CAR_Public/180122.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Monday, January 22, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 16



                            Headlines


13430 ATLANTIC: "Miah" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
149 EIGHTH AVE: Faces "Zayas" Suit in S.D. New York
ADDICTIVE BEHAVIORAL: Court Approved "Kuri" Class Action Notice
ADVANCED CALL: Untershine Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid
ADVOCATES FOR JUVENILE: "York" Motion to Certify Class Denied

AIRBNB INC: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Lease Agreements
ALAMEDA, CA: Class Has Until Feb. 22 to File Amended Complaint
ALL WEB LEADS: "Karpilovsky" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
ALLIANCE ONE: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
AMERICAN EXPRESS: 7th Cir. Affirms $6.7MM "Kaufman" Settlement

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Pension Funds Appeal S.D.N.Y. Order to 2nd Cir.
APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over PCs with Security Flaws
AMERICOLLECT INC: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
ASSET RECOVERY: Bid to Certify Class Withdrawn Without Prejudice
ATLANTIC & PACIFIC ASSOCIATION: Dalton Seeks Overtime Pay

B&P DISTRIBUTION: Priest Seeks OT & Minimum Wages under FLSA
BALDOR ELECTRIC: Approval of "Kaup" Case Settlement Sought
BERKELEY, CA: Judge Hears Motion to Dismiss Homeless Class Action
BL RESTAURANT: Underpays Wait Staff, Wall Claims
BMW AG: "Schmidt" Antitrust Suit Underway in N.D. California

BOFI HOLDINGS: May 11 Case Conference in "Logreco" Wages Suit
CANINE FRIENDLY: Court Certifies Licensed Vocational Nurses Class
CAVIUM INC: Shareholders Sue Over $6BB Marvell Merger
CHARLES SCHWAB: Court Continues CMC in "Crago" to Jan. 25
CINEMARK USA: 9th Cir. Has Jurisdiction Over Wage & Hour Suit

COLISEUM BAR: Certification of FLSA Collective Action Sought
COLLIER, FL: Certification of Foreign Students Class Sought
COMPASS GROUP: Feb. 9 Deadline to Answer "O'Brien" Wage Suit
COVERALL NORTH: Court Prefers Arbitration in "Richardson"
DIAMOND RESORTS: Court Compels Arbitration in Shareholders' Suit

DSM LAUNDROMAT: Feb. 6 Initial Conference in "Liu" Action
DIBOLL, TX: Faces ADE-WIFCO Suit in Texas State Court
EDDIE BAUER: Retail Store Employees Class Certified in "Heredia"
ENRICH FINANCIAL: "Aleksanian" Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Gould Sues over Background Checks

EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "De La Rosa" Suit in S.D. New York
FASTAFF LLC: "Dalchau" Suit Seeks to Certify California Class
FCA US: Faces Class Action Over Defective Pacifica Minivans
FEDERAL AVIATION: Certification of Aircraft Owners Class Sought
FEDEX FREIGHT: March 23 Case Conference in "Emetoh" Suit

FINANCE OF AMERICA: May 10 Case Conference in "Onifer" Suit
FLINT, MI: Accused of Violating Tainted Water Legal Settlement
FORD MOTOR: Sued Over Defeat Devices in Super Duty Vehicles
FORSTER & GARBUS: "Reyes" Suit Referred to Magistrate Judge
FLYERS TRANSPORTATION: "Coffee" Suit Ongoing in Sacramento

GLOBAL CREDIT: "Kowalewski" Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed
GLOBAL CREDIT: Bid to Certify Class Withdrawn Without Prejudice
GOOGLE INC: Judge Dismisses Age Discrimination Lawsuit
HILTON HOTELS: "White" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
ICS CAPITAL: "Haynes" Suit Underway in District of South Carolina

INTERNATIONAL SECURITY: Fails to Pay for OT Work, Cherazard Says
ITALIAN BOUTIQUE: Refuses to Pay Proper Wages, Rizo Claims
JOHNS MANVILLE: Pier View Condos Suit Moved to D. S.C.
JOSEPH CORY: Faces "Samame" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
K.B. SAND: Court Conditionally Certifies Class of Truck Drivers

KENNEDY RIG: Seeks 5th Circuit Review of Ruling in "Andrio" Suit
KYANI INC: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss "Guo" Suit Moved to April 9
LAFAYETTE 148: Faces "Marett" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
LEACHVILLE, AR: Class Cert. Bid in Crocker-Womack Suit Denied
LRR ENERGY: Approval of "Hurwitz" Class Action Notice Sought

MARS PETCARE: Moore Appeals N.D. Cal. Decision to Ninth Circuit
MDL 2543: Two Faulty Ignition-Switch Cases Dismissed
MDL 2800: Leadership Appointments Hearing Set for Feb. 9
MD TLC: "Kaye" Suit Seeks Class Certification
MIDLAND CREDIT: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in "Brace"

MITSUBISHI CHEMICAL: "Cress" Suit Underway in Sacramento
MONARCH RECOVERY: Faces "Singh" Suit in N.D. New York
MURATA MANUFACTURING: Sued Over Alleged Inductors Price-Fixing
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Initial Approval of Settlement Class Sought
NEW ALBERTSON'S: Faces "Montenelli" Suit in N.D. Illinois

NEW YORK ARCHDIOCESE: "Paul" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Schmitz Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid
OPTYX RETAIL: Faces "Camacho" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
OYSTER HOUSE: Faces "Walker" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
PERFORMANCE FOOD: "Perez" Suit Seeks to Certify Three Classes

PHOENIX, AZ: Stoller Asks to File Out of Time Writ to Supreme Ct.
PREFERRED STAFFING: "Sanford" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
QUICKEN LOANS: Eleventh Cir. Appeal Filed in "Jacobs" Class Suit
REDFORD TOWNSHIP: Approval of $390,000 Settlement Sought
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION: Singer Seeks to Certify Wage Class

RICHARD GONZALEZ: Status Hearing Reset for March 7
RICK SNYDER: "Hill" Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Certification of Arrestees Class Sought
SIMM ASSOCIATES: Court Granted Class Certification in "Smith"
SIRIUS XM: Court Denies Bid for Class Certification as Moot

SOS SECURITY: "Reed" Wage-and-Hour Suit Underway in Los Angeles
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Flight Attendants Sue Over Unpaid OT Wages
STONEMOR PARTNERS: Fan Appeals "Anderson" Suit Ruling to 3rd Cir.
SUNDANCE ENERGY: Oklahoma Landowners Sue Over Fracking Waste
SUPER REALTY: Faces "Fraticelli" Suit in S.D. New York

TARGET CORPORATION: "Faraji" Motion to Certify Class Shelved
TATA CONSULTING: Judge Certifies Class of Workers
TAUBRA CORP: Court Certifies FLSA Class in "Burcham" Suit
TECHNOLOGICAL MEDICAL: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Botelho"
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Judge May Allow Plaintiff to Amend Claims

UNITED STATES: "Duvall" Suit Underway in Federal Claims Court
US STEEL: "Athan" Suit Seeks to Certify Collective Action
VIAL FOTHERINGHAM: Discovery Due March 16 in "Sonsteby" Suit
WATER TREATMENT: "Hood" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
WICKED FASHIONS: Doe Alleges Wage & Hours Violations, Harassment

WIZARDS OF THE COAST: Judge Refuses to Certify Wage-and-Hour Suit
ZILLOW GROUP: Shotwell and Vargosko Actions Consolidated



                            *********



13430 ATLANTIC: "Miah" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Tarik Miah, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. 13430 Atlantic Avenue, LLC, Cain
Management II, Inc., and Cain Management Queens, LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 715025/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Jan. 2, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, maximum liquidated
damages and attorneys' fees, pursuant to the New York Minimum
Wage Act and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed by
Defendants from in or around April/May 2016 until on or about
September 16, 2017.  The Plaintiff was an hourly employee of
Defendants and was paid at a regular rate of $12 to $12.50 an
hour.  The Plaintiff worked about 46 hours a week for Defendants;
5-6 days a week but was not paid for all hours worked including
his overtime hours (hours over 40 in a week) -- Defendants had a
practice of paying Plaintiff for less hours than he actually
worked.

For example, for the week ending July 22, 2017, Plaintiff worked
about 45.36 hours and was only paid for 38.36 of these 45.36
hours worked -- Plaintiff did not receive any wages including
overtime wages for the remaining 7 or so hours worked. This
example is reflective of Defendants' payment pattern throughout
Plaintiff's employment with Defendants.

The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the putative class
members at a rate of at least 1.5 times their regular rate for
hours worked in excess of 40 in a week, for each week during the
period of his employment with Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


149 EIGHTH AVE: Faces "Zayas" Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 149 Eighth Ave.,
LLC. The case is captioned as Edwin Zayas, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. 149
Eighth Ave., LLC and Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colorado, LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00003-GHW (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 1, 2018).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Gregory H. Woods.[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


ADDICTIVE BEHAVIORAL: Court Approved "Kuri" Class Action Notice
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled CRYSTAL KURI, the Plaintiff, v. ADDICTIVE
BEHAVIORAL CHANGE HEALTH GROUP, L.L.C., the Defendant, Case No.
2:16-cv-02685-JAR-JPO (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Julie A. Robinson
entered an order on January 5, 2018, granting Plaintiff's second
motion for approval of notice of conditional certification of
class claims pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Court said, "This matter comes before the Court on
Plaintiff's Second Motion for Approval of Notice of Conditional
Certification of Class Claims Under section 216(b) of the FLSA.
The parties have agreed to the form of notice and consent, and
the Court finds the agreed notice and consent-to-join forms are
adequate and consistent with the Court's prior Order
conditionally certifying the FLSA class. Accordingly, the Court
approves the parties' forms for mailing. Plaintiff is directed to
issue notice to the putative class. Putative class members shall
have 60 days from the mailing date to postmark and/or return
their signed consent form.

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


ADVANCED CALL: Untershine Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled WENDY UNTERSHINE, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
ADVANCED CALL CENTER TECHNOLOGIES LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
2:18-cv-00077-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order certifying a proposed class in this case,
appointing the Plaintiff as its representative, and appointing
Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its Counsel, and for such other and
further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties
relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and
requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents
in support of this motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing
on the certification motion until discovery could commence.
Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011),
overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th
Cir. 2015).

As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense
when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay
should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs
contend.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482 8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482 8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com


ADVOCATES FOR JUVENILE: "York" Motion to Certify Class Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled YORK, ET AL, the Plaintiffs, v. ADVOCATES
FOR JUVENILE AND ADULT RIGHTS, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-
12487-EEF-DEK (E.D. La.), the Court entered an order:

   1. granting Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment;

   2. denying Defendant's motion to dismiss;

   3. denying Defendant's motion in limine; and

   4. denying Plaintiffs' motion to certify class.

Plaintiffs Beverly York and Linda Wilson were employed by
defendant Advocates for Juvenile and Adults Rights, Inc. as
personal care aides (later re-titled Direct Service Workers).
Plaintiffs claim they were required to work overtime, were not
compensated for wait time between job assignments, were not
reimbursed for travel costs, and were charged for equipment,
uniforms, and required certification and licensing.  Plaintiffs
also allege defendants did not comply with the record-keeping
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and wrongfully
deducted or failed to pay wages as required by Louisiana law.

The Court held that Plaintiffs have failed to move for
certification of a class within the period required by the local
rules and have not sought any extensions. Plaintiffs filed for
certification of the class on January 11, 2018, approximately one
and a half years after the initial complaint.  Because this
motion to certify the class was not timely filed, it is denied.

In granting summary judgment, the Court said "Because Plaintiffs
worked overtime, were not paid overtime, and are entitled to
overtime under the FLSA, it is appropriate to grant Plaintiffs
overtime wages, attorney's fees, and costs provided by 29 U.S.C.
section 216(b). Additionally, the Court finds that Defendant
cannot establish that it was in good faith and had reasonable
grounds to believe that it was not violating the FLSA when it
failed to pay Plaintiffs' overtime. Rather than show any active
steps taken by Defendant to figure out its responsibilities under
the FLSA, Defendant has demonstrated that it ignored attempts to
warn of impending FLSA changes by the Department of Labor and
word of mouth information from others engaged in similar
businesses. Furthermore, Defendant made no attempt to comply with
relevant portions of the FLSA. Therefore, Plaintiffs are entitled
to liquidated damages."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=mk3WuBik


AIRBNB INC: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Lease Agreements
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Solis, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit against Airbnb, in which
an apartment management company accused the home-share giant of
encouraging renters to violate lease agreements and creating an
unsafe environment for other tenants.

