for
alleged discrimination in employment practices.  The Plaintiffs
bring causes of action for disparate treatment under Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The Plaintiffs allege that TCS
discriminated against them in their hiring, employment, and/or
termination practices based on race and national origin.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs claim that TCS maintains a pattern
and practice of intentional discrimination in its United States
workforce whereby TCS treats persons, who are South Asian or of
Indian national origin more favorably than those who are not
South Asian or of Indian national origin.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7fQeaq1f


TATA CONSULTANCY: US Judge Expands Bias Case to Class-Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Varun Aggarwal, writing for The Hindu Business Line, reports that
India's largest software exporter Tata Consultancy Services
Limited (TCS) suffered a setback in a US court on December 27 as
its plea to dismiss a two-year-old suit against it was denied by
a federal judge in Oakland, California. The suit accused the
company of violating anti-discrimination laws by favouring
Indians.

In a further blow, the judge expanded the anti-discrimination
lawsuit into a class-action suit. This means that the former
employees who meet the conditions for suing as a group -- having
common complaints -- can do so.

TCS said in a statement that it would defend its position and
that it expects a positive outcome. "In vindication of our
position that TCS is an Equal Opportunity Employer, District
Court in California has denied Class Certification on a
litigation against the company alleging . . . . discrimination in
hiring against people of non-South Asian origin. The same court
has, however, granted Class certification in respect to
discrimination in practices related to termination of employees.
This part of the litigation will move to the next phase of
trial," a TCS spokesperson said.

TCS claimed it is an equal-opportunity employer operating in over
50 countries, including the US, and employee-nationals from over
100 countries. It said there were no discriminatory practices in
any part of the company.

The lawsuit dates back to April 2015, when former TCS employee
Steven Heldt filed a civil complaint in the US District Court in
San Francisco claiming he experienced "substantial anti-American
sentiment" and was fired after working at several of the
company's US offices for 20 months because he was a Caucasian
American.

Heldt accused TCS of threefold discrimination: hiring 95 per cent
of its workers, most of them from India, on H-1B, L-1 and B-1
visas; hiring a disproportionate number of local South Asian
workers; and discriminating against non-South Asians in
promotions and firings.

Under pressure from the US government to restrict H-1B visas, TCS
has been hiring locally in the US.

It recruited over 11,500 outside India during 2016-17, including
graduates from engineering and B-schools in the US. [GN]


TENHOP LLC: "Murphy" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------
Angela Murphy on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Tenhop, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 7:17-cv-
00143, (W.D. Tenn., December 14, 2017), seeks compensation for
all unpaid and underpaid wages, liquidated damages, litigation
costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees and such other and further
relief under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant operates a franchise of International House of Pancakes
located at 5800 S. Collins Street, Suite 104, Arlington, Texas
76018-2305, where Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a
server.

Defendant allegedly pays its servers at a tipped hourly rate that
is lower than the $7.25 per hour statutory minimum wage and uses
its servers' reported tips to meet its minimum wage and overtime
obligations. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David W. Garrison, Esq.
      Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
      MARTIN & GARRISON LLC
      414 Union Street, Suite 900
      Nashville, TN 37219
      Tel: (615) 244-2202
      Fax: (615) 252-3798
      Email: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
             jfrank@barrettjohnston.com


THOMAS HANNA: "Raiford" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
JOHN RAIFORD, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. THOMAS HANNA D/B/A HANNA'S RURAL
SANITATION, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00005 (E.D. Tex.,
Jan. 8, 2018), seeks to recover overtime pay under Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendant provides residential and commercial garbage
services in Texas. It conducts business throughout the United
States and does more than $500,000.00 per year in business.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant during the three years
prior to the filing of this suit, from November 2015 to June
2016, as a salaried, overtime-exempt employee.  According to the
complaint, the Plaintiff was misclassified by Defendant as an
exempt employee.  Plaintiff's duties made him a non-exempt
employee under the FLSA: The Plaintiff was primarily responsible
for performing maintenance, service, and repair work on
Defendant's trucks. Plaintiff's job duties included fabricating
new or replacement parts, assembling component parts by hand or
using small tools, and ordering parts and supplies.

The Plaintiff and Class Members were not lawfully compensated for
all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek at the rates
required by the FLSA because Defendant misclassified them as
exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA. Plaintiff and
Class Members routinely worked more than 40 hours per week but
were not paid time-and-one-half their regular rates of pay for
all their excessive hours. The Defendant knowingly, willfully, or
with reckless disregard carried out its illegal pattern or
practice of failing to pay overtime compensation with respect to
Plaintiff and Class Members. Defendant received complaints from
Plaintiff or Class Members regarding these excessive hours and
the failure to compensate for all hours worked but failed to
redress these concerns, necessitating this lawsuit.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Derek Braziel, Esq.
          Travis Gasper, Esq.
          LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P.
          1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
          Dallas, Texas 75202
          Telephone: (214) 749 1400
          Facsimile: (214) 749 1010
          E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com
                  gasper@l-b-law.com


TOLL BROS: "Lopez" Suit Alleges ADA Violations
----------------------------------------------
Victor Lopez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Toll Bros., Inc. and Toll Brothers Real Estate, Inc., Case No.
1:18-cv-00104-AJN (S.D. N.Y., January 5, 2018), is brought
against the Defendants for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the New York State Human Rights Law.

Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against the Defendants
for failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people.

Plaintiff Victor Lopez is a resident of New York, New York.
Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person and a
member of a protected class of individuals under the ADA.

Defendants advertise, market, distribute, and/or sell real
estate, mortgages, real estate brokers, home building services
and other types of real-estate related services in the State of
New York and throughout the United States.  [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bradly G. Marks, Esq.
      THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC
      175 Varick St. 3rd Floor
      New York, NY 10014
      Tel: (646) 770-3775
      Fax: (646) 867-2639
      E-mail: bmarkslaw@gmail.com

          - and -

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


TONG SHEN: "Rojas" Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Rojas Calixto, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Tong Shen Trading Inc., Qin Lin, and Jane Doe, Case
No.  1:18-cv-00075 (E.D. N.Y., January 5, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys'
fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.

Plaintiff Jorge Rojas Calixto was continuously employed by
Defendants to work as a non exempt warehouseman, stock person,
driver's helper, and delivery person for Defendants' wholesale
produce business from in or about 2013 until on or about
September 5, 2017.

The Defendants own and operate a wholesale produce business in
Brooklyn, New York.  [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Giustino Cilenti, Esq.
      Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
      708 Third Avenue- 6th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Tel: (212) 209-3933
      Fax: (212) 209-7102


TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Class & Subclasses Certified in "Feller" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Christina A. Snyder granted the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification in the lawsuit styled GORDON FELLER ET
AL. v. TRANSAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:16-cv-
01378-CAS-AJW (C.D. Cal.).

These Class and Subclasses are certified:

   * National Class:

     All persons who own an in-force Policy for which the MDR
     increase imposed by Transamerica beginning August 1, 2015,
     has resulted or will result in higher Monthly Deduction
     charges than those applicable under the rate schedule in
     effect before that date.

   * California Subclass:

     All California residents who own an in-force Policy for
     which the MDR increase imposed by Transamerica beginning
     August 1, 2015, has resulted or will result in higher
     Monthly Deduction charges than those applicable under the
     rate schedule in effect before that date.

   * California Senior Subclass:

     All California residents who own an in-force Policy for
     which the MDR increase imposed by Transamerica beginning
     August 1, 2015, has resulted or will result in higher
     Monthly Deduction charges than those applicable under the
     rate schedule in effect before that date, and who were age
     65 or older when the MDR increase was imposed on them.

Judge Snyder also appointed these individuals as class
representatives:

   (1) Donna White, Gail Thompson, and Erick Schneck, as Trustee
       of the Schneck Trust, for the National Class;

   (2) Gail Thompson for the California Subclass; and

   (3) Gail Thompson for the California Senior Subclass.

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


TUCKER ENERGY: "McElroy" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------
Brandon McElroy, Robert Harrington, Averil Owens and Michael
Rider, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Tucker Energy Services, Inc., and Tucker Energy
Services USA, Inc., Case No. 5:18-cv-00010 (W.D. Tex., January 4,
2018), seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties and costs, and
reasonable attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs are employees who are or were hourly-paid oilfield
workers for Defendants, who, during the applicable time period,
work/worked for Defendants and are/were denied their rights under
applicable federal wage and hour laws.

Defendants are privately owned multinational oil and gas services
corporation providing innovative technology solutions. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


WISCONSIN: Certification of Class Sought in "Campos" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled EFRAIN CAMPOS, JUAN NIETO,
STANLEY NEWAGO, AND SIX UNNAMED PLAINTIFFS v. MICHAEL DITTMAN,
LINDA ALSUM O'DONOVAN, DAVE KURKOWSKI, LUCAS M. WEBER, KEVIN W.
PITZEN and BRAD HOMRE, CINDY O'DONNELL, Case No. 3:17-cv-00545-
jdp (W.D. Wisc.), ask the Court to issue certification for the
class action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.

Pro se Plaintiffs Efrain Campos, Juan Nieto, and Stanley Newago
are inmates in the custody of the Wisconsin Department of
Corrections (DOC) currently housed at the Columbia Correctional
Institution (CCI).  They bring this proposed class action under
42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against the Defendants, who are CCI and
DOC officials.

Michael Dittmann is the warden of Columbia Correctional
Institution.

All of the Plaintiffs' rights were violated in the same manner as
Badger State Industries employees at Columbia Correctional
Institution, according to Motion.  The Plaintiffs contend that
they exercised their First Amendment rights and by exercising
that right the Defendants retaliated against them and further
terminated them without due process of law as explained in the
complaint dated November 15, 2017.

The Plaintiffs tell the Court that the class here is three named
and six unnamed BSI workers, who have exhausted all
administrative remedies to satisfy the exhaustion requirement and
to satisfy Rule 23(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7xHxIgrj


WYNDHAM HOTELS: "Macias" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Humberto Macias, and other
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Wyndham Hotels
and Resorts, LLC, a foreign limited liability company, the
Defendant, Case No. 17-27386 CA 01, was removed from the 11th
Judicial Circuit of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida (Miami) on Jan. 8, 2018. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-20063-DPG to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Darrin P.
Gayles.

Wyndham Hotel Group is the world's largest and most diverse hotel
business, with a global portfolio of more than 8,100 hotels and
over 705,700 rooms in 79 countries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Court House Tower
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416 5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416 5005
          E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Stephanie Leigh Adler-Paindiris, Esq.
          Amanda Ann Simpson
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          390 N Orange Avenue, Suite 1285
          Orlando, FL 32801-1641
          Telephone: (407) 246 8440
          Facsimile: (407) 246 8441
          E-mail: adlers@jacksonlewis.com
                  Amanda.Simpson@jacksonlewis.com


                           Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial in Case vs. E-Source Set for Spring 2018
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vertex Energy, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal quarter
ended September 30, 2017, that the asbestos-related lawsuit
versus its subsidiary is set for trial in the spring of 2018.

The Company states, "E-Source Holdings, LLC ("E-Source"), the
wholly-owned subsidiary of Vertex Operating, was named as a
defendant (along with Motiva Enterprises, LLC, ("Motiva")) in a
lawsuit filed in the Sixtieth (60th) Judicial District, Jefferson
County, Texas, on April 22, 2015.  Pursuant to the lawsuit, Whole
Environmental, Inc. ("Whole"), made certain allegations against
E-Source and Motiva.  The claims include Breach of Contract and
Quantum Meruit actions relating to asbestos abatement and
remediation operations performed for defendants at Motiva's
facility in Port Arthur, Jefferson County, Texas.  The plaintiff
alleges it is due monies earned.  Defendants have denied any
amounts due to plaintiff.  The suit seeks damages of
approximately US$864,000, along with pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest, the fair value of certain property alleged to
be converted by defendants and reimbursement of legal fees.  E-
Source has asserted a counterclaim against Whole for the filing
of a mechanic's lien in excess of any amount(s) actually due, as
well as a cross-claim against Motiva.  Under the terms of E-
Source's contract with Motiva, Motiva was to pay all sums due to
any sub-contractors of E-Source.  In management's opinion, any
monies due to Whole, should be paid by Motiva.  E-Source seeks to
recover the balance due under its contract with Motiva of
approximately US$1,000,000.  The case is set for trial in the
spring of 2018.  We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against
the allegations made in the complaint.  The Company has no basis
of determining whether there is any likelihood of material loss
associated with the claims and/or the potential and/or the
outcome of the litigation."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/0DetKp


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Had US$209.8-Mil. Liability at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Enstar Group Limited recorded US$209.8 million for indemnity and
defense costs for pending and future claims at September 30,
2017, determined using standard actuarial techniques for
asbestos-related exposures, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2017.

The Company states, "We acquired Dana Companies, LLC ("Dana") on
December 30, 2016.  Dana continues to process asbestos personal
injury claims in the normal course of business and is separately
managed.

"Other liabilities included US$209.8 million and US$220.5 million
for indemnity and defense costs for pending and future claims at
September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively,
determined using standard actuarial techniques for asbestos-
related exposures.  Other liabilities also included US$2.2
million and US$2.3 million for environmental liabilities
associated with Dana properties at September 30, 2017 and
December 31, 2016, respectively.

"Other assets included US$126.4 million and US$133.0 million at
September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively, for
estimated insurance recoveries relating to these liabilities.
The recorded asset represents our assessment of the capacity of
the insurance agreements to provide for the payment of
anticipated defense and indemnity costs for pending claims and
projected future demands.  The recognition of these recoveries is
based on an assessment of the right to recover under the
respective contracts and on the financial strength of the
insurers.  The recorded asset does not represent the limits of
our insurance coverage, but rather the amount we would expect to
recover if the accrued indemnity and defense costs were paid in
full."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/EoZcLE


ASBESTOS UPDATE: HII Continues to Face PI Claims at Sept. 30
------------------------------------------------------------
Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. is still facing asbestos-
related claims alleging various injuries, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017.

The Company states, "HII and its predecessors-in-interest are
defendants in a longstanding series of cases that have been and
continue to be filed in various jurisdictions around the country,
wherein former and current employees and various third parties
allege exposure to asbestos containing materials while on or
associated with HII premises or while working on vessels
constructed or repaired by HII.

"The cases allege various injuries, including those associated
with pleural plaque disease, asbestosis, cancer, mesothelioma,
and other alleged asbestos related conditions.  In some cases,
several of HII's former executive officers are also named as
defendants.  In some instances, partial or full insurance
coverage is available to the Company for its liability and that
of its former executive officers.

"The average cost per case to resolve cases during the nine
months ended September 30, 2017 and 2016, was immaterial
individually and in the aggregate.  The Company's estimate of
asbestos-related liabilities is subject to uncertainty because
liabilities are influenced by numerous variables that are
inherently difficult to predict.  Key variables include the
number and type of new claims, the litigation process from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms made
by state and federal courts, and the passage of state or federal
tort reform legislation.  Although the Company believes the
ultimate resolution of current cases will not have a material
effect on its consolidated financial position, results of
operations, or cash flows, it cannot predict what new or revised
claims or litigation might be asserted or what information might
come to light and can, therefore, give no assurances regarding
the ultimate outcome of asbestos related litigation."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/cv4zlc


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 223 Cases vs. CECO Still Pending at Sept. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
CECO Environmental Corp. is still facing 223 pending asbestos-
related cases as of September 30, 2017, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017.