The class action filed this past February said Airbnb's short-
term rental model violated four apartment management companies'
lease agreements with its tenants.  The companies said in the
initial complaint they incurred "costs and damages as a result of
their need to increase security patrols and sweeps to prevent
unauthorized access" to its properties due to Airbnb rentals.

The companies sought monetary damages and in October asked for a
court order to stop Airbnb from using several Southern California
properties they manage.

U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee dismissed the case in a 13-page
ruling issued Dec. 29.  In it, Judge Gee said "Airbnb hosts --
not Airbnb -- are responsible for providing the actual listing
information.  Airbnb 'merely provide[s] a framework that could be
utilized for proper or improper purposes.'"

A year ago, apartment manager Aimco reached out to the San
Francisco-based Airbnb to say several of its listings violated
standard leasing agreements.  Airbnb said they would not review
those agreements or get involved in disputes between its hosts
and the property owners.

Airbnb moved to dismiss the case under the Communications Decency
Act, claiming the federal law bars it from being held liable for
the actions of its users.

Aimco challenged this by arguing Airbnb is an information content
provider.  The company said it did not seek to treat Airbnb as a
publisher or speaker under the law, but "to hold Airbnb liable
for its own conduct."

Gee disagreed, saying while Airbnb provides listings for rentals
it does not create them and is not a content provider.

"Aimco does not explain how Airbnb's failure to cease engaging in
rental transactions with tenants whom Airbnb learns are violating
their lease agreements, or Airbnb's complaints to Aimco when
Airbnb guests are denied access to Aimco's properties, transforms
Airbnb into an information content provider.  Aimco would be
hard-pressed to do so," Gee wrote.

An Airbnb representative said the company is pleased with the
court's decision that helps "tenant hosts who use our platform to
help pay the bills."

"The partnerships we have established with landlords have made it
clear that home sharing can be a win-win situation for everyone.
The Airbnb Friendly Buildings Program allows tenants to leverage
their greatest expense to make extra money and can create new
economic opportunities for landlords.  We are excited to have
many such partnerships in place and we continue to see tremendous
interest from forward-looking landlords and developers who
understand that home sharing is going to be part of the solution,
especially for millennials who are facing historic debt."

Aimco spokeswoman Cindy Lempke said the companies disagree with
the court's decision and application of the Communication Decency
Act.

They are considering all their legal options in California at
this time, Ms. Lempke said, noting a similar complaint filed in
the state of Florida is ongoing and Airbnb's motion to dismiss
was denied several weeks ago.

"Airbnb is not a passive online platform, but an active and
knowing participant in the illegal short-term rentals of our
apartments," Ms. Lempke said.

"Aimco has made the deliberate choice to expressly prohibit
short-term rentals to unaccountable Airbnb users who have not
undergone our background screening, who cause disruption for our
residents, and who are apt to treat our apartments like hotel
rooms rather than homes."

The case is La Park La Brea A LLC, et al. v. Airbnb, Inc., et
al., CV 17-4885 DMG (AS)(C.D. Calif.).


ALAMEDA, CA: Class Has Until Feb. 22 to File Amended Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal judge denied a temporary restraining order against
Alameda County Jail but gave the putative class until Feb. 22 to
file an amended complaint.  Meantime the jail must provide jailed
women "appropriate medical care and overall treatment," including
"sufficient nutrition (taking pregnancy into account) . . . and
hygiene products," the Jan. 8 ruling states.

The case is Mohrbacher et al v. Alameda County Sheriffs Office et
al, C-18-00050-JD (N.D. Calif.).

Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Dennis Cunningham, Esq., and Yolanda
Huang, Esq.

Attorneys for Defendants: Greg Thomas, Esq., and Temitayo O.
Peters, Esq.


ALL WEB LEADS: "Karpilovsky" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JOHN KARPILOVSKY and JIMMIE CRIOLLO, JR.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. ALL WEB LEADS, INC., a Delaware corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01307 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask
the Court to certify a Class defined as:

   "persons who, from the time period of February 21, 2013
   through the present, received a "connected call" from All Web
   Leads, or any party acting on its behalf, to a cellular
   telephone through the use of an automated telephone dialing
   system after their contact information was submitted via an
   insurance quote form on All Web Leads' website
   www.affordable-health-insurance-plans.org."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jg70j8iX

Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class:

          Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
          Daniel M. Hutchinson, Esq.
          John T. Spragens, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 355 9500
          Facsimile: (212) 355 9592
          E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com
                  dhutchinson@lchb.com
                  jspragens@lchb.com

               - and -

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          Ryan F. Sullivan, Esq.
          KOZONIS LAW, LTD.
          4849 N. Milwaukee Ave., Ste. 300
          Chicago, IL 60630
          Telephone: (773) 545 9607
          Facsimile: (773) 496 8617
          E-mail: gklinger@kozonislaw.com
                  rsullivan@kozonislaw.com


ALLIANCE ONE: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SALLY CZARNECKI, MARY SCHNEIDER, ERIC
KONINGS and RAFAEL CAJIGAS, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ALLIANCE ONE
RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-
00083-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an
order certifying a proposed class in this case, appointing the
Plaintiff as its representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly,
LLP as its Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the
Court may deem appropriate.

The Plaintiffs further ask that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties
relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and
requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents
in support of this motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing
on the certification motion until discovery could commence.
Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011),
overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th
Cir. 2015).

As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense
when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay
should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs
contend.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=sCRLE5uO

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Denise L. Morris, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482 8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482 8001
          E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
                  jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  dmorris@ademilaw.com


AMERICAN EXPRESS: 7th Cir. Affirms $6.7MM "Kaufman" Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, issued an
order affirming the District Court's approval of $6,753,269.50
Class Action Settlement in the case captioned SAUL M. KAUFMAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et
al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, and J.G. GOODMAN, also known as J.L.
Goodman, Objector, et al., Intervening Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.
AMERICAN EXPRESS TRAVEL RELATED SERVICES COMPANY, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee, No. 16-1691 (7th Cir.).

Almost seven years later, after multiple amended motions for
approval and three rounds of notice to the class, the district
court granted final approval of the settlement. J.G. Goodman and
Carla Santsche (Intervenors), who had intervened in the class
action, appeal the approval of the settlement.

Kaufman filed a class-action lawsuit in the Superior Court of
Cook County, Illinois, against Amex. The claims arose out of
Amex's sale of general-use, prepaid gift cards. A customer could
buy a gift card by paying the amount to be loaded on the card
(e.g., $25, $50, or $100) and a purchase fee of less than $5. The
packaging in which the gift cards came declared they were good
all over the place.

Kaufman alleges, however, that these gift cards were not worth
their stated value (e.g., a $25 card was not actually worth $25)
and that they were not good all over the place.

After concluding that the class was certifiable pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the court certified the class
for settlement purposes, defining the class as

All purchasers, recipients, holders and users of any and all
gift cards issued by American Express from January 1, 2002
through the date of preliminary approval of the settlement,
including, without limitation, gift cards sold at physical
retail locations, via the Internet, or through mall cobranded
programs.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, Be My Guest dining cards are not
included within the settlement.

The Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Motion for Preliminary
Approval. The settlement now proposed a fund of $6,753,269.50.
While this fund was considerably larger than the $3,000,000
initially proposed, it would be drawn against for the costs of
notice and administration, as well as approved attorneys' fees
and lead-plain-tiff incentive awards.
After this third round of notice, the district court granted
final approval of the settlement. Based on the affidavit of an
Amex employee, the court concluded the total value of the claims
at issue was approximately $9.6 million. It then calculated that,
considering the total number of claims received and the value of
the supplemental programs (the waived purchase, shipping and
handling, and check-issuance fees), the total benefit to the
class from the settlement was $1.8 million.

Having approved the settlement, the court turned to attorneys'
fees. The Plaintiffs' counsel had requested $1,235,000 in fees
and another $40,000 in expenses, which they claimed amounted to
30.7% of the settlement. Additional class counsel requested
$250,000 in fees. Counsel for the Intervenors requested
$1,500,000 in fees. The district court ultimately awarded
$1,000,000 in fees and $40,000 in expenses to the Plaintiffs'
counsel, $250,000 in fees to additional class counsel, and
$700,000 in fees to counsel for the Intervenors.

In the final tally, attorneys would be receiving $1,950,000 from
the settlement, while class members would receive approximately
$1,800,000.

A district court may approve a settlement of a class action if it
concludes that it is fair, reasonable, and adequate. We review a
district court's approval of a class-action settlement only for
abuse of discretion.

On appeal, the Intervenors challenge four decisions of the
district court:

(A) the district court erred by not requiring the filing of
briefs in support of the settlement prior to the deadline to
object to the settlement;

(B) the district court erred in determining that Amex's
arbitration appeal posed a risk to the class's success;

(C) the district court erred in approving the settlement given
the breadth of the release; and

(D) the district court erred in not awarding most, if not all, of
the attorneys' fees to the Intervenors' counsel


The Filing of Briefs

To require a party to object based on an aggregate number alone
would be fruitless, as there would be no specifics to dispute.
There is no need for the briefs of the parties in favor of
settlement to be filed first. In addition, we have repeatedly
told district courts to consider the amount of opposition to a
proposed settlement in deciding whether to approve it.  Briefs in
support of a proposed settlement thus routinely address the
subject, which they could not do if the deadline for objections
had not already passed. Accordingly, we conclude that our holding
in Redman, Redman v. RadioShack Corp., 768 F.3d 622, 637-38 (7th
Cir. 2014), does not compel the procedure the Intervenors
propose, and the district court did not err in declining to
employ that procedure.


The Arbitration Defense

Though we have elucidated several factors to guide a district
court's analysis of whether a proposed settlement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate, we have repeatedly stated that the most
important factor relevant to the fairness of a class action
settlement' is the strength of plaintiff's case on the merits
balanced against the amount offered in the settlement.
The Intervenors argue that the district court improperly analyzed
this factor by giving too much weight to Amex's potential
arbitration defense. The district court concluded there was a
significant risk that this court would reverse the district
court's decision and send the action to arbitration, where the
Plaintiffs would likely receive nothing. Because of that risk,
the district court concluded that the approximately $1.8 million
the class would receive from the settlement was a reasonable
recovery.

The court's reasoning in its order on final approval of the
settlement certainly puts the enforceability cart before the
contractual horse. Still, we do not believe that the district
court abused its discretion in concluding that the pending appeal
concerning the arbitration provision is a significant potential
bar to the class's success in this action.

To begin with, our review of the district court's decision to
deny arbitration would be de novo. Thus, the inquiry into whether
the terms included in the gift-card packaging became part of the
contract between the parties would be a question for this court
to decide without deference to the district court's conclusions.
That adds to the uncertainty surrounding the outcome, and
increases the risk to the class.

And if we were to conclude that the arbitration provision was
part of the contract between the parties, then there is little
doubt we would enforce it. The parties do not dispute that the
claims at issue in this case fall within the scope of the
provision, and the law clearly favors enforcement of arbitration
provisions in contracts, as the district court noted.

In light of those considerations, the district court's conclusion
was not an abuse of discretion.


Overbreadth

The Intervenors believe this release is overbroad. They contend
it releases claims that are not receiving compensation from the
settlement.

Here, the district court's conclusion was not an abuse of
discretion because there was no admissible evidence that the
purported claims existed. The total size of the class in this
case is not known, but the district court referred to an
estimated range of 17.7 to 36.9 million people. Thanks to the
district court's decision to appoint a notice expert, notice was
provided to this massive class in a reasonable and effective
manner, reaching approximately 70% of the members. Assuming the
veracity of the Intervenors' allegations, it is probable that at
least some of the persons with $0-balance claims received notice.
However, no party submitted any admissible evidence of those
claims not even an affidavit or declaration from Santsche
herself. Granted, it is not an objector's duty to show that the
settlement is inadequate.  But the burden on the proponents to
support the settlement should not extend to an affirmative duty
to rebut every allegation an objector makes.

In the absence of any admissible evidence that the purported
claims even exist, the district court's conclusion that the
release of these claims was not a sufficient reason to deny
approval of the settlement was not an abuse of discretion.


Attorneys' Fees

In reviewing the award of attorneys' fees, we review the district
court's methodology de novo to determine whether it reflects
procedure approved for calculating awards,' and we review the
reasonableness of the award for abuse of discretion.

The district court awarded the Plaintiffs' counsel $1,000,000 in
fees, additional class counsel $250,000 in fees, and the
Intervenors' counsel $700,000 in fees. The Intervenors do not
challenge the methodology used to determine these fee awards,
instead focusing on the amounts of the awards themselves. The
Intervenors (or, perhaps more accurately, their counsel) maintain
the district court erred in failing to award them most, if not
all, of the attorneys' fees in this case. They argue that while
they were working to further the interests of the class, the
Plaintiffs' counsel were colluding with Amex.

We conclude there was no abuse of discretion in awarding the
attorneys' fees. Having dealt with the parties and their counsel
for nearly seven years, the district court was easily in the best
position to determine which parties and which attorneys had
contributed to the settlement and in what proportions.


We AFFIRM.

A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' December 7, 2017
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/ydx95bhg from
Leagle.com.

Daniel K. Ryan -- dryan@hinshawlaw.com -- for Defendant-Appellee.
James Michael Smith, 755 Crooked Creek Cir; Clay, Alabama 36266,
for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Phillip Andrew Bock -- phil@classlawyers.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellee.
Richard David Greenfield, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

James L. Bernard -- jbernard@stroock.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Pension Funds Appeal S.D.N.Y. Order to 2nd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Pipefitters Union Local 537 Pension Fund and Plumbers
and Steamfitters Local 137 Pension Fund filed an appeal from a
District Court judgment dated November 28, 2017, entered in their
lawsuit styled Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 137 Pension Fund,
et al. v. American Express Company, et al., Case No. 15-cv-5999,
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
(New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District
Court has dismissed the lawsuit.  The lawsuit claimed that
American Express defrauded shareholders, including pension fund
investors, on the financial effects when a co-branding
partnership with Costco Wholesale Corp. ended in 2015.

The lawsuit does not seek specific damages but claims the pension
fund would not have purchased American Express stock or would
have purchased the stock at a lower price if the Costco decision
had been properly disclosed.  In dismissing the ruling, the judge
concluded American Express properly disclosed what it knew at the
time on the possible loss of Costco.  The judge also ruled an
amended lawsuit could be filed.

The appellate case is captioned as Plumbers and Steamfitters
Local 137 Pension Fund, et al. v. American Express Company, et
al., Case No. 17-4142, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Pipefitters Union Local 537 Pension Fund
and Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 137 Pension Fund,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, are
represented by:

          Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
          E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees American Express Company, Kenneth I.
Chenault and Jeffrey C. Campbell are represented by:

          Stephen L. Ascher, Esq.
          JENNER & BLOCK LLP
          919 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 891-1670
          E-mail: sascher@jenner.com


APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over PCs with Security Flaws
----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal class action accuses Apple of selling computers with the
same Meltdown and Spectre security flaws found in Intel chips.

The case is ANTHONY BARTLING and JACQUELINE N. OLSON, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
APPLE INC., Defendant, Case No. _____ (N.D. Calif.).

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

     Rachele R. Rickert, Esq.
     Marisa C. Livesay, Esq.
     WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
     750 B Street, Suite 2770
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Tel: 619-239-4599
     Fax: 619-234-4599
     Email: rickert@whafh.com
            livesay@whafh.com

        -- and --

     Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
     Janine L. Pollack, Esq.
     Randall S. Newman, Esq.
     Kate M. McGuire, Esq.
     WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
     270 Madison Avenue
     New York, NY 10016
     Tel: 212-545-4600
     Fax: 212-545-4677
     Email: gmn@whafh.com
            pollack@whafh.com
            newman@whafh.com
            mcguire@whafh.com


AMERICOLLECT INC: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled RANDY BETZ, RAFAEL CAJIGAS, and KEVIN
DUNN Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
the Plaintiff, v. AMERICOLLECT INC. and ERMED S.C., the
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00079-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a proposed
class in this case, appointing the Plaintiff as its
representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its
Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
deem appropriate.

The Plaintiffs further ask that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties
relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and
requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents
in support of this motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing
on the certification motion until discovery could commence.
Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011),
overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th
Cir. 2015).

As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense
when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay
should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs
contend.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=snMUT7sy

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482 8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482 8001
          E-mail: meldridge@ademilaw.com


ASSET RECOVERY: Bid to Certify Class Withdrawn Without Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Stephen Guthrie, the Plaintiff, v. Asset
Recovery Solutions, LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-
cv-10689 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Robert W. Gettleman entered
an order withdrawing without prejudice Plaintiff's motion to
certify class.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on January 10,
2018, Plaintiff's response to defendants' motion to stay and
compel arbitration is due by March 12. Defendants' reply is due
by March 26.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=EflPxD2o


ATLANTIC & PACIFIC ASSOCIATION: Dalton Seeks Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Diany Carolina Dalton, individually and on behalf of other
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Atlantic &
Pacific Association Management, Inc., the Defendant, Case No.
64230459, (Fla. Cir., 11th Judicial, Miami Dade County, November
15, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, minimum wage with
damages and other equitable relief based on violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt
Assistant Property Manager from on or about May 30, 2017 through
on or about October 5, 2017. During her period of employment, she
performed approximately five hours of overtime each week for
which Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff at one-and-one-half
times her regular rate of pay.  Plaintiff worked numerous of
hours off the clock as directed by supervisor Maria Torres and
Plaintiff was not properly compensated for those hours. Thus, the
Plaintiff for herself and all others similarly situated employees
of the Defendant alleges wage and hour federal statutory
violation against the Defendant. Further, the Defendant never
posted any notice, as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act
and Federal Law, to inform employees of their federal rights to
overtime and minimum wage payments and the Defendant willfully
and intentionally refused to properly pay Plaintiff wages as
required by the law of the United States as set forth above and
remains owing Plaintiff these wages.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


B&P DISTRIBUTION: Priest Seeks OT & Minimum Wages under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
TRENTEN PRIEST, and other similarly situated non-exempt
employees, the Plaintiff, v. B&P DISTRIBUTION and CURDEL WHITE,
Individually, the Defendants, Case No. CACE-18-001071 (Fla. Cir.,
17th Judicial, Broward County, Jan. 16, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime and/or minimum wages, an additional equal amount
as liquidated damages, obtain declaratory relief, and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed by
Defendants from approximately July 9, 2017 through on or about
July 24, 2017, as a non-exempt laborer passing out flyers in Fort
Lauderdale, FL. The Plaintiff and Defendants were engaged in an
implied agreement whereby Plaintiff would be employed by
Defendants and that Plaintiff would be properly paid as provided
for by, and not in violation of, the laws of the United States
and the State of Florida. During his employment, Defendant failed
to compensate Plaintiff the required overtime and/or minimum
wages at a rate of one and a half times Plaintiff's regular rate
of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 within a single work
week.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BALDOR ELECTRIC: Approval of "Kaup" Case Settlement Sought
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled LESLIE KAUP, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BALDOR ELECTRIC
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02049-PKH (W.D. Ark.),
the Parties ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a collective action under the Fair Labor
      Standards Act and a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23
      for purposes of settlement including appointment of Steve
      Rauls and Josh Sanford of the Sanford Law Firm, PLLC, as
      Class Counsel;

   2. granting preliminary approval of the settlement;

   3. approving the parties' proposed forms and methods of giving
      class members notice of the proposed settlement;

   4. directing that notice be given to class members in the
      proposed forms and manner; and

   5. setting a hearing on or after April 9, 2018, on whether the
      Court should grant final approval of the settlement, enter
      judgment, award attorneys' fees and costs to Plaintiff and
      Class Counsel, and approve a service award to the Named
      Plaintiff Leslie Kaup and the lead Clarksville Plaintiff
      Wes Yoakum.

The settlement provides substantial benefits via two Settlement
Funds established for the benefit of the class members. Baldor
will self-administer the settlement claims process, monitored by
all counsel. Baldor will pay for the costs of claims
administration, which includes the cost of the notice by two
first class U.S. mailings. Baldor will pay attorneys' fees and
expenses and Plaintiff's incentive award if approved by the
Court.

The proposed settlement addresses Plaintiff's litigation
objectives and falls within the range of possible final approval.
The settlement was negotiated by lawyers experienced in complex
litigation who had the benefit of a mediation presided over by
Lee Parks, Esq. of Parks, Chesin & Walbert in Atlanta, Georgia.
For these reasons, the settlement enjoys a presumption of
fairness and should be submitted to class members for their
reaction.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=EId5Ynqp

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Eric R. Magnus, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS, P.C.
          1155 Peachtree Street N.E., Suite 1000
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3600
          Telephone: (404) 525 8200
          Facsimile: (404) 525 1173
          E-mail: magnuse@jacksonlewis.com


BERKELEY, CA: Judge Hears Motion to Dismiss Homeless Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge on Jan. 11 appeared flabbergasted by the
suggestion that an enclave of liberal political thought like
Berkeley, California, has unconstitutionally persecuted its
homeless.

"You're saying even the most progressive city in America is
violating the Constitution day in and day out," U.S. District
Judge William Alsup said.  "You want me to adopt a constitutional
theory that would go that far?"

Judge Alsup was referring to a class action filed against
Berkeley by a group of homeless people evicted from a South
Berkeley encampment last fall.  Both sides appeared in court on
Jan. 11 to hear a motion to dismiss.

The plaintiffs want a court order requiring the city to halt camp
evictions and set aside open space for homeless people to sleep
in cars and tents.

Judge Alsup said if he orders Berkeley to start converting soccer
fields to homeless camps, it could turn the city into a magnet
that would attract more homeless people to the Bay Area.

"How many people could come to Berkeley sidewalks and say, 'Until
you give us a decent place to live, we're going to camp out on
the sidewalks,'" Judge Alsup asked.

The judge said while he has sympathy for the homeless, he doesn't
think it's fair to make Berkeley taxpayers, some of whom work
hard just to make ends meet, shoulder the cost of sheltering
every homeless person that decides to settle in the city.

"Now you're saying in addition to paying your own rent, you have
to pay for all the people from Indiana and Ohio who don't want to
live in the cold weather and come to live in Berkeley," Judge
Alsup said.

Mike Zint, co-founder of First They Came For The Homeless, which
has organized multiple drug-free encampments in Berkeley,
rejected the judge's premise that stopping the criminalization of
homelessness and displacement would draw more homeless people to
Berkeley.

"Homeless people don't generally leave," Mr. Zint said in a phone
interview after the hearing.

The political activist and formerly homeless man, who now lives
in Oakland, added that despite Berkeley's reputation as a liberal
bastion, those who control the city's levers of power tend to
favor developers and the status quo over affordable housing and
human compassion.

"If it was progressive, there would not be a homeless problem,"
Mr. Zint said.  "They can sit there and be liberal and
progressive all they want, but they don't have humanity."

The plaintiffs claim the city has deprived them of liberty,
property, and due process while subjecting them to cruel and
unusual punishment in the form of persecution for being homeless.
They also claim the city targeted one specific group for its
political activism and outspokenness about issues of affordable
housing and homelessness.

Berkeley says it respects the rights of homeless people, giving
72 hours' notice before any eviction deemed necessary for public
health and safety and holding property seized during evictions
for up to 90 days.

But civil rights attorney EmilyRose Johns, of Siegel Yee &
Brunner in Oakland, said the city doesn't always give sufficient
notice before displacing homeless campers.  People involved with
First They Came For The Homeless also describe having lost all of
their possessions in past raids.

In November, Judge Alsup ordered the city to submit a plan to
"shelter substantially" all of its estimated 974 homeless
residents this winter.  The city replied with a declaration
stating that it lacks the resources needed to house most of the
estimated 664 people who lack shelter on any given night in
Berkeley.  That's despite the city spending $3.8 million annually
to tackle homelessness.

Co-defendant Bay Area Rapid Transit asked the judge to dismiss it
as a defendant in the suit because the plaintiffs were already
removed from a piece of BART-owned property in South Berkeley.

In late October, Judge Alsup denied the plaintiffs' motion for an
injunction to block their removal from a South Berkeley
encampment near the Ashby BART station.

Judge Alsup indicated on Jan. 11 that if he grants the city of
Berkley's motion to dismiss, he will likely do so with leave to
amend.


BL RESTAURANT: Underpays Wait Staff, Wall Claims
------------------------------------------------
TIFFANY WALL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. BL RESTAURANT OPERATIONS, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 18-CV-002B (Mass Sup. Ct., Jan. 2, 2018),
seeks restitution, unpaid minimum wages for all hours worked,
treble damages, attorney fees, costs, and interest under the
Massachusetts Minimum Wage Law.