The Company states, "Our subsidiary, Met-Pro Technologies LLC
("Met-Pro"), beginning in 2002, began to be named in asbestos-
related lawsuits filed against a large number of industrial
companies including, in particular, those in the pump and fluid
handling industries.  In management's opinion, the complaints
typically have been vague, general and speculative, alleging that
Met-Pro, along with the numerous other defendants, sold
unidentified asbestos-containing products and engaged in other
related actions which caused injuries (including death) and loss
to the plaintiffs.  Counsel has advised that more recent cases
typically allege more serious claims of mesothelioma.  The
Company's insurers have hired attorneys who, together with the
Company, are vigorously defending these cases.  Many cases have
been dismissed after the plaintiff fails to produce evidence of
exposure to Met-Pro's products.  In those cases where evidence
has been produced, the Company's experience has been that the
exposure levels are low and the Company's position has been that
its products were not a cause of death, injury or loss.  The
Company has been dismissed from or settled a large number of
these cases.  Cumulative settlement payments from 2002 through
September 30, 2017 for cases involving asbestos-related claims
were US$1.2 million, of which together with all legal fees other
than corporate counsel expenses; US$1.1 million have been paid by
the Company's insurers.  The average cost per settled claim,
excluding legal fees, was approximately US$27,000.

"Based upon the most recent information available to the Company
regarding such claims, there were a total of 223 cases pending
against the Company as of September 30, 2017 (with Connecticut,
New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia having the largest
number of cases), as compared with 229 cases that were pending as
of December 31, 2016.  During the nine months ended September 30,
2017, 39 new cases were filed against the Company, and the
Company was dismissed from 40 cases and settled five cases.  Most
of the pending cases have not advanced beyond the discovery stage
of litigation, although a number of cases are on schedules
leading to, or are scheduled for trial.  The Company believes
that its insurance coverage is adequate for the cases currently
pending against the Company and for the foreseeable future,
assuming a continuation of the current volume, nature of cases
and settlement amounts.  However, the Company has no control over
the number and nature of cases that are filed against it, nor as
to the financial health of its insurers or their position as to
coverage.  The Company also presently believes that none of the
pending cases will have a material adverse impact upon the
Company's results of operations, liquidity or financial
condition."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/MGCPLI


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Corp. Has 17,150 PI Lawsuits at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Harsco Corporation continues to defend against 17,150 pending
asbestos personal injury actions at September 30, 2017, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2017.

Harsco Corp. states, "The Company is named as one of many
defendants (approximately 90 or more in most cases) in legal
actions in the U.S. alleging personal injury from exposure to
airborne asbestos over the past several decades.  In their suits,
the plaintiffs have named as defendants, among others, many
manufacturers, distributors and installers of numerous types of
equipment or products that allegedly contained asbestos.

"The Company believes that the claims against it are without
merit.  The Company has never been a producer, manufacturer or
processor of asbestos fibers.  Any asbestos-containing part of a
Company product used in the past was purchased from a supplier
and the asbestos encapsulated in other materials such that
airborne exposure, if it occurred, was not harmful and is not
associated with the types of injuries alleged in the pending
actions.

"At September 30, 2017, there were 17,150 pending asbestos
personal injury actions filed against the Company.  Of those
actions, 16,752 were filed in the New York Supreme Court (New
York County), 111 were filed in other New York State Supreme
Court Counties and 287 were filed in courts located in other
states.

"The complaints in most of those actions generally follow a form
that contains a standard damages demand of US$20 million or US$25
million, regardless of the individual plaintiff's alleged medical
condition, and without identifying any specific Company product.

"At September 30, 2017, 16,721 of the actions filed in New York
Supreme Court (New York County) were on the Deferred/Inactive
Docket created by the court in December 2002 for all pending and
future asbestos actions filed by persons who cannot demonstrate
that they have a malignant condition or discernible physical
impairment.  The remaining 31 cases in New York County are
pending on the Active or In Extremis Docket created for
plaintiffs who can demonstrate a malignant condition or physical
impairment.

"The Company has liability insurance coverage under various
primary and excess policies that the Company believes will be
available, if necessary, to substantially cover any liability
that might ultimately be incurred in the asbestos actions.  The
costs and expenses of the asbestos actions are being paid by the
Company's insurers.

"In view of the persistence of asbestos litigation in the U.S.,
the Company expects to continue to receive additional claims in
the future.  The Company intends to continue its practice of
vigorously defending these claims and cases.  At September 30,
2017, the Company has obtained dismissal in 27,931 cases by
stipulation or summary judgment prior to trial.

"It is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of asbestos-
related actions in the U.S. due to the unpredictable nature of
this litigation, and no loss provision has been recorded in the
Company's condensed consolidated financial statements because a
loss contingency is not deemed probable or estimable.  Despite
this uncertainty, and although results of operations and cash
flows for a given period could be adversely affected by asbestos-
related actions, the Company does not expect that any costs that
are reasonably possible to be incurred by the Company in
connection with asbestos litigation would have a material adverse
effect on the Company's financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/8XFNj3


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Valhi Unit Has 103 Cases Pending at Sept. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
NL Industries, Inc., a subsidiary of Valhi, Inc., has 103 cases
arising from asbestos exposure, involving a total of
approximately 587 plaintiffs, according to the Company's Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2017.

The Company states, "We have been named as a defendant in various
lawsuits in several jurisdictions, alleging personal injuries as
a result of occupational exposure primarily to products
manufactured by our former operations containing asbestos, silica
and/or mixed dust.  In addition, some plaintiffs allege exposure
to asbestos from working in various facilities previously owned
and/or operated by us.  There are 103 of these types of cases
pending, involving a total of approximately 587 plaintiffs.  In
addition, the claims of approximately 8,680 plaintiffs have been
administratively dismissed or placed on the inactive docket in
Ohio state court.  We do not expect these claims will be re-
opened unless the plaintiffs meet the courts' medical criteria
for asbestos-related claims.  We have not accrued any amounts for
this litigation because of the uncertainty of liability and
inability to reasonably estimate the liability, if any.  To date,
we have not been adjudicated liable in any of these matters.

"Based on information available to us, including:

   * facts concerning historical operations,
   * the rate of new claims,
   * the number of claims from which we have been dismissed, and
   * our prior experience in the defense of these matters,

we believe that the range of reasonably possible outcomes of
these matters will be consistent with our historical costs (which
are not material).  Furthermore, we do not expect any reasonably
possible outcome would involve amounts material to our
consolidated financial position, results of operations or
liquidity.  We have sought and will continue to vigorously seek,
dismissal and/or a finding of no liability from each claim.  In
addition, from time to time, we have received notices regarding
asbestos or silica claims purporting to be brought against former
subsidiaries, including notices provided to insurers with which
we have entered into settlements extinguishing certain insurance
policies.  These insurers may seek indemnification from us."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/TgvGVj


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2,742 Claims v. Metropolitan Life at Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company received approximately 2,742
new asbestos-related claims during the nine months ended
September 30, 2017, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2017.

The Company states, "Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is and
has been a defendant in a large number of asbestos-related suits
filed primarily in state courts.  These suits principally allege
that the plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered personal injury
resulting from exposure to asbestos and seek both actual and
punitive damages.  Metropolitan Life Insurance Company has never
engaged in the business of manufacturing, producing, distributing
or selling asbestos or asbestos-containing products nor has
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company issued liability or workers'
compensation insurance to companies in the business of
manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling asbestos or
asbestos-containing products.  The lawsuits principally have
focused on allegations with respect to certain research,
publication and other activities of one or more of Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company's employees during the period from the
1920's through approximately the 1950's and allege that
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company learned or should have
learned of certain health risks posed by asbestos and, among
other things, improperly publicized or failed to disclose those
health risks.