On her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Ms. Wall alleges that BL Restaurant Operations has violated the
Massachusetts Tips Law, M.G.L. c. 149, section 152A, by causing,
requiring, or permitting wait staff employees at Bar Louie to
participate in tip pools through which they remit a portion of
their tips for distribution to employees who possess managerial
responsibility. In addition, Ms. Wall alleges that BL Restaurant
Operations has violated the Massachusetts Minimum Wage Law,
M.G.L. c. 151, sections 1 and 7, by causing, requiring, or
permitting wait staff employees at Bar Louie to participate in an
improper tip pooling arrangement, while also paying those
employees the service rate, which is below the full state minimum
wage.

BL Restaurant, doing business as Bar Louie, owns and operates
restaurants. The Company offers prepared foods and drinks for on-
premise consumption. BL Restaurant Operations serves customers in
the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hillary Schwab, Esq.
          Brant Casavant, Esq.
          FAIR WORK, P.C.
          192 South Street, Suite 450
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: (617) 607 3261
          Facsimile: (617) 488 2261
          E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com
                  brant@fairworklaw.com


BMW AG: "Schmidt" Antitrust Suit Underway in N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Schmidt V. Beyerische Motoren Werke Ag et al., was
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California and assigned Case No. 17-cv-06857 on Nov. 29, 2017.

The case was originally filed in Virginia and captioned, Tom
Schmidt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, BMW
North America, LLC, Volkswagen AG, Volkswagen Group of America,
Inc., Audi AG, Audi of America, LLC, Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG,
Porsche Cars of North America, Inc., Daimler AG, and Mercedes-
Benz USA, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01294-LO-MSN,
(E.D. Va., November 14, 2017).

The lawsuit seeks damages and other equitable relief for
Defendant's violation of the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants engaged in activities
for the purpose of effectuating unlawful arrangements to fix,
maintain, raise and/or stabilize prices of German Automobiles
sold in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michelle A. Parfitt, Esq.
     ASHCRAFT & GEREL, LLP
     4900 Seminary Road, Suite 650
     Alexandria, VA 22311
     Telephone: (703) 931-5500
     Facsimile: (703) 820-1656
     Email: Mparfitt@ashcraftlaw.com

          - and -

     Warren T. Burns, Esq.
     Daniel H. Charest, Esq.
     Will Thompson, Esq.
     BURNS CHAREST, LLP
     900 Jackson Street, Suite 500
     Dallas, TX 75202
     Telephone: (469) 904-4550
     Facsimile: (469) 444-5002
     Email: wburns@burnscharest.com
     Email: dcharest@burnscharest.com
     Email: wthompson@burnscharest.com

          - and -

     Korey A. Nelson, Esq.
     Amanda Klevorn, Esq.
     BURNS CHAREST, LLP
     365 Canal Street, Suite 1170
     New Orleans, LA 70130
     Telephone: (504) 799-2845
     Facsimile: (504) 881-1765
     Email: knelson@burnscharest.com
     Email: aklevorn@burnscharest.com

          - and -

     Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
     Cydni Arterbury, Legal Assistant
     THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A.
     1101 Garland Street
     Little Rock, AR 72201
     Telephone: (501) 374-1058
     Facsimile: (501) 374-2222
     Email: tomthrash@thrashlawfirmpa.com

          - and -

     Isaac L. Diel, Esq.
     SHARP MCQUEEN, PA
     Financial Plaza 6900 College Blvd, Suite 285
     Overland Park, KS 66211
     Telephone: (913) 661-9931
     Facsimile: (913) 661-9935
     Email: idiel@sharpmcqueen.com

          - and -

     Charles D. Gabriel, Esq.
     CHALMERS BURCH & ADAMS, LLC
     North Fulton Satellite Office 5755
     North Point Parkway, Suite 96
     Alpharetta, GA 30022
     Telephone: (678) 735-5903
     Facsimile: (678) 735-5905
     Email: cdgabriel@cpblawgroup.com

          - and -

     Larry D. Lahman, Esq.
     MITCHELL DECLERCK
     202 West Broadway Avenue
     Enid, OK 73701
     Telephone: (580) 234-5144
     Facsimile: (580) 234-8890
     Email: larry.lahman@sbcglobal.net

          - and -

     Stephen B. Murray, Sr., Esq.
     MURRAY LAW FIRM
     650 Poydras Street, Suite 2150
     New Orleans, Louisiana 70130
     Telephone: (504) 525-8100
     Facsimile: (504) 584-5249
     Email: smurray@murray-lawfirm.com


BOFI HOLDINGS: May 11 Case Conference in "Logreco" Wages Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Civil Case Management Conference is scheduled for May 11, 2018,
at 10:00 a.m., in the case, David Logreco, individually and on
behalf of the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. BOFI Holdings, Inc., and Does 1 through 100, the Defendants,
Case No. 17-_____ (Cal. Sup. Ct., San Diego County, November 15,
2017).  The complaint seeks to recover unpaid overtime, minimum
wages and other benefits or employment in violations of the
California Labor Code and California Business and Professions
Code.  The cases is assigned to Judicial Officer Ronald Styn.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
     LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
     410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
     Glendale, CA 91203
     Telephone: (818) 265-1020
     Facsimile: (818) 265-1021

          - and -

     Amir Nayebdadash, Esq.
     Heather Davis, Esq.
     PROTECTION LAW GROUP LLP
     136 Main Street, Suite A
     El Segundo, CA 90245
     Telephone: (424) 290-3095
     Facsimile: (866) 264-7880


CANINE FRIENDLY: Court Certifies Licensed Vocational Nurses Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ORLANDO ZAPATA, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CANINE FRIENDLY
COALITION, INC. d/b/a DESERT STAR HOME HEALTH, and ROBERTO
HERRERA, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00131-PRM
(W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Philip R. Martinez entered an order
on Jan. 16, 2018:

   1. conditionally certifying a collective action under the Fair
      Labor Standards Act comprised of:

      "all Licensed Vocational Nurses ("LVNs") providing patient
      care who worked for Canine Friendly Coalition d/b/a Desert
      Start Home Health during the relevant time period beginning
      three years before the date notice is sent"; and

   2. within 14 days of the date of this Order, directing parties
      to meet and confer and submit joint proposed notice and
      consent forms, as well as a joint proposed timeline for the
      notice period, for the Court's consideration.

The Court said, "Plaintiff claims that he believes, based on
prior conversations with other LVNs, 'that if current and/or
former employees could opt into this lawsuit, they would do so.'
Zapata Decl. However, as of the time of this Order, Plaintiff has
provided no other evidence besides his word that other putative
plaintiffs may join this litigation. Despite the thin evidence at
this point supporting Plaintiff's claim that others desire to
join the litigation, Plaintiff's statement is sufficient given
the lenient standard for conditional FLSA certification. Further,
many district courts do not require an affirmative showing at
this stage of other putative plaintiffs that wish to opt in. See,
e.g., Yair Case 3:17-cv-00131-PRM Document 25 Filed 01/16/18 Page
12 of 15 1 3 Granados v. Hinojosa, 219 F. Supp. 3d 582, 585 (W.D.
Tex. 2016) (not requiring the plaintiffs to make any affirmative
showing that other potential plaintiffs would opt in to the
litigation); Esparza v. C&J Energy Servs., Inc., No. 5:15-CV-850-
DAE, 2016 WL 1737147, at 5 (W.D. Tex. May 2, 2016) ("Several
district courts in Texas, including this Court, have rejected the
third, non-statutory requirement of the conditional certification
test, which requires the party seeking conditional certification
to demonstrate that there are others who wish to join the
suit."); Mateos v. Select Energy Servs., LLC, 977 F. Supp. 2d
640, 643 (W.D. Tex. 2013) (also not requiring the plaintiffs to
satisfy the third element). In light of these considerations, the
Court concludes that Plaintiff's claim in his affidavit is
sufficient to satisfy this prong. See Sandoval v. Carrco Painting
Contractors, No. MO:16-CV-00159-DC, 2016 WL 8674067, at 3 (W.D.
Tex. Oct. 11, 2016), on reconsideration in part, No. MO:16-CV-
00159-DC, 2016 WL 8674068 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 24, 2016) (concluding
that the plaintiff's affidavit and one additional affidavit
claiming that other employees would be interested in joining the
litigation were sufficient to conclude that other putative
plaintiffs would, in fact, be interested).

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


CAVIUM INC: Shareholders Sue Over $6BB Marvell Merger
-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
shareholders sued semiconductor giant Cavium in a federal class
action, challenging its $6 billion merger with Marvell, for $40 a
share plus 2.18 shares of Marvell stock for each share of Cavium.

The case is SCOTT FINEBERG, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. CAVIUM, INC., SYED B.
ALI, ANTHONY S. THORNLEY, SANJAY MEHROTRA, EDWARD H. FRANK, BRAD
W. BUSS, and MADHAV V. RAJAN, Defendants, Case No. ____ (N.D.
Calif.).

Attorney for Plaintiff Scott Fineberg:

     Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
     Los Angeles, CA 90024
     Tel: (424) 256-2884
     Fax: (424) 256-2885
     Email: bheikali@faruqilaw.com


CHARLES SCHWAB: Court Continues CMC in "Crago" to Jan. 25
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an order to continue Case Management Conference
and Extend Deadline to Respond to Second Amended Complaint in the
case captioned ROBERT CRAGO, Individually And On Behalf Of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. CHARLES SCHWAB & CO.,
INC., and THE CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No.
3:16-cv-3938-RS (N.D. Cal.).

Defendants Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. and The Charles Schwab
Corporation and Lead Plaintiffs Robert Wolfson and Frank Pino,
stipulate that the initial Case Management Conference will be
continued to January 25, 2018, or another date no earlier than
January 25, 2018, as determined by the Court.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 7, 2017 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8tz8g6z from Leagle.com.

Robert Crago, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Christopher McCall --
amccall@zlk.com -- LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP.

Robert Wolfson, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Vincent
Prongay -- rprongay@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP,
David Jay Stone, Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., Jeffrey H. Squire,
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., 885 3rd Ave Ste 3040. New York, NY
10022, pro hac vice, Joshua L. Crowell -- jcrowell@glancylaw.com
-- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Lawrence Paul Eagel, Bragar Eagel
and Squire, P.C., pro hac vice & Todd Harris Henderson, Bragar
Eagel and Squire, P.C., 885 3rd Ave Ste 3040. New York, NY 10022,
pro hac vice.

Frank Pino, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Vincent Prongay,
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, David Jay Stone, Bragar Eagel &
Squire, P.C., Jeffrey H. Squire, Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., pro
hac vice, Joshua L. Crowell, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP,
Lawrence Paul Eagel, Bragar Eagel and Squire, P.C., pro hac vice
& Todd Harris Henderson, Bragar Eagel and Squire, P.C., pro hac
vice.

K. Scott Posson, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua L. Crowell,
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., Defendant, represented by Gilbert
Ross Serota -- gilbert.serota@apks.com -- Arnold & Porter Kaye
Scholer LLP & Jee Young You -- jeeyoung.you@apks.com -- Arnold &
Porter Kaye Scholer LLP.

The Charles Schwab Corporation, Defendant, represented by Gilbert
Ross Serota, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP & Jee Young You,
Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP.

Scott Posson, Movant, represented by Nicholas Ian Porritt --
nporritt@zlk.com -- Levi and Korsinsky & Adam Christopher McCall,
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP.


CINEMARK USA: 9th Cir. Has Jurisdiction Over Wage & Hour Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, issued Order
denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned
SILKEN BROWN; MARIO DE LA ROSA, individually and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated and as
aggrieved employers pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act
(PAGA), Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CINEMARK USA, INC.; CENTURY
THEATRES, INC., Defendants-Appellees. No. 16-15377. (9th Cir.)
Defendants have moved to dismiss this case for lack of appellate
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec 1291, in light of the Supreme
Court decision in Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, 582 U.S.  137 S.Ct.
1702 (2017).

Silken Brown filed a Class Action Complaint against Defendants
Cinemark USA, Inc. and Century Theatres, Inc., alleging several
wage and hour claims.  The district court dismissed Brown's
direct wage statement claim and denied class certification of
Plaintiffs' meal and rest break claims, reporting pay claims,
off-the-clock work claims, derivative wage statement claims, and
direct wage statement claims.

Defendants have moved to dismiss the case for lack of appellate
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1291, in light of the
Supreme Court decision in Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, 582 U.S. ___,
137 S.Ct. 1702 (2017), because Plaintiffs voluntarily settled
some of their claims.

According to the Ninth Circuit, the parties' mutual settlement
for consideration in the case does not raise the same concerns.
Unlike the plaintiffs in Baker, Brown and De La Rosa continued
litigating their remaining individual claims after the district
court denied class certification.  Some of these individual
claims resolved in favor of Defendants and some resulted in
settlement.  No facts suggest that Brown and De La Rosa engaged
in sham tactics to achieve an appealable final judgment, the
Ninth Circuit said.

The resolution of the present case was not a unilateral dismissal
of claims, but a mutual settlement for consideration reached by
both parties which expressly preserved certain claims for appeal.
This case is unlike Baker, where the plaintiffs openly intended
to sidestep Rule 23(f) when they voluntarily dismissed their
claims, the Ninth Circuit pointed out.

Therefore, the Ninth Circuit ruled, it has jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. Sec 1291 to consider the appeal on the merits.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's December 7, 2017 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y9d4zpoa from Leagle.com

Liana Carter -- Liana.Carter@CapstoneLawyers.com -- (argued),
Katherine Kehr -- Katherine.Kehr@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Robert
Drexler -- Robert.Drexler@CapstoneLawyers.com -- and Glenn Danas
-- Glenn.Danas@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC, Los
Angeles, California, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Emily B. Vicente -- ebvicente@hunton.com -- (argued), and M.
Brett Burns -- mbrettburns@hunton.com -- Hunton & Williams LLP,
Los Angeles, California, for Defendants-Appellants.


COLISEUM BAR: Certification of FLSA Collective Action Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JANE DOES 1, 2, and 3, Individually And on
behalf of other similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. THE
COLISEUM BAR & GRILL, INC., a Michigan Corporation, ABCDE
OPERATING, LLC, dba the Penthouse, A Michigan Limited Liability
Company, M&M ZIN ENTERPRISES, INC., A Michigan Corporation, JOHNI
SEEMA, and ALAN MARKOVITZ individuals, Jointly and severally, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-12212-LVP-EAS (E.D. Mich.), the
Plaintiffs move the Court, pursuant to Section 16(b) of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, for entry of an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a collective action for unpaid
      wages under section 216(b) of the FLSA;

   2. issuing Plaintiffs' proposed order;

   3. approving the proposed court-supervised notice to the
      putative class members;

   4. requiring Defendants to identify potential opt-in
      plaintiffs by promptly providing Plaintiffs with an updated
      computer-readable data file containing contact information
      for all potential opt-in plaintiffs within 10 days of this
      Court's order;

   5. approving an opt-in period of 90 days; allow Plaintiffs to
      send notice to similarly situated individuals via e-mail in
      addition to regular mail; and

   6. requiring the proposed Notice to be posted in Defendants'
      workplaces (away from view of customers but in a common
      place for its employees to view).

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=f7JTXpXq

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

     Megan Bonanni, Esq.
     PITT McGEHEE PALMER & RIVERS, P.C.
     117 West Fourth Street, Suite 200
     Royal Oak, MI 48067
     Telephone: 248-398-9800
     Facsimile: 248-398-9804
     E-mail: mbonanni@pittlawpc.com

          - and -

     Jennifer L. McManus, Esq.
     FAGAN MCMANUS, PC
     25892 Woodward Ave
     Royal Oak, MI 48067
     Telephone: (248)542-6300
     E-mail: jmcmanus@faganlawpc.com


COLLIER, FL: Certification of Foreign Students Class Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled NEHEMY ANTOINE, and MARTA ALONZO, on behalf
of I.A., a minor; on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. THE SCHOOL BOARD OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA and KAMELA PATTON, Superintendent of
Collier County Public Schools, in her official capacity, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00379-SPC-MRM (M.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiffs seek class certification of:

     "all foreign-born, English Language Learner (ELL) children
     ages fifteen to twenty-one whose last completed schooling
     (not including adult education courses) was at a non-U.S.
     school, and who, after August 1, 2013, while residing in
     Collier County, sought or will seek to enroll in the Collier
     County public school system serving grades K-12, and were or
     will be denied enrollment by the Defendants."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BCfzmL77

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

          Gillian Gillers, Esq.
          Michelle R. Lapointe, Esq.
          Viviana Bonilla Lopez, Esq.
          SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
          150 East Ponce de Leon Ave., Suite 340
          Decatur, GA 30030
          Telephone: (404) 521 6700
          Facsimile: (404) 221 5857
          E-mail: Michelle.Lapointe@splcenter.org
                  Gillian.Gillers@splcenter.org
                  Viviana.BonillaLopez@splcenter.org

The Defendant is represented by:

          James D. Fox, Esq.
          ROETZEL & ANDRESS, LPA
          850 Park Shore Drive
          Trianon Centre - Third Floor
          Naples, Florida 34103
          Telephone: (239) 649 2705
          Facsimile: (239) 261 3659
          E-mail: jfox@ralaw.com

               - and -

          Jon Fishbane, Esq.
          DISTRICT GENERAL COUNSEL
          COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT
          5775 Osceola Trail
          Naples, Florida 34109
          Telephone: (239) 377 0499
          Facsimile: (239) 377 0501
          E-mail: fishbj@collierschools.com


COMPASS GROUP: Feb. 9 Deadline to Answer "O'Brien" Wage Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in the case, Christopher O'Brien, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Compass
Group USA, Inc. f/k/a Canteen Corporation; Compass Group Holdings
Inc. a/k/a Compass Holdigns Inc.; Compass One, LLC; Compass 2K12
Services, LLC; Chartwells Higher Education Dining Services a/k/a
Chartwells K12, Lanthem Time, Inc., John Doe, Jane Doe and XYZ
Corp., the Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-13327 (D. N.J.) have until
Feb. 9, 2018, to file their answer.

The complaint alleges unjust enrichment, breach of written
contract, common law fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and
negligence by the Defendants. The Plaintiff brings the class
action for himself and all other similarly situated class of
hourly-paid individuals who were willfully deprived proper wages
for work performed for Defendants pursuant to a contract of
employment. The Defendants utilized a Lathem 7003 model for the
clock-in and clock-out time of the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees. But, the Defendants have improperly
calculated the pay period wages of each hourly-paid employee from
2014 through the present. Defendants have failed and continue to
fail to accurately record, report and preserve records of hours
worked by its hourly-paid employees.

The case was originally filed in New Jersey state court and
captioned, Christopher O'Brien, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Compass Group USA,
Inc. f/k/a Canteen Corporation; Compass Group Holdings Inc. a/k/a
Compass Holdigns Inc.; Compass One, LLC; Compass 2K12 Services,
LLC; Chartwells Higher Education Dining Services a/k/a Chartwells
K12, Lanthem Time, Inc., John Doe, Jane Doe and XYZ Corp., the
Defendants, Case No. BER-L-007778-17, (N.J. Super. Ct., November
14, 2017).  The Defendants removed the case to federal district
court on Dec. 20.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mark T. Sadaka, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF SADAKA ASSOCIATES, LLC
     155 Dean Street, Suite 4-D
     Englewood, NJ 07631
     Telephone: (201) 266-5670


COVERALL NORTH: Court Prefers Arbitration in "Richardson"
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, Atlanta Division, issued an Opinion and Order granting
in part and denying in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, or in
the Alternative, Stay Litigation Pending Arbitration in the case
captioned RANDALL RICHARDSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COVERALL
NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 1:17-CV-2405-TWT
(N.D. Ga.).

This is a Fair Labor Standards Act action.  It is before the
Court on the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, or in the
Alternative, Stay Litigation Pending Arbitration.

This case arises out of a franchise agreement between the
Plaintiffs Randall Richardson and Janitorial Tech, LLC, and the
Defendant Coverall North America, Inc. The Defendant operates a
commercial cleaning franchising business. Mr. Richardson is the
owner of Janitorial Tech, a limited liability company. The
parties signed the Joint Franchise Agreement (Franchise
Agreement), in which Janitorial Tech would become a franchisee of
the Defendant.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant's franchise arrangement
is a scheme to avoid FLSA liability by requiring its janitors to
create limited liability companies and enter into franchise
agreements. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant
misclassifies its janitors as franchisees and independent
contractors, not employees, in order to avoid these FLSA
obligations. The Plaintiffs also allege that the Defendant did
not provide the amount of business to the Plaintiffs that it had
promised to provide, and that the Defendant provided illegal
loans to the Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs assert claims for violation of the FLSA, violation
of the Georgia Industrial Loan Act, violation of Georgia's Payday
Lending Act, violation of the Georgia RICO statute, and fraud and
misrepresentation. The Defendant now moves to dismiss, or in the
alternative, stay this litigation pending arbitration.

The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs' claims should be
dismissed because mediation was a condition precedent to the
filing of a lawsuit.

The Franchise Agreement, under a heading titled INFORMAL DISPUTE
RESOLUTION/MEDIATION, provides, inter alia: "If a dispute arises
between Coverall and Franchisee and if the dispute is not
resolved or settled, Coverall and Franchisee agree that prior to
filing any proceeding, whether in arbitration or (if permissible)
in court, they will attempt, in good faith, to settle the dispute
by non-binding mediation administered pursuant to the Commercial
Mediation Rules of the American Arbitration Association, or as
otherwise agreed upon in writing by the parties."

This evidence shows that Mr. Richardson communicated with the
Defendant concerning the Defendant's failure to provide the
guaranteed business it had promised to provide, and about
refinancing the debt on the loans that the Plaintiffs owed the
Defendant. The parties attempted to informally resolve these two
specific issues: Mr. Richardson's concerns about the guaranteed
business, and money owed on the notes. This is further supported
by the settlement agreement the Defendant proposed to Mr.
Richardson, which addressed refinancing the promissory notes and
providing money for business owed.

Mr. Richardson's requests for mediation did not address the
issues in dispute in this lawsuit. These e-mail communications
did not touch upon any FLSA allegations, fraud allegations, or
allegations that the loans violated state law. And, although the
lack of promised business is mentioned in the Complaint, it is
only a peripheral issue in the instant lawsuit. Therefore, the
Court finds that the Plaintiffs did not make a good faith attempt
to mediate the disputes at issue in this lawsuit.

District courts have inherent, discretionary authority to issue
stays in many circumstances, and granting a stay to permit
mediation (or to require it) will often be appropriate.
Therefore, the Court stays this litigation until the Plaintiffs
make a proper request for mediation.

The Court also concludes that it is appropriate to grant the
Defendant's motion to compel arbitration. Any disputes that
remain unresolved after the completion of mediation should be
submitted to arbitration pursuant to the procedures outlined in
the Franchise Agreement. Paragraph 25 of the Franchise Agreement,
titled DISPUTE RESOLUTION/ARBITRATION, provides, in part, that
"all controversies, disputes or claims between Coverall and
Franchisee arising out of or related to this Agreement or the
validity of this Agreement or any provision thereof shall be
submitted promptly for binding arbitration."

The Plaintiffs challenge the class action waiver in the
arbitration clause. This waiver provides: "Franchisee and
Coverall agree that arbitration shall be conducted on an
individual, not a class wide basis, that only Coverall and its
officers, directors, agents and/or employees and Franchisee (and
Franchisee's owners, officers, directors and/or guarantors) may
be parties to any arbitration proceeding described in this
Paragraph 25B, and that no such arbitration between Coverall and
Franchisee shall be consolidated with any other proceeding
between Coverall and any other Franchisee or third party."

The Plaintiffs also argue that the class action waiver is
unenforceable because it violates the National Labor Relations
Act, the Georgia Industrial Loan Act, and Georgia's Payday
Lending Act. However, these arguments challenge the
enforceability of a portion of the arbitration agreement, which
the parties have committed to be determined in arbitration. This
is the exact kind of dispute that the delegation provision
addresses. Since these arguments do not challenge the validity of
the delegation provision itself, the arbitrator, and not this
Court, should review them.

The delegation provision states that any disputes arising out of
the arbitration agreement, including its scope should be
determined by an arbitrator, not a court This dispute goes to the
scope of the arbitration agreement whether it encompasses
injunctive relief or not. It would contravene the parties' intent
for the Court to decide this issue.