"Metropolitan Life Insurance Company believes that it should not
have legal liability in these cases.  The outcome of most
asbestos litigation matters, however, is uncertain and can be
impacted by numerous variables, including differences in legal
rulings in various jurisdictions, the nature of the alleged
injury and factors unrelated to the ultimate legal merit of the
claims asserted against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company employs a number of
resolution strategies to manage its asbestos loss exposure,
including seeking resolution of pending litigation by judicial
rulings and settling individual or groups of claims or lawsuits
under appropriate circumstances.

"Claims asserted against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company have
included negligence, intentional tort and conspiracy concerning
the health risks associated with asbestos.  Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company's defenses (beyond denial of certain factual
allegations) include that: (i) Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company owed no duty to the plaintiffs -- it had no special
relationship with the plaintiffs and did not manufacture,
produce, distribute or sell the asbestos products that allegedly
injured plaintiffs; (ii) plaintiffs did not rely on any actions
of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; (iii) Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company's conduct was not the cause of the plaintiffs'
injuries; (iv) plaintiffs' exposure occurred after the dangers of
asbestos were known; and (v) the applicable time with respect to
filing suit has expired.  During the course of the litigation,
certain trial courts have granted motions dismissing claims
against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, while other trial
courts have denied Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's motions.
There can be no assurance that Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company will receive favorable decisions on motions in the
future.  While most cases brought to date have settled,
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company intends to continue to defend
aggressively against claims based on asbestos exposure, including
defending claims at trials.

"As reported in the 2016 Annual Report, Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company received approximately 4,146 asbestos-related
claims in 2016.  During the nine months ended September 30, 2017
and 2016, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company received
approximately 2,742 and 3,267 new asbestos-related claims,
respectively.

"The number of asbestos cases that may be brought, the aggregate
amount of any liability that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
may incur, and the total amount paid in settlements in any given
year are uncertain and may vary significantly from year to year."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/p6kd0A


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Had $281MM Loss Reserves at Sept. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Everest Re Group, Ltd. had net asbestos loss reserves of
US$281.0 million, or 95.9%, of total net A&E reserves at
September 30, 2017, all of which was for assumed business,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017.

The Company states, "On July 13, 2015, we sold Mt. McKinley to
Clearwater Insurance Company.  Concurrently with the closing, we
entered into a retrocession treaty with an affiliate of
Clearwater.  Per the retrocession treaty, we retroceded 100% of
the liabilities associated with certain Mt. McKinley policies,
which had been reinsured by Bermuda Re.  As consideration for
entering into the retrocession treaty, Bermuda Re transferred
cash of US$140.3 million, an amount equal to the net loss
reserves as of the closing date.  Of the US$140.3 million of net
loss reserves retroceded, US$100.5 million were related to A&E
business.  The maximum liability retroceded under the
retrocession treaty will be US$440.3 million, equal to the
retrocession payment plus US$300.0 million.  We will retain
liability for any amounts exceeding the maximum liability
retroceded under the retrocession treaty.

"Ultimate loss projections for A&E liabilities cannot be
accomplished using standard actuarial techniques.  We believe
that our A&E reserves represent management's best estimate of the
ultimate liability; however, there can be no assurance that
ultimate loss payments will not exceed such reserves, perhaps by
a significant amount.

"Industry analysts use the "survival ratio" to compare the A&E
reserves among companies with such liabilities.  The survival
ratio is typically calculated by dividing a company's current net
reserves by the three year average of annual paid losses.  Hence,
the survival ratio equals the number of years that it would take
to exhaust the current reserves if future loss payments were to
continue at historical levels.  Using this measurement, our net
three year asbestos survival ratio was 5.6 years at September 30,
2017.  These metrics can be skewed by individual large
settlements occurring in the prior three years and therefore, may
not be indicative of the timing of future payments."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/3KWi6l


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Houston Wire Still Faces PI Suits at Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Houston Wire & Cable Company remains a defendant in lawsuits
alleging personal injury due to asbestos that may be in certain
wire and cable, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017.

Houston Wire states, "The Company, along with many other
defendants, has been named in a number of lawsuits in the state
courts of Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota alleging that
certain wire and cable which may have contained asbestos caused
injury to the plaintiffs who were exposed to this wire and cable.
These lawsuits are individual personal injury suits that seek
unspecified amounts of money damages as the sole remedy.  It is
not clear whether the alleged injuries occurred as a result of
the wire and cable in question or whether the Company, in fact,
distributed the wire and cable alleged to have caused any
injuries.  The Company maintains general liability insurance
that, to date, has covered the defense of and all costs
associated with these claims.  In addition, the Company did not
manufacture any of the wire and cable at issue, and the Company
would rely on any warranties from the manufacturers of such cable
if it were determined that any of the wire or cable that the
Company distributed contained asbestos which caused injury to any
of these plaintiffs.  In connection with ALLTEL's sale of the
Company in 1997, ALLTEL provided indemnities with respect to
costs and damages associated with these claims that the Company
believes it could enforce if its insurance coverage proves
inadequate."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/yb62Ue


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Suits v. Dixie Group Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Dixie Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2017 that discovery is still ongoing in two
mesothelioma-related lawsuits filed against multiple parties
including the Company.

The Company states, "We are one of multiple parties to two
lawsuits filed in Madison County Illinois, styled Brenda
Bridgeman, Individually and as Special Administrator of the
Estate of Robert Bridgeman, Deceased, vs. American Honda Motor
Co., Inc., f/k/a Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., et al No.  15-
L-374 and styled Charles Anderson, Pltf., vs. 3M Company, et al,
No.  17-L-525.

"Both lawsuits entail a claim for damages to be determined in
excess of US$50,000 filed on behalf of either a former employee
or the estate of an individual which alleges that the deceased
contracted mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos while
employed by the Company.

"Discovery in each matter is ongoing, and a tentative trial date
has been set for one of the cases.  We have denied liability, are
defending the matters vigorously and are unable to estimate our
potential exposure to loss, if any, at this time.

"In August of 2017, the lawsuit styled Sandra D.  Watts,
Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Dianne
Averett, Deceased vs. 4520 Corp., Inc. f/k/a Benjamin F. Shaw
Company, et al No. 12-L-2032 was placed in the category of
"special closed with settlements and bankruptcy claims pending"
to all remaining defendants."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/ozVWoy


ASBESTOS UPDATE: School Closed Due to Asbestos Leaking on Ceiling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Martha Schick -- martha.schick@globe.com -- of Globe reported
that Crocker Elementary School was closed from Jan. 2 to 5 due to
a water leak that damaged ceiling tile containing asbestos,
according to a note sent out from Fitchburg Superintendent Andre
Ravenelle.

Ravenelle wrote that cancelling classes for a week will allow for
proper planning of the temporary relocation of our students and
staff. The school is working with the appropriate agencies and
licensed experts and will remain closed until cleaning and
remediation has been completed, Ravenelle wrote.

The water leak took place while the school was closed for the
holidays and did not affect any students, according to the note
to guardians.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Demolition on Asbestos-Filled Fertilizer Site
--------------------------------------------------------------
Danica MacLean of Northern Advocate reported that it's time for
new growth on an old Whangarei fertilizer storage site.

Whangarei District Council is planning to redevelop the old
Ballance fertilizer site on Port Rd but it is yet to decide
exactly what kind of development will take its place.

Contractors will begin dismantling the building and clearing the
site from late January.

Council property manager Mike Hilbert said the former fertilizer
storage facility contains a lot of asbestos.

Removing it was always going to require very careful, well-
planned, well-executed work, so we have been planning that for
some time.

He said a class A asbestos removal contractor has been signed on
for the work.

The job will include removing all the asbestos cladding and
asbestos containing material, demolition of the site buildings
down to the concrete slab and a site tidy-up.

The building's asbestos sheeting will be coated with a PVA/water
mixture, to enclose fibres, before being wrapped in plastic and
trucked to Puwera Landfill for disposal.