Therefore, the arbitrator should determine whether the
arbitration agreement encompasses the Plaintiffs' claims for
injunctive relief. This conclusion is further bolstered by the
fact that holding otherwise would result in inefficient piecemeal
litigation in which certain claims would be decided in
arbitration while others would remain before this Court

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 7, 2017 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ydfwrwrl from
Leagle.com.

Randall Richardson, Plaintiff, represented by F. Skip Sugarman --
ssugarman@bloomsugarman.com -- Bloom Sugarman, LLP.

Randall Richardson, Plaintiff, represented by John Nicholas
Phillips -- nphillips@bloomsugarman.com -- Bloom Sugarman, LLP &
Ryan T. Pumpian, Bloom Sugarman, LLP.

Janitorial Tech, LLC, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by F. Skip Sugarman,
Bloom Sugarman, LLP, John Nicholas Phillips, Bloom Sugarman, LLP
& Ryan T. Pumpian, Bloom Sugarman, LLP.

Coverall North America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Norman M.
Leon -- norman.leon@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP, pro hac vice,
Christopher G. Campbell -- christopher.campbell@dlapiper.com --
DLA Piper US LLP & Delia Gervin Frazier --
delia.frazier@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP.


DIAMOND RESORTS: Court Compels Arbitration in Shareholders' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada
granted Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration in the case
captioned ILONA HARDING, an individual; LESTER THOMAS HARDING, an
individual, all on behalf of themselves and all similarly-
situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. DIAMOND RESORTS HOLDINGS,
LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; DIAMOND RESORTS
INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware corporation; DIAMOND RESORTS U.S.
COLLECTION, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company; DIAMOND
RESORTS INTERNATIONAL MARKETING, INC., a California corporation;
DIAMOND RESORTS INTERNATIONAL CLUB, INC., a Florida corporation;
DIAMOND RESORTS MANAGEMENT, INC., an Arizona corporation; DIAMOND
RESORTS U.S. COLLECTION MEMBERS ASSOCIATION, a Delaware
corporation; DIAMOND RESORTS DEVELOPER & SALES HOLDING COMPANY, a
Delaware company; DIAMOND RESORTS FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., a
California corporation; and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00248-RFB-VCF (D. Nev.), and the
case is dismissed without prejudice.

Plaintiffs have been timeshare owners with Diamond.  In the
intervening years, Plaintiffs have entered several different
timeshare purchase and security agreements (PSAs) with Diamond.
Plaintiffs allege that Diamond uses sales tactics that take
advantage of elderly customers.

Diamond contends that because Plaintiffs signed the PSA notice of
opt-out untimely pursuant to Section 18 of the PSA therefore
Plaintiffs waived their right to opt-out of arbitration.

Plaintiffs claim that their notice of opt-out was timely.  They
argue that Section 18(a) of the PSA does not tie the 30-day
window for opting out to the date the PSA was executed instead,
the 30-day clock began on the date Plaintiffs decided that they
did not want the arbitration provision to apply.

The Court finds that the part of Section 18(b) is not integral;
even if it was integral, the term may be severed from the
arbitration provision.  The clause is not integral to the
arbitration provision because there still remains the option of
arbitration before the AAA.  Furthermore, the Court rejects
Plaintiffs' suggestion that Diamond intended to take advantage of
the unavailability of the National Arbitration Forum ("NAF").
There is no evidence that at the time the PSA was entered, either
party knew that NAF was unavailable as a forum or intended to
take advantage of that unavailability.

The Court says that, here, the parties may have been mistaken
about the availability of one of two arbitral forums, but as long
as they entered into the arbitration agreement in good faith, the
term including the unavailable forum can properly be severed
without rendering the entire arbitration provision unenforceable.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 7, 2017 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y92nxx32 from Leagle.com.

Ilona Harding, Plaintiff, represented by D. Chris Albright --
dca@albrightstoddard.com -- Albright Stoddard Warnick & Albright.
Ilona Harding, Plaintiff, represented by Amber L. Eck --
ambere@haelaw.com -- Haeggquist & Eck, LLP, Audra Petrolle --
apetrolle@roselawgroup.com -- Rose Law Group, pc, pro hac vice,
Kathryn Honecker -- khonecker@roselawgroup.com -- Rose Law Group,
pc, pro hac vice, Robert C. Tarics, The Tarics Law Firm, P.C.,
9810 E Thompson Peak Pkwy Unit 811. Scottsdale, AZ 85255-6661,
pro hac vice & Mark Albright -- gma@albrightstoddard.com --
Albright Stoddard Warnick & Albright.

Lester Thomas Harding, Plaintiff, represented by D. Chris
Albright, Albright Stoddard Warnick & Albright, Amber L. Eck,
Haeggquist & Eck, LLP, Audra Petrolle, Rose Law Group, pc, pro
hac vice, Kathryn Honecker, Rose Law Group, pc, pro hac vice,
Robert C. Tarics, The Tarics Law Firm, P.C., pro hac vice & Mark
Albright, Albright Stoddard Warnick & Albright.

Diamond Resorts Holdings, LLC, Defendant, represented by Becca J.
Wahlquist -- bwahlquist@swlaw.com --  Snell & Wilmer, L.L.P., pro
hac vice, John S. Delikanakis -- jdelikanakis@swlaw.com --  Snell
& Wilmer LLP & Joshua D. Cools -- jcools@swlaw.com --  Snell &
Wilmer LLP.

Diamond Resorts International, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Becca J. Wahlquist, Snell & Wilmer, L.L.P., pro hac vice, John S.
Delikanakis, Snell & Wilmer LLP & Joshua D. Cools, Snell & Wilmer
LLP.

Diamond Resorts U.S. Collection LLC, Defendant, represented by
Becca J. Wahlquist, Snell & Wilmer, L.L.P., pro hac vice, John S.
Delikanakis, Snell & Wilmer LLP & Joshua D. Cools, Snell & Wilmer
LLP.

Diamond Resorts International Marketing, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Becca J. Wahlquist, Snell & Wilmer, L.L.P., pro
hac vice, John S. Delikanakis, Snell & Wilmer LLP & Joshua D.
Cools, Snell & Wilmer LLP.

Diamond Resorts International Club, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Becca J. Wahlquist, Snell & Wilmer, L.L.P., pro hac vice, John
S. Delikanakis, Snell & Wilmer LLP & Joshua D. Cools, Snell &
Wilmer LLP.

Diamond Resorts U.S. Collection Members Association, Defendant,
represented by Becca J. Wahlquist, Snell & Wilmer, L.L.P., pro
hac vice, John S. Delikanakis, Snell & Wilmer LLP &Joshua D.
Cools, Snell & Wilmer LLP.

Diamond Resorts Management, Inc., Defendant, represented by Becca
J. Wahlquist, Snell & Wilmer, L.L.P., pro hac vice, John S.
Delikanakis, Snell & Wilmer LLP & Joshua D. Cools, Snell & Wilmer
LLP.

Diamond Resorts Developer & Sales Holding Company, Defendant,
represented by Becca J. Wahlquist, Snell & Wilmer, L.L.P., pro
hac vice, John S. Delikanakis, Snell & Wilmer LLP &Joshua D.
Cools, Snell & Wilmer LLP.

Diamond Resorts Financial Services, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Becca J. Wahlquist, Snell & Wilmer, L.L.P., pro hac vice, John
S. Delikanakis, Snell & Wilmer LLP & Joshua D. Cools, Snell &
Wilmer LLP.


DSM LAUNDROMAT: Feb. 6 Initial Conference in "Liu" Action
---------------------------------------------------------
An in-person initial conference will be held at 11:00 a.m. on
February 6, 2018, before Magistrate Judge Steven M. Gold in the
case, Cai Ling Liu, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. DSM Laundromat Inc. d/b/a D.S.M.
Laundromat & Dry Cleaners, John Doe Corp. d/b/a M.Y. Laundromat,
John Roe Corp. d/b/a Dry Clean Laundry and Wash Center, Ding Yin
Yu a/k/a Ding Xian Yu, Ming Sen Yu and Mei Ying Yu a/k/a Mei Yung
Yu a/k/a Mei Y Yu a/k/a Mei Yu, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
06648-ARR-SMG, (E.D.N.Y., November 14, 2017).

The lawsuit alleges that plaintiff is entitled to recover from
the Defendants: (1) unpaid wages, (2) unpaid minimum wages, (3)
unpaid overtime, (4) liquidated damages; (5) prejudgment and
post-judgment interest; and/or (6) attorneys' fees and costs. The
complaint of the Plaintiff alleges that he is entitled to recover
from the Defendants: (1) unpaid wages, (2) unpaid minimum wages,
(3) unpaid overtime, (4) liquidated damages; (5) prejudgment and
post-judgment interest; and/or (6) attorneys' fees and costs.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     John Troy, Esq.
     TROY LAW, PLLC
     41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 119
     Flushing, NY 11355
     Telephone: (718) 762-1324


DIBOLL, TX: Faces ADE-WIFCO Suit in Texas State Court
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against City of Diboll,
Texas.  The case is styled as ADE-WIFCO Steel Products Inc.
("ADE") and Hunt, William Paul, the Petitioners, v. McClain,
John; American Traffic Solutions, LLC; American Traffic
Solutions, Inc.; Boren, Gerry; City of Diboll, Texas; and Baker,
Steve, Respondents, Case No. 18-0024 (Tex. Sup. Ct., Jan. 16,
2018).

Diboll is a city in Angelina County, Texas, United States. The
population was 5,359 at the 2010 census. Diboll is named for J.
C. Diboll, a local timber salesman.[BN]

Attorneys for William Paul Hunt:

          Mr. Scott A. Stewart, Esq.
          Mr. Russell J. Bowman, Esq.

Attorneys for John McClain:

          Ms. Erika L. Neill, Esq.
          Mr. Robert T. Cain Jr., Esq.
          Mr. Galen Robert Alderman, Esq.

Attorneys for American Traffic Solutions, LLC:

          Mr. Thomas J. Williams, Esq.
          Ms. Karen Denise Coomer, Esq.

Attorneys for American Traffic Solutions, Inc.:

          Ms. Karen Denise Coomer, Esq.

Attorneys for Gerry Boren:

          Mr. Robert T. Cain Jr., Esq.
          Mr. Galen Robert Alderman, Esq.
          Ms. Erika L. Neill, Esq.

Attorneys for City of Diboll, Texas:

          Mr. Thomas J. Williams, Esq.
          Mr. Galen Robert Alderman, Esq.
          Ms. Erika L. Neill, Esq.
          Mr. Robert T. Cain Jr. , Esq.

Attorneys for Steve Baker:

          Ms. Erika L. Neill, Esq.
          Mr. Robert T. Cain Jr., Esq.
          Mr. Galen Robert Alderman, Esq.


EDDIE BAUER: Retail Store Employees Class Certified in "Heredia"
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled STEPHANIE HEREDIA, the Plaintiff, v. EDDIE
BAUER LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-06236-BLF (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered an order granting
Heredia's motion for class certification of:

   "all current and former non-exempt retail store employees who
   were employed by Defendant in the State of California at any
   time from September 28, 2012, through the present."

The Court certifies as appropriate for class treatment only
Heredia's First Cause of Action (unpaid minimum wages), Second
Cause of Action (unpaid overtime compensation), Fifth Cause of
Action (wage statement violations), and Seventh Cause of Action
(UCL violation), as alleged in the Complaint. The Court also
certifies Heredia as class representative and her counsel of
record as class counsel.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=gB1ZCDBo


ENRICH FINANCIAL: "Aleksanian" Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled LOLITA ALEKSANIAN and ALEN ISSAGHOLIAN, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. ENRICH FINANCIAL, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-02359-DMG-KS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the
Court on February 23, 2018, before the Honorable Dolly M. Gee of
the United States District Court, Central District of California,
for an order:

   1. certifying a Consumer Class consisting of:

      "all consumers who, from March 27, 2013 to the present,
      purchased one or more Class Services from Defendant in
      California";

   2. certifying an Upcharge Class consisting of:

      "all consumers in California who, from March 27, 2013 to
      the present, entered into an agreement for Class Services
      with Defendant and were charged additional costs beyond the
      terms of their written agreement";

   3. appointing Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; and

   4. appointing Plaintiffs' attorneys as Class Counsel.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=oQ8FZSfB

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

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


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Gould Sues over Background Checks
------------------------------------------------------
SARAH GOULD, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION
SERVICES LLC and TRIDENT ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC, the Defendants,
Case No. 3:18-cv-00001-PK (D. Oreg., Jan. 1, 2018), seeks maximum
statutory damages under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

According to the complaint, on November 7, 2014, plaintiff filed
for consumer bankruptcy protection under Chapter 7 of the
Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Oregon in case number 14-36205-rld7. On February 10,
2015, the Oregon Bankruptcy Court entered a "no asset" order
discharging all plaintiff's general unsecured debts and accounts,
including her debt and account with Trident.