Mr Hibbert said all work would be performed in accordance with
the legislation.

He said the council was now satisfied the site could be cleared
in a way that ensured the safety of the public.

The $700,000 contract has been let to demolition specialists
Ceres New Zealand.

Mr Hibbert said disruption to traffic on Port Rd will be minimal,
with trucks making left turns only and barriers used to keep the
public safe.

Asbestos air monitoring will be carried out at several locations
around the site boundary and all works will be monitored by a
licensed asbestos assessor.

To protect the environment, all runoff will be captured or
treated to prevent sediment or asbestos entering the harbour.
Dust will be controlled with water misting as required and
plastic drop sheets will be laid below work areas to prevent
asbestos entering soils.

Following demolition, an environmental site assessment will
investigate soil and groundwater conditions beneath the site and
identify whether any remediation works are required.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firefighter Dies of Mesothelioma
-------------------------------------------------
Jake Ryan of The Sun reported that the grandad-of-two had
received an MBE for his service after joining the fire brigade
aged just 17.

John, who had been the station's mascot aged 5, had pretended to
be 18 in order to join the fire brigade.

But during his service he had been exposed to lethal asbestos
dust in fire-retardant blankets and gloves coated in the deadly
material.

In April 2012 John, from Penzance, Cornwall, complained to his GP
about breathlessness and was diagnosed with mesothelioma cancer
in his lungs.

Doctors were unable to treat the mass in his lung and he died a
year later -- leaving his unwell wife Phyllis without a carer.
But Cornwall Council, responsible for John's fire station, have
now paid out compensation which his family are using for
Phyllis's care.

John's trawlerman son Treve, who has two children Stuart and
Jordan, said: "It was his life's passion and he made life-long
friends while he did it.

"It's been incredibly difficult for her to lose my father. They
were married for 48 years and completely dedicated to each
other."
John had left school at 15 to work as a farm labourer before
joining the fire service at 17.

Dushal Mehta of Fieldfisher law firm had found witness evidence
about working conditions from former colleagues and fire station
log books to show John had been exposed to asbestos.

Dushal said: "Tragically, mesothelioma affects people like John
who have worked hard all their life in a job they love,
unknowingly being exposed to fatal asbestos dust and then their
reward is this terrible illness.

Mesothelioma can take 30 years to appear and in the past, mostly
affected people such as labourers, construction workers and
shipbuilders, who physically handled the stuff. But we're now
seeing more and more cases of civil servants such as teachers,
nurses and fireman affected by this cruel disease.

A spokeswoman for Cornwall Council said: "Our thoughts are with
the family of Mr Nicholls.

Historical cases such as this are an issue for many local
authorities and their insurers and relate to building materials
containing asbestos which were widely used in the past."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: City Council Escape Suspension on Asbestos Mess
----------------------------------------------------------------
Damien Madigan of Blue Mountain Gazette News reported that Blue
Mountains City Council has escaped suspension after the local
government minister backed down on threats to appoint an
administrator over its management of asbestos.

The minister, Gabrielle Upton, announced her decision on December
22 after earlier issuing council with notice to suspend it for
three months.

The decision has placed pressure on Ward 4 Liberal councillor
Brendan Christie who had publicly urged the minister to suspend
council for six months, not three months. He was joined by Ward 1
Liberal councillor Kevin Schreiber in voting against council's
submission to avoid suspension at an extraordinary council
meeting before Christmas.

"Minister, if you back down [on the suspension notice] and
something happens, it is on you and I will seek your resignation
for it," Cr Christie told the council meeting on December 19.
Blue Mountains mayor Mark Greenhill described Cr Christie's
remarks as extraordinary but hoped he would re-examine his view
and continue to serve on council.

"I think we should all be prepared to take this challenge forward
as a team. I'd rather see him part of that team. [But] if he
genuinely hasn't got the answers and doesn't think he can be part
of the journey then that's a matter for him," he said.

But Cr Christie indicated he has no plans to quit council,
repeating his call for council to be placed in the hands of an
administrator.

"I'll continue to pursue a robust and bold policy agenda to
ensure our community receives the highest level of support and
service we deserve," he said.

"Asbestos in many ways is symptomatic of a council that needs
large scale renewal at the operational level and the most
effective way to deliver that renewal is through the appointment
of a temporary administrator. The minister has made the decision
not to take this action. I'll continue to work with my colleagues
and hold the council to account to ensure we are delivering and
building on the service our community rightfully expect and
deserve.

"Today it was asbestos, yesterday it was cancelled Anzac Day
marches, Australia Day under threat, a wasteful Badgerys
[airport] campaign, dangerous dogs and the whole Wayzgoose [cafe]
fiasco. These issues are systemic, ongoing and as many residents
have expressed to me, not representative of the values or quality
of service they expect, especially when they're paying ballooning
council rates," he said.

Despite not suspending Blue Mountains council, Ms Upton said she
remained "seriously concerned that the safety of its community
and workforce has been compromised by inadequate processes to
deal with asbestos."

"Councillors cannot wash their hands of the problems under their
watch. Blue Mountains City Council is now facing extra oversight
from the Office of Local Government as well as investigations
from SafeWork and the NSW Environment Protection Authority."

The minister instead issued a Performance Improvement Order "to
hold the council to account and make sure it takes the necessary
action to address its poor record on asbestos management".
Councillors had suggested this course of action at the December
19 council meeting.

"Consistent with the council's request and recommendation, the
minister has foreshadowed the issuing of a Performance
Improvement Order," the mayor said in a statement after the
minister's decision. "This approach is considered to be a more
targeted and effective response to the minister's concerns,
recognising the seriousness of asbestos management and reflects
the council's intention to place the safety of its staff and
community at the centre of its operations and organisational
culture."

Cr Greenhill thanked the minister "for her consideration of our
submission and for her decision to not proceed with suspending
the elected councillors of Blue Mountains City Council."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: City Hall Renovation to Include Asbestos Removal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Hill of The Register-Guard reported that after two
years of planning, the renovation and expansion of the 50-year-
old Florence City Hall is scheduled to begin.

The $2.4 million construction project will add 2,400 square feet
to the civic building on Highway 101. The current building is
9,100 square feet.

The remodeling and addition to City Hall will enhance customer
service, building security, accessibility for people with
disabilities and the work space for employees, according to city
officials.

"We're going to make it a little more modern and efficient from
the way we currently do business," city spokeswoman Megan Messmer
said.

Officials said the project also will improve the streetscape
along Highway 101, with the hope of spurring redevelopment and
attracting more visitors.

City employees will temporarily move out of City Hall starting
Jan. 8.

During the renovation, day-to-day municipal services in City Hall
will move to the city's public works building at 2675 Kingwood
St. Those services include utility payments, business licenses
and code enforcement.

The Florence Events Center, 715 Quince St., will serve as the
temporary meeting place for the City Council, city committees and
other events.

The total project cost is about $4.3 million, including expenses
to conduct an initial study, hire an architect, remove asbestos,
and buy furniture and equipment. The cost also includes funds for
unexpected expenses and interest payments.

Most of the City Hall expansion will be for a new council
chambers and a large conference room.

Moving the council chambers into the semi-circular addition at
the front of City Hall will free space to bring employees closer
together and prevent residents from having to walk across the
building to pay bills, file paperwork or ask questions, Messmer
said.

The chamber's occupancy of about 80 people will remain unchanged.

The project also will put a new roof on the building and install
new carpets, windows and siding.

Planning started in 2015. A consulting firm studied the
possibility of building a City Hall elsewhere. But the firm
concluded the current site was adequate to serve a population
twice the size of Florence's 8,900 residents.

The study cost the city nearly $27,000.

The city hired architect HGE Inc., based in Coos Bay, last
January for $162,000.