The plaintiff's Trident account was closed after bankruptcy and
plaintiff incurred no new debt to Trident after bankruptcy and
plaintiff had no activity on her closed account with Trident
after bankruptcy. Closed accounts discharged through bankruptcy
must be reported as a zero balance, closed, and discharged in
bankruptcy. If a discharged, closed account is being reported as
open, then the reporting is inaccurate and harmful to a
consumer's credit, in violation of the FCRA.

Throughout 2016 and 2017, Equifax prepared and issued consumer
credit reports concerning plaintiff that included inaccurate
information, including reporting plaintiff's alleged debt and
account with Trident as open. Plaintiff notified Equifax on
several occasions that she disputed the accuracy of the
information but Equifax continued to report inaccurate
information. Equifax notified Trident of plaintiff's
disputes of the Trident debt and account. Trident knew the
reporting on plaintiff's account was inaccurate but did not tell
Equifax to correct all the inaccurate reporting.

Trident and Equifax systematically furnish and falsely report
that closed accounts are open after bankruptcy, causing credit
harm to thousands of consumers across the country.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Fuller, Esq.
          OLSEN DAINES PC
          US Bancorp Tower
          111 SW 5th Ave., Suite 3150
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: (503) 201 4570
          E-mail: michael@underdoglawyer.com

               - and -

          Kelly D. Jones, Esq.
          Telephone: (503) 847 4329
          E-mail: kellydonovanjones@gmail.com


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "De La Rosa" Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Experian
Information Solutions, Inc. The case is captioned as Juan De La
Rosa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00019-CM (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 2,
2018). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Colleen McMahon.

Experian Information operates as an information services company.
The Company offers credit information, analytical tools, and
marketing services. Experian Information Solutions serves clients
worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Christopher Mallon, Esq.
          MALLON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC
          One Liberty Plaza, Suite 2301
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (646) 759 3663
          Facsimile: (646) 759 3663
          E-mail: consumer.esq@outlook.com


FASTAFF LLC: "Dalchau" Suit Seeks to Certify California Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled STEPHANIE DALCHAU and MICHAEL GOODWIN,
individuals on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. FASTAFF, LLC; U.S. NURSING
CORPORATION; and DOES 1 to 10 inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
3:17-cv-01584-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court
on March 28, 2018, before the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick for an
order:

   1. certifying a California-wide class with respect to the
      state claims for unpaid overtime, unlawful business
      practices, and waiting time penalties:

      "all individuals, except for those who worked exclusively
      on or after November 16, 2017 and received in-kind housing,
      who, at any time from March 25, 2013 through the date of
      certification, worked in California pursuant to an
      Assignment Agreement Letter with Fastaff during which they
      received a housing stipend or in-kind housing, received
      overtime pay, and had the value of the housing benefit
      excluded from their regular rate for purposes of
      calculating overtime pay";

   2. appointing Plaintiff Stephanie Dalchau as representative of
      the class;

   3. appointing Hayes Pawlenko LLP, Matthew B. Hayes, and Kye D.
      Pawlenko as class counsel; and

   4. directing the parties to meet and confer on a proposed
      notice of certification and submit the proposed notice
      and/or any disputes thereon to the Court within two weeks
      of the order granting class certification.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=AVe8iW8Z

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Matthew B. Hayes, Esq.
          Kye D. Pawlenko, Esq.
          HAYES PAWLENKO LLP
          595 E. Colorado Blvd., Ste. 303
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 808 4357
          Facsimile: (626) 921 4932
          E-mail: mhayes@helpcounsel.com
                  kpawlenko@helpcounsel.com


FCA US: Faces Class Action Over Defective Pacifica Minivans
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
consumers brought a federal class action against FCA US (Fiat-
Chrysler), saying 2017-18 Chrysler Pacifica minivans with a 3.6-
liter V6 engine and a 9-Speed 948TE FWD Automatic Transmission
shut off or stall without warning.

The case is RYAN and SARAH WILDIN, individually, and on behalf of
a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. FCA US
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case No.
17CV2594 GPC MDD (S.D. Calif.).

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

     Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
     Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
     Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
     Karen L. Wallace, Esq.
     Email: Jordan.Lurie@capstonelawyers.com
            Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
            Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
            Karen.Wallace@capstonelawyers.com
     CAPSTONE LAW APC
     1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Tel: (310) 556-4811
     Fax: (310) 943-0396


FEDERAL AVIATION: Certification of Aircraft Owners Class Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ROBERT C. TAYLOR, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. FEDERAL
AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-
cv-00035-APM (D. Colo.), Mr. Robert C. Taylor moves the Court to
certify a proposed class of:

   "all owners of Model Aircraft who registered with the FAA for
   hobby or recreational purposes from December 21, 2015 through
   December 11, 2017."

The Plaintiff further asks that he be designated as Class
Representative and that this Court appoint Carr Maloney P.C. as
Class Counsel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas L. McCally, Esq.
          Matthew D. Berkowitz #974170
          J. Peter Glaws, Esq.
          M. Therese Waymel, Esq.
          CARR MALONEY P.C.
          2020 K Street, NW, Suite 850
          Washington, D.C. 20006
          Telephone: (202) 310 5500
          Facsimile: (202) 310 5555
          E-mail: tlm@carrmaloney.com
                  mb@carrmaloney.com
                  jpg@carrmaloney.com
                  mtw@carrmaloney.com


FEDEX FREIGHT: March 23 Case Conference in "Emetoh" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
An Initial Case Management Conference is set for March 23, 2018,
2:00 p.m. in the case, Emetoh v. FedEx Freight, Inc., Case No.
3:17-cv-07272 (N.D. Cal.).

A Case Management Statement is due by March 16.

The complaint alleges these causes of action against the
Defendant: failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide
rest periods, failure to pay hourly and overtime wages failure to
indemnify, failure to provide accurate written wage statements
and failure to timely pay all final wages.

The case was originally filed in Santa Clara County Superior
Court and captioned, Theodore A. Emetoh, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Fedex Freight,
Inc and Does 1 through 50, the Defendant, Case No. 17CV319118,
(Cal. Sup. Ct., November 14, 2017).  FedEx removed the case to
federal district court on Dec. 21.

Plaintiff was hired by Defendants as a non-exempt employee as a
long-haul truck driver transporting goods in interstate
commerce.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Shaun Setareh, Esq.
     H. Scott Leviant, Esq.
     SETAREH LAW GROUP
     9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
     Beverly Hills, CA 90212
     Telephone: (310) 888-7771
     Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
     Email: shaun@setarehlaw.com
     Email: scott@setarehlaw.com


FINANCE OF AMERICA: May 10 Case Conference in "Onifer" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
A first amended complaint was filed Jan. 16, 2018, in the case,
Onifer v. Finance of America Mortgage LLC, Case No. 5:17-cv-07248
(N.D. Cal.).

In a Jan. 4 Order, Judge Beth Labson Freeman, who oversees the
case, set this timeline:

     Joint Case Management Statement due by May 3, 2018; and

     Case Management Conference set for May 10, 2018, 11:00 a.m.

The case was originally filed in California state court and
captioned, Karen Onifer, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Finance of America Mortgage
LLC and Does 1 through 100, the Defendants, Case No. 17CV319140
(Cal. Sup. Ct., November 14, 2017).

The case was removed to the federal district court on Dec. 21.

The complaint alleges these causes of action against the
Defendants: failure to make proper disclosure, failure to give
proper summary of rights, failure to provide meal periods,
failure to provide rest periods, failure to pay hourly and
overtime wages, failure to indemnify, failure to provide accurate
written wage statements, failure to timely pay all final wages,
unfair competition and failure to pay employees for all hours
worked.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Shaun Setareh, Esq.
     Thomas Segal, Esq.
     SETAREH LAW GROUP
     9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
     Beverly Hills, CA 90212
     Telephone: (310) 888-7771
     Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
     Email: shaun@setarehlaw.com
     Email: thomas@setarehlaw.com


FLINT, MI: Accused of Violating Tainted Water Legal Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Eggert, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
plaintiffs in a landmark legal settlement related to Flint's
lead-tainted water have asked a federal judge to intervene
because they say city officials have repeatedly ignored
requirements that allow monitoring of whether the court-ordered
deal is being followed.

The motion, filed late on Dec. 27 in federal court in Detroit,
accuses Flint and its city administrator of a "pattern of
nonresponsiveness, delay and noncompliance" with providing status
updates and other information.  The agreement, which was approved
in March, requires the city to dig at 18,000 Flint households and
replace their underground water lines if they are made of lead or
galvanized steel.

Other requirements include tracking which residents refuse to let
their pipes be replaced, making periodic visits to homes to
install and maintain faucet filters, and responding to additional
information requests. Federal and state governments are covering
the bill.

"The city's violations are not merely procedural or formalistic.
They frustrate the very purpose of the agreement by impeding
plaintiffs' ability to monitor and enforce its other terms,"
lawyers for the Natural Resources Defense Council and American
Civil Liberties Union of Michigan wrote.  The other plaintiffs
listed in the motion are the group Concerned Pastors for Social
Action and Flint resident Melissa Mays.

In a statement on Dec. 28, Flint Mayor Karen Weaver defended her
administration while saying the motion deals only with proposed
changes to how status reports are provided and does not
jeopardize pipe replacements.

City employees "have been focused, first and foremost, on the
effort to replace lead-tainted pipes leading to residents'
homes," she said.  "They have made it a priority to get
contractors and residents what they need to ensure the progress
and productivity of that effort."

The plaintiffs contend that without the disclosures, they cannot
verify if the city is replacing service lines "in a comprehensive
and health-protective way" or if it is adequately coordinating
with the state to ensure all residents have properly installed
filters that remove lead.  They are not seeking contempt
sanctions or civil penalties, but want U.S. District Judge David
Lawson to oversee a more extensive reporting and certification
process and to order the city to file future status reports with
the court.

The motion is a "last resort," according to the filing, and comes
after nine months of the city providing "late, incomplete and
inaccurate" status reports.  Mayor Weaver countered that Flint
"has worked collaboratively" to adhere to reporting requirements.

"No one wants to get the lead out of Flint more than me," she
said.

Mayor Weaver said pipes to more than 6,229 homes have been
replaced since 2016.  The goal is to replace nearly 20,000
service lines by 2020.

Flint ran into extraordinary trouble when emergency managers
appointed by Gov. Rick Snyder put the city on water from the
Flint River in 2014 while a pipeline was being built to Lake
Huron.  The corrosive water was not properly treated due to an
incorrect reading of federal regulations by state regulators, and
lead leached from old plumbing into homes and led to elevated
levels of the toxin in children. [GN]


FORD MOTOR: Sued Over Defeat Devices in Super Duty Vehicles
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that in a federal class action
echoing the Volkswagen scandal, motorists claim Ford used "defeat
devices" in its diesel-powered Super Duty vehicles to evade
emissions standards.


FORSTER & GARBUS: "Reyes" Suit Referred to Magistrate Judge
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against Forster & Garbus, LLP. The
case is styled as Steven Reyes, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Forster & Garbus,
LLP, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-08819-VEC (S.D.N.Y.,
November 19, 2017). The case is assigned to Judge Valerie E.
Caproni.

Forster & Garbus filed its answer to the complaint on Jan. 10.

An initial pretrial conference was held on Jan. 12.  On the same
date, Judge Caproni signed an Order referring the case to a
Magistrate Judge for settlement.  Specifically, the case is
referred to Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses.