In December, city officials signaled their intent to award the
construction contract to Par-Tech Construction based in Oregon
City.

The contractor is scheduled to complete the project before the
end of 2018.

With new furniture and equipment and expenses for permits and
asbestos removal, the total project cost is $3 million.

The city will finance the project for 20 years, with the annual
debt service payments costing about $216,000.

More than 20 employees, about one-third of the city's total
workforce, work in City Hall. The building is home to the city
manager's office and the finance and planning departments.

The city houses the police department, the municipal court and
jail, the 911 dispatch center and the public works department in
separate buildings.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Abatement Begins in Elementary School
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Erb -- merb@newsandsentinel.com -- of The Parkersbury
News and Sentinel reported that Wood County Schools will be
working on multiple facilities in 2018 as part of the district's
$41 million bond project.

In 2017, Wood County voters approved the facilities bond which
will be used to construct a new elementary school in
Williamstown, expand the high school in Williamstown, and
complete roof replacements on more than a dozen Wood County
Schools facilities.

In December, the board was awarded $7.4 for million by the state
School Building Authority for expansion and improvement of the
Wood County Technical Center. The money will supplement $1.5
million in bond money for the Center.

Assistant Superintendent Mike Fling said the early part of 2018
will be putting items out for bid for the various projects.

"We anticipate the Williamstown Elementary School project to go
to bid around the third week of January," he said. "It will be
out for bid for about three weeks, with the bid awarded in mid-
February and construction to begin in mid-March."

Demolition of the former Fenton Art Glass plant is continuing,
though right now it is mostly asbestos abatement inside the
building, Fling said. Fencing has been put up around the property
in anticipation of demolition.

The new elementary school will occupy the parking lots which
surround the Fenton Gift Shop and factory. A playground will be
constructed where the plant warehouse now stands.

Fling said officials are still negotiating the purchase of two
properties adjacent to Williamstown High School.

"Once those properties have been purchased, demolition of those
properties can begin and then we'll move on with the process of
building there," he said.

Roof replacements began this past summer, and Fling said more
will happen in the summer of 2018.

"It's all done over the summer when students are not in the
buildings," he said. "We typically try to set aside 10 weeks to
complete those projects."

Fling said the district will announce which schools will have
their roofs replaced in 2018. Officials are staggering the roof
replacements.
"We're breaking them down by square feet rather than a number of
buildings," he said. "Last summer we were able to put down just
over 300,000 square feet. We have a total of about 10 million
square feet of roofing on our buildings, so our goal is to
complete 300,000 square feet or more each summer over a three-
year period."

Fling said the expansion of the Wood County Technical Center,
which shares a campus with Parkersburg South High School, is
still in the design phase, but officials hope to build a two-
story addition to the building as well as making changes and
improvements to the current facility. The new construction likely
will take place while classes are in session, he said, but the
disruption should be minimal and the project should proceed at a
quick pace.

"I anticipate we will be able to move quickly there, as we don't
need to purchase any property, he said. "Since there is now SBA
money involved, the SBA is also part of the design and
development process."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Exposed to Asbestos Awarded $22M Verdict
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Povtal of Asbestos.com reported that a California jury
recently awarded $22 million to the estate of a man exposed to
asbestos-containing talc that was used in paint manufacturing,
expanding the liability of those supplying the toxic ingredient.

Plaintiff Richard Booker, who worked as a paint maker throughout
his career, died of mesothelioma in 2016. The lawsuit claimed
Booker was exposed to asbestos while working for Dexter Midland
Chemical Co. and Walter N. Boysen Paint Co.

The lucrative award includes $4.6 million in punitive damages,
along with the initial judgement of $17.57 million for malice on
the part of Vanderbilt Minerals and Imerys Talc America Inc. The
jury ruled the two companies shared responsibility for marketing,
selling and distributing the talc product.

Talc is a clay mineral composed of hydrated magnesium silicate,
used in paints for its ability to resist heat and deter grease
and oil absorption.

It also is used as an ingredient in ceramics, insecticides,
roofing materials, rubber, talcum powder and the pulp and paper
industry.

There is an ongoing debate about the safety of talc, with
thousands of lawsuits linking talc to ovarian cancer.
Additionally, several talc products in the past contained traces
of asbestos dust, stemming from their naturally occurring
proximity to each other on the earth's surface.

Exposure Can Lead to Multiple Problems

Asbestos exposure can lead to a number of serious health
problems, including asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma.

The $22 million award comes in the wake of multiple lawsuits
filed against Colgate Palmolive for its Cashmere Bouquet talcum
powder. The company resolved 43 cases in 2017 involving asbestos-
contaminated talc, according to Bloomberg News. There are
hundreds more yet to be settled.
The latest settlement involved a Pennsylvania woman who developed
mesothelioma, blaming it on the talcum powder used more than 20
years before.

The majority of the asbestos-contaminated talc lawsuits today
have involved talcum powder, which has been used for generations
by millions of Americans to dry, perfume and protect their skin.

Researchers have debated for decades the possible connection
between contaminated talc and various cancers. Since the 1970s,
federal laws have required commercial talc to be free of any
asbestos, although interpretation of those laws has wavered.

Talcum powder products are now considerably safer than they once
were, but cancers emerging today often stem from exposure decades
ago. The majority of lawsuits involve ovarian cancer.

Talc Mined Alongside Asbestos

Mesothelioma is a rare and aggressive cancer with no definitive
cure. Asbestos exposure is the overwhelming cause.

Booker's case was held in the Superior Court of California for
Alameda County. The jury ruled Booker died from mesothelioma
caused by various forms of asbestos found in the talc used during
his career in paint manufacturing.

"Plaintiffs allege the talc contained fibrous minerals, including
but not limited to anthophyllite, tremolite, chrysotile, and
other asbestos minerals, transitional fibers, and asbestiform
talc," Booker's original filing said.

The jury cited its ruling on the basis of negligence, product
design defect and a failure to warn.

Imerys, which continues to insist its product is safe, is the
world's leading talc producer.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: School Closed After Asbestos Damages in Tiles
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that a Massachusetts elementary
school will be closed after a pipe burst over the holiday break
and damaged ceiling tiles that contained asbestos.

Fitchburg Superintendent Andre Ravenelle says the closure of
Crocker Elementary School will allow the district to plan for a
temporary relocation of students and staff.

A statement from Ravenelle says the district is working with the
appropriate agencies and experts on cleaning, remediation and
testing.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Corps Use Asbestos Despite Proof of Cancer
--------------------------------------------------------------
RT reported that US corporations have been using asbestos despite
evidence it causes cancer in workers, and millions of dollars are
being spent on lobbying to cover this up, according to Farron
Cousins, executive editor of Trial Lawyer magazine.

Asbestos has been used all over the world for more than 100 years
in all types of manufacturing, from insulation to paper products.
Its use in America is now back on the rise in spite of decades of
evidence proving that the substance can lead to death.

After the public became aware of the deadly nature of asbestos,
the US government claimed it had taken action to reduce the risk
of exposure. Average Americans believe that asbestos is no longer
widely used, and the product has been banned for decades. In the
late 70s, new rules were drafted in the US that would limit the
amount of asbestos in the country, and these rules were finalized
in 1989.

A 10-year investigation resulted in more than 100,000 pages of
clear evidence confirming a link between asbestos exposure and
cancer.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found Again in Kids Cosmetic Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Faber of EWG reported that once again, experts have found
asbestos in cosmetics marketed to kids.

Claire's stores pulled 17 products from their shelves after
researchers found asbestos in glitter, eye shadow and other
cosmetics marketed to children.

The findings by the Scientific Analytic Institute echo those of a
study released last summer, which found asbestos in eight
products sold by Justice. Experts say talc used to make the
cosmetics can be contaminated with asbestos.

There is no safe level of exposure to asbestos, which causes
diseases that kill an estimated 15,000 Americans a year. Tiny
asbestos fibers in cosmetics can be inhaled by a child, become
lodged in their lungs, and eventually cause mesothelioma, an
incurable cancer.

There is no law that prohibits the presence of asbestos in
cosmetics. Asbestos has been banned by more than 50 nations, but
its use remains legal in the U.S. The Food and Drug
Administration encourages companies to carefully select talc
mines to avoid asbestos contamination, but it does not have the
power to regulate products that contain talc.

Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, and
Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., have championed legislation to
regulate cosmetics and other personal care products. Their bills
would require the FDA to review and restrict, or even ban, the
most dangerous ingredients.

But so far, Congress has failed to act on the Personal Care
Products Safety Act, even though the bill is broadly supported by
cosmetics companies and a recent FDA report found the rise in
cosmetics imports poses new risks.

If asbestos in kids' cosmetics won't force Congress to act, what
will?


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Renovation on Asbestos-Contaminated Plant Begins
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mollie Cahillane of DailyMail.com reported that ghostly pictures
reveal the rusting remains of a 20th century power plant filled
with potentially deadly asbestos before a planned $270 million
renovation began.

The atmospheric shots show the desolate metal stairways, rusting
infrastructure and water-filled passages.

Exterior images show missing windows and crumbling brick of the
fenced off five storey-plant.

The spooky pictures were taken at Riverside Power Plant, in
Savannah, Georgia by an urban explorer known only as Abandoned
Southeast.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: UK School Remains Closed After Asbestos Find
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Mail reported that a primary school will remain closed
following the Christmas holidays after asbestos was found on
site.
Pupils at St James Catholic Primary School, in Millom, won't
return to the school until January 8 after asbestos was found
following building work.

Work to remove the asbestos is planned to begin tomorrow (3),
with the school hall and other areas needed to be blocked off and
closed.

Pupils were set to return to the school on January 4 following
the Christmas holidays.

In a letter to parents head-teacher Nerissa Nicholas said: "We
are very sorry about this and apologize for the inconvenience
this will cause many of you.

"We have made the decision in the interests of the health and
safety of the children which is, as always, our first concern.
"We have, in consultation with the project manager, our governing
body and the contractors, decided we have no alternative but to
close the school to children on Thursday and Friday."

Mrs Nicholas also confirmed staff at the school would be
attending training during the closed days.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: J. Starnes Joins Gori Julian Asbestos Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gori Julian & Associates, P.C., announced that James "Alex"
Starnes has joined Gori Julian & Associates, P.C. as an attorney.
Starnes will be working at the Edwardsville office of Gori Julian
& Associates in the practice area of asbestos litigation.

Starnes received his undergraduate degree from the University of
Missouri Columbia where he received his Bachelor of Arts degree
in political science. He then later attended Southern Illinois
University School of Law where he received his Juris Doctor. He
clerked for a circuit court judge and also interned with the St.
Clair County State's Attorney. Starnes also did pro bono work for
the Madison County Public Defender.

Starnes, a cancer survivor, seeks to be a zealous and effective
advocate for individuals and families affected by asbestos lung
cancer and mesothelioma.

               About Gori Julian & Associates

Gori Julian & Associates was formed in 2008 by Randy Gori and
Barry Julian and since has recovered more than $3 billion in
compensation for those suffering as a result of asbestos
exposure. Serving clients throughout the United States, the firm
has offices in Edwardsville, Ill., St. Louis, New York, Los
Angeles, New Orleans, Washington, D.C. and Orlando. Although the
attorneys at Gori Julian & Associates concentrate on asbestos-
related injuries, they also handle catastrophic injury cases,
pharmaceutical and medical device litigation and occupational
disease injury matters. For more information on the areas of law
practiced by the attorneys at Gori Julian & Associates, or to
contact an attorney at the firm, visit
http://www.gorijulianlaw.comor call toll free at 888.362.6890.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bechtel Corp. Wins Asbestos Ruling
---------------------------------------------------
Judy Greenwald of Risk Management reported that a divided Florida
state appeals court ruled in favor of Bechtel Corp. in an
asbestos liability case, reversing a lower court decision that
Bechtel's failure to contact former employees as potential
witnesses could be inferred in a negative light by a jury.

Richard Batchelor, who worked at Juno Beach, Florida-based
Florida Power and Light Co.'s Turkey Point power plant from 1974
to 1980, and his wife, Regina, had filed suit against San
Francisco-based Bechtel Corp. and subsidiary Bechtel Construction
Company, among others, in 2015 after he was diagnosed with
terminal mesothelioma, according to the Dec. 27 ruling by the
Florida Court of Appeal in Miami in Bechtel Corp. et al. v.
Richard Batchelor, et al.

A jury entered a verdict of $15.4 million for Mr. Batchelor and
$6 million for his wife, and found construction and engineering
firm Bechtel 60% liable. In its 2-1 ruling, the appeals court
said the Miami trial court judge's instruction to the jury
"constituted reversible error."

The trial court judge had told the jury that if it found
Bechtel's failure to produce others employed at the plant between
1974 and 1980 to be unreasonable they were "permitted to infer
that the evidence would have been unfavorable to Bechtel."

The appeals court ruled, however, that "Mailing postcards to
locate retirees who had worked over thirty years ago and could
then be interviewed to prepare a corporate witness is a time-
consuming effort with no guarantee of success.

"In the absence of an order compelling Bechtel to undertake such
an extraordinary effort on the eve of trial, which involved so
little promise of results, the trial court erred in imposing the
sanction of an adverse inference jury instruction."

The Batchelors had also contended that Bechtel was guilty of
premises liability because it had been in control of the plant's
operations and maintenance.

In ruling in favor of the company, the majority appeals court
ruling said, "instead of direct evidence, Batchelor, as he may,
relies on inferences."

But, it added that "given Batchelor's own undisputed testimony
that the plant was serviced by four hundred (Florida Power &
Light) employees per day, plus contractors, Bechtel's presence
was still a fraction of the presence of (Florida Power & Light's)
own work force over those six years," said the ruling, in
instructing the lower court to enter judgment for Bechtel.

The minority opinion said the trial court had "properly
determined" there was sufficient evidence introduced to permit
the jury to decide whether Bechtel had "possession and control"
of those portions of the premises where Mr. Batchelor was exposed
to asbestos during the relevant time period.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in instructing the
jury on the adverse inference issue, the minority ruling said,
also.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: State Didn't Notify About Asbestos in S.D. Bldg.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Sneve and Jonathan Ellis of Argus Leader reported that South
Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources did not
notify residents and neighbors of the former Copper Lounge
building they might have been exposed to asbestos that was
illegally removed from the building.

Mike Fodness and his family lived in a residence above the former
Copper Lounge before it fell down when Hultgren Construction
removed a load bearing wall from the first floor on Dec. 2, 2016.
His daughter, Emily, was sleeping at the time of the event and
was trapped in rubble for hours before being dug out by first
responders.

During a City Council hearing, Fodness told the council that he
didn't learn about the asbestos until after it was first reported
by the Argus Leader.

Tim Kant, who owned the adjoining Eastwold Smoke Shop, said that
he was never told about the asbestos exposure either.

In the aftermath of the Copper Lounge collapse, a DENR
investigation found that Hultgren Construction had illegally
removed asbestos from the basement of the building before
trucking it through town in two loads to the city landfill where
it was illegally dumped.

Hultgren Construction and the building owner at the time of the
offense, CLP Investments, were fined $20,000 for the offenses by
DENR. But both entities were deemed insolvent and did not pay the
fine.

Kant said that he got calls from the state following the collapse
asking about the location of the asbestos.

"Everybody knew that it was down there -- there's no doubt about
it," he said.

DENR spokesman Kim Smith said in an email that only Norm Drake,
the manager of CLP Investments, and Aaron Hultgren, were notified
about the DENR investigation that resulted in the unpaid
penalties.

"They in turn advised their attorney," Smith said.

The department, Smith added, does not post notices of violation
on its website. That practice is common among other state and
federal regulatory agencies.

Fodness made an impassioned plea for the city to sever its ties
with Legacy Developments, which was the developer on the Copper
Lounge project. Fodness was supporting an effort by two city
councilors to revoke a contract the city has with Legacy
Developments to build a $50 million parking ramp and hotel.
Legacy Developments' officers include Hultgren and Drake.

"My family was not informed that we were exposed to potential
cancer causing asbestos," Fodness said. "Not by Hultgren
Construction, nor by Legacy ... nor any other shell company that
Norm and Aaron wish to create. Nor by the state and, most
troubling, my own city of Sioux Falls."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nova Scotia Plant Asbestos Removal Costs $40MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Withers of CBC News reported that facing a potential price
tag of $40 million, Nova Scotia Power says it's finding ways to
lower the cost of removing asbestos insulation from two of its
coal-fired electrical generating plants.

The company told regulators in a Dec. 28 filing that it's
tackling a large portion of the expense: staging and enclosing
work areas to meet Nova Scotia Labour Department guidelines.

Nova Scotia Power's 500,000 customers have a stake in the
exercise, as they ultimately will foot the bill.

"Nova Scotia Power's review of its asbestos-management practices
included examining how to minimize these costs and has resulted
in modifications to the application of these practices," Mark
Peachey, the utility's manager of capital filings, told
regulators.

The company said there is no set end date for this work at
Trenton and Point Tupper. It expects it will continue over the
next five to 10 years.

Response from Nova Scotia Power

Spokesperson Tiffany Chase said the company does not yet know how
much its new plan will save.

"We are currently developing estimates based on the new practices
and validating them with a third party. We expect to have all the
estimates complete by March of this year," Chase said in a
written statement to CBC News.

The company said the program is supported by joint occupational
health and safety committees, which have had input into the
revised practices.

Trenton cleaning cost $2.1M in 2016 alone

The Nova Scotia Department of Labour and Advanced Education said
it is not normally consulted unless there are questions around
its guidelines.

"It is positive when anyone commits to managing the safe removal
of asbestos using our guidelines," spokesperson Lisa Jarrett said
in a statement.

The Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board started asking questions
after the cost of removing asbestos at Nova Scotia Power's
Trenton generating plant for the 2016 year when it jumped from a
budgeted $154,000 to $2.1 million.

The company said it was forced to address an unexpected discovery
of asbestos in areas of the plant that are prone to vibration. To
integrate more intermittent wind power onto the grid, Trenton and
other plants are being shut down and restarted more frequently,
increasing vibrations and the risk of asbestos disturbance.

Nova Scotia Power told the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board
it must remove about 2,225 metres of asbestos insulation at
Trenton and 1,524 metres from its Point Tupper plant at the
Strait of Canso. It was used primarily on high-temperature
piping, boiler and duct work.

The company estimated the total removal and encapsulation costs
for each plant at between $15 and $20 million, which means the
entire project could cost $40 million.

The board told Nova Scotia Power to complete a review of the way
it deals with asbestos by Dec. 31. In response, Nova Scotia Power
has developed a new risk matrix that prioritizes removing
asbestos from pipes that vibrate, such as steam lines. The aim is
to maximize removals during regularly scheduled maintenance
downtime.

Could use longer contracts

Nova Scotia Power says it has subdivided areas with asbestos into
25 distinct abatement areas.

"This approach introduces cost efficiencies by allowing the
utilization of larger enclosures to deal with all piping in an
abatement area at the same time, instead of completing an
asbestos abatement on one section of insulation as it is found,"
Peachey told the board.

The utility is also considering multi-year contracts with third-
party companies, if that's cheaper than awarding on a project-by-
project basis. The power company says its revised asbestos
management plan will be completed in the first half of 2018.

It will be put into practice first at Trenton during a planned
outage this fall and during a planned outage at Point Tupper in
2019.

A third plant -- Tufts Cove in Dartmouth -- has a small amount of
asbestos remaining. Abatement there will be completed in 2018 at
an estimated cost of $200,000.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Indicates Legacy Uses of Asbestos
------------------------------------------------------
MESOTHELIOMA.net reported that with asbestos well established as
the single cause of malignant mesothelioma, as well as numerous
other asbestos-related diseases, there is considerable interest
in the outcome of the ongoing risk evaluation being conducted
under the 2016 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt raised health
advocates hopes recently when, during a meeting with the House
Energy and Commerce Committee's Environment Subcommittee, he
indicated that the agency may be rethinking its original decision
to only review "current and prospective uses." According to
Pruitt, the agency is currently discussing also including the
"legacy installed" building materials that have been blamed for
so many dangerous exposures in recent years.

The question of these materials that are already in place gets to
the heart of health concerns about asbestos, and the risks of
people who are exposed to it being diagnosed with mesothelioma at
a later date. According to asbestos abatement experts, asbestos
in deteriorating buildings is "the most prevalent source of
asbestos exposure to the general public." Safety concerns about
the residents of those buildings, renovators, demolition
specialists and those disposing of the asbestos-contaminated
materials would all be ignored under the EPA's current
interpretation of the TSCA, which gives the agency renewed
authority to control the use of asbestos, or even to ban it
outright. When questioned about this by New Jersey's
Representative Frank Pallone, Jr., Mr. Pruitt said, "You raise a
meaningful concern." He indicated that the agency's personnel are
currently reconsidering their current stance, and may decide to
include legacy uses in their review.

The TSCA was passed by Congress and signed into law in 2016 by
President Barack Obama. The law provided the EPA with the ability
to select chemicals that are currently in use and review their
safety under new reviews based exclusively on their health
impact. Though there have been attempts to ban asbestos in the
past, the powerful chemical lobbies have stopped them repeatedly,
thus allowing asbestos use to continue.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Gets Six-Figure Sum for Husband's Exposure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ITV News reported that the widow of a former music teacher has
received a six-figure sum after her husband was exposed to
asbestos in the classroom.

Julie Shaw's husband Bryan taught at Leicester Grammar School for
21 years until 2012.

He was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a rare and incurable form of
cancer, in 2011. He died from the disease four years later.
It is believed Mr Shaw was unknowingly exposed asbestos when he
worked at the St Nicholas building, the school's former site in
St Martins, Leicester.

According to solicitor firm Slater and Gordon Lawyers, who
represent Mrs Shaw, it is thought that asbestos was not properly
cleared when it was removed from piping in the music practice
room in 1985.

The couple pursued a legal case against Leicester Grammar School
Trust, which Mrs Shaw continued after her husband's death.

The case has now been settled out of court, in an undisclosed sum
of money to Mrs Shaw.

The school trust said it has not accepted liability at any stage,
and the matter was passed to its insurers.

Chris King, Head Teacher of Leicester Grammar School, said:

Bryan Shaw, a former teacher at Leicester Grammar School, brought
a legal case against the Trust claiming that the cause of his
mesothelioma lay in a source in a building occupied by the school
prior to 2008.

Exceptionally in such cases, cause and effect do not have to be
proven by the claimant.

At no stage did the Trust accept liability and the Trust did not
pay any money to the Shaw family.

The matter was passed to our insurance company who we believe
settled the case without it going to court.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Machakos Urged Policy for Asbestos Disposal
------------------------------------------------------------
Hivisasa reported that the county government of Machakos has been
urged to come up with a policy to govern the disposal of asbestos
which has been said to cause cancer.

In the 1960s, asbestos was widely used in the roofing of
government buildings, schools, and hospitals.

Jeremiah Simba, Semi-arid Regions Environment director, warned
that the material posed a serious health crisis.

He urged that they be disposed of at designated places.




                            *********


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  * * *