"Within one week after the completion of the settlement
conference, the parties shall submit a joint letter notifying the
Court whether settlement efforts were successful," Judge Caproni
said.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Salim Katach, Esq.
     MOULINOS AND ASSOCIATES
     150 East 58th Street
     New York, NY 10155
     Telephone: (347) 415-2711
     Email: skatach@svhllp.com


FLYERS TRANSPORTATION: "Coffee" Suit Ongoing in Sacramento
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against Flyers Transportation, LLC.
The case is titled as Ross Coffee, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Flyers Energy Group,
LLC; Flyers Energy, LLC; Flyers Sustainable Energy, LLC; Flyers
Transportation, LLC; Gulf Transportation, LLC; Western Energetix
Terminals, LLC; Western Energetix, LLC and Does 1-50, the
Defendants, Case No. 34-2017-00222084-CU-MC-GDS, (Cal. Sup. Ct.,
Sacramento County, November 13, 2017). The case is assigned to
Department 35.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     David Spivak
     THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
     16530 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 312
     Encino, CA 91436


GLOBAL CREDIT: "Kowalewski" Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SALLY KOWALEWSKI, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. GLOBAL
CREDIT & COLLECTION CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-
00044-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an
order certifying a proposed classes in this case, appointing the
Plaintiff as class representative, and appointing Ademi &
O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such other and further
relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties
relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and
requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents
in support of this motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing
on the certification motion until discovery could commence.
Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011),
overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th
Cir. 2015).

As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense
when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay
should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs
contend.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482 8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482 8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com


GLOBAL CREDIT: Bid to Certify Class Withdrawn Without Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Stephen Guthrie, the Plaintiff, v. Global
Credit & Collection Corp., et al., the Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-01390 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Robert W. Gettleman
entered an order withdrawing without prejudice Plaintiff's motion
to certify class.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on January 10,
2018, Plaintiff's motion to certify class is withdrawn without
prejudice. Plaintiff's response to defendants' motion to stay and
compel arbitration is due by March 12. Defendants' reply is due
by March 26.

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


GOOGLE INC: Judge Dismisses Age Discrimination Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a federal judge dismissed an age discrimination lawsuit against
Google on Jan. 11, even as scrutiny into the technology titan's
employment practices mounts.

Google sought to dismiss a lawsuit brought by Cheryl Fillekes,
who claims the company discriminated against her because of her
age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of
1967.

"In terms of age discrimination, as time has gone on -- and we
are 50 years since the ADEA -- it is needed now more than ever if
you read the popular press," U.S. District Judge Beth Labson
Freeman said.

However, she said case law likely bars Ms. Fillekes' case, and
the reasons are legally complex.

Ms. Fillekes was part of the first round of amended complaints,
but then withdrew her claims after the first motion to dismiss.

Robert Heath, the lead plaintiff in the case, has always
maintained his claims.

Ms. Fillekes then tried to reinstate her claims after U.S.
District Judge Jon S. Tigar made a ruling in a separate age
discrimination case that seemed to be favorable to the plaintiffs
in the present case.

Google argued Ms. Fillekes essentially waived her claims after
withdrawing from the case, that the age discrimination law only
to employees and not job applicants, that Judge Tigar's ruling is
nonbinding, and the age discrimination claims themselves are
flimsy and based on questions asked to all applicants.

Ms. Fillekes said five aspects of the interview process
constituted age discrimination, including being requested to
provide graduation dates, the emphasis of abstract questions
during the interview process, ignoring real-world experience,
holding older candidates to higher standards than younger ones
and emphasizing cultural fit or "Googleyness."

Judge Freeman didn't agree with the flimsy claims argument, but
conceded Google had a point on the waiver issue and the question
of whether applicants are encompassed in certain protections set
forth by the age discrimination law.

"The 11th Circuit opinion is a textbook case of a court
struggling with a decision," Judge Freeman said during the
hearing, referring to a case in which the three-judge panel ruled
that while employees could bring disparate impact claims -- the
claims brought in the present case -- job applicants could not.

But Judge Freeman also said the issue seems far from settled and
the majority on the 11th Circuit panel spent more time critiquing
the dissent than putting forward its own legal interpretation of
the law.

"However, I don't necessarily disagree with the bottom line,"
Judge Freeman said, which is that the law is unambiguous in its
assertion that job applicants are not covered.

On Jan. 11, a day after the hearing, Judge Freeman granted
Google's motion to dismiss on the claims as it relates to
Ms. Fillekes' case without leave to amend.  However, Mr. Heath's
claims remain.

Google is also fighting a case recently filed in Santa Clara
Superior Court in which a fired engineer claims he was
discriminated against because of his conservative viewpoints and
that the company broadly discriminates against white men.

Another federal case claims Google consistently underpays female
employees.  A separate investigation by the federal government
into gender pay equity is also pending.

The case is ROBERT HEATH, on behalf of himself and CHERYL
FILLEKES, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. GOOGLE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-01824-BLF
(N.D. Calif.).


HILTON HOTELS: "White" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled VALERIE R. WHITE, et al., the Plaintiffs,
v. HILTON HOTELS RETIREMENT PLAN, et al., the Defendants, Case
No. 1:16-cv-00856-CKK (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs move the Court
to certify a requested class, appoint Valerie White, Eva Juneau,
and Peter Betancourt as class representatives, and appoint
Plaintiffs' counsel as Class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1NBT1KHw

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephen R. Bruce, Esq.
          Allison C. Pienta, Esq.
          STEPHEN R. BRUCE LAW OFFICES
          1667 K Street, N.W., Suite 410
          Washington, D.C. 20006
          Telephone: (202) 289 1117
          E-mail: stephen.bruce@prodigy.net
                  acaalim@verizon.net

Attorneys for Defendants

          Jonathan K. Youngwood, Esq.
          Shannon K. McGovern, Esq.
          Andrew M. Lacy, Esq.
          SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT, LLP
          425 Lexington Ave.
          New York, NY 10017

               - and -

          Patrick C. DiCarlo, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD, LLP
          1201 W. Peachtree Street
          Atlanta, GA 30309


ICS CAPITAL: "Haynes" Suit Underway in District of South Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against ICS Capital. The case is
titled as Danita Haynes, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ICS Capital, the Defendant,
Case No. 3:17-cv-03104-TLW, (D. S.C., November 15, 2017).

The case has been reassigned to the Hon. Mary Geiger Lewis.
Chief Judge Terry L Wooten is no longer assigned to the case.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kenneth Edward Norsworthy, Jr, Esq.
     NORSWORTHY LAW LTD CO
     505 Pettigru Street
     Greenville, SC 29601
     Telephone: (864) 804-0581
     Facsimile: (864) 756-1153
     Email: kenorsworthy@me.com


INTERNATIONAL SECURITY: Fails to Pay for OT Work, Cherazard Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Surpris Cherazard, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. International Security
Guard Services, Inc. and Fenel Luxama, Sr., the Defendants, Case
No.  64170328, (Fla. Cir., 11th Judicial, Miami-Dade County,
November 14, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and minimum
wages with damages pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff performed work for Defendants as a non-exempt
employee from on or about March 2017 to July 29, 2017.  During
that period the Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours per week
and was not paid the proper overtime rate as prescribed by the
laws of the United States and the State of Florida.  On July 29,
2017, Defendant terminated Plaintiff's employment in retaliation
for his request for Workers' Compensation benefits and did not
allow Plaintiff to re-commence Work. Further, Defendant never
posted any notice, as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act
and federal law, to inform employees of their federal rights to
overtime and/or minimum wages.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ITALIAN BOUTIQUE: Refuses to Pay Proper Wages, Rizo Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Nelson Ariel Gonzalez Rizo, individually and on behalf of other
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Italian Boutique
Restaurants, LLC; Puntino Catering Events, LLC and Cristoforo
Pignata, the Defendants, Case No. 64231658, (Fla. Cir., 11th
Judicial, Miami Dade County, November, 15, 2017), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime, minimum wages with damages, declaratory
relief, attorneys' fees and costs based on Defendants' violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that he was employed by Defendants from
approximately May 2010 through on or about December 2016 as a
non-exempt cook and throughout his employment the Defendant
failed to compensate Plaintiff the required overtime and/or
minimum wages at a rate of one and a half times Plaintiffs
regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 within a
single work week. Further, the Defendant never posted any notice,
as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and Federal Law, to
inform employees of their federal rights to overtime and minimum
wage payments. Furthermore, Defendant Corporate officer
Cristoforo Pignata willfully and intentionally refused to
properly pay Plaintiff wages as required by U.S. laws.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jason s. Remer, Esq.
     Brody M. Shulman, Esq.
     REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
     44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
     Miami, FL 3313O
     Telephone: (305) 416-5000
     Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
     Email: jremer@rgpattorneys.com


JOHNS MANVILLE: Pier View Condos Suit Moved to D. S.C.
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Pier View Condominium Association
Inc., Silvia Pitisci, and William Hart, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Johns
Manville Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2017-CP-08-02401, was
removed from the Berkeley County Court of Common Pleas, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina
(Charleston) on Jan. 2, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:18-cv-00022-RMG to the proceeding. The Case is
assigned to the Hon. Richard M Gergel.

Johns Manville Corporation manufactures building and mechanical
insulation, commercial roofing, glass fibers, and nonwoven
materials for commercial, industrial, and residential
applications. It offers home insulation products, such as fiber
glass, foam boards/sheathing, mineral wool, and spray foam
solutions; and cap or flashing sheets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin O'Toole Lucey, Esq.
          JUSTIN O'TOOLE LUCEY LAW FIRM
          PO Box 806
          Mt Pleasant, SC 29465
          Telephone: (843) 849 8400
          Facsimile: (843) 849 8406
          E-mail: jlucey@lucey-law.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Andrew Marvin Connor, Esq.
          G Mark Phillips, Esq.
          NELSON MULLINS RILEY AND SCARBOROUGH (MB)
          3751 Robert M Grissom Parkway, Suite 300
          Myrtle Beach, SC 29572
          Telephone: (843) 946 5668
          R-mail: andrew.connor@nelsonmullins.com
                  mark.phillips@nelsonmullins.com


JOSEPH CORY: Faces "Samame" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Joseph Cory
Holdings LLC. The case is titled as Alber Samame, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Joseph
Cory Holdings LLC, also known as: Cory 1st Choice Home Delivery;
Joseph Cory Holdings, LLC of New York, also known as: Cory 1st
Choice Home Delivery; CJJC Trucking Corp.; XYZ Corporations; 1-99
(Fictitious Entities); John Doe, 1-99 (Fictitious Persons), the
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00283 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 16, 2018).

Joseph Cory Holdings LLC, doing business as Cory 1st Choice Home
Delivery, engages in the warehousing and home delivery of fine
furnishings, appliances, and consumer electronics. The company's
services include furniture preparation, dedication truck
delivery, warehousing and distribution.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


K.B. SAND: Court Conditionally Certifies Class of Truck Drivers
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled RAY COATE, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. K.B. SAND, INC.,
CHANCE MITCHELL, and HALEY MITCHELL, the Defendants, Case No.
5:17-cv-00333-M (W.D. Okla.), the Hon Judge Vicke-Miles LaGrange
entered an order on January 16, 2018:

   1. grating Plaintiff's opposed motion and brief in support of
      conditional certification and notice to the putative class;

   2. conditionally certifying a class of:

      "all current and former truck drivers who worked for K.B.
      Sand, Inc., Chance Mitchell, and/or Haley Mitchell, at any
      time from three years before the date of mailing of the
      notice and were not paid overtime";

   3. approving notice of collective action lawsuit and consent
      form to be sent to the putative class members;

   4. directing Defendants to provide the last known names,
      physical addresses, and email addresses of the potential
      class members in an usable electronic format to Plaintiff's
      counsel no later than 14 days from the date of this Order;

   5. directing Plaintiff's counsel to send by mail and email the
      Court-approved Notice and Consent Form to the Putative
      Class Members no later than 28 days after the date of this
      Order.

   6. directing the putative class members to return their signed
      Consent Forms for filing with the Court to opt in to the
      litigation as a party plaintiff within 60 days; and

   7. authorizing Plaintiff's Counsel to send by mail or email a
      second identical copy of the Notice/Consent Form to the
      putative class members reminding them of the deadline for
      the submission of the Consent Form 30 days after the first
      mailing and/or emailing;

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/fastcgi/upload2filez


KENNEDY RIG: Seeks 5th Circuit Review of Ruling in "Andrio" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Kennedy Rig Services, L.L.C., filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit titled Jose Andrio v. Kennedy Rig
Services, L.L.C., Case No. 4:17-CV-1194, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Jose Andrio,
on behalf of himself individually and all others similarly
situated, seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime wages for
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Andrio contends that the Defendant has a policy, enforced at
all of its locations throughout the United States, of denying him
and putative class members compensation at time and a half and
paying only straight time for hours worked above 40 per week.

The appellate case is captioned as Jose Andrio v. Kennedy Rig
Services, L.L.C., Case No. 18-20008, in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee JOSE ANDRIO, on behalf of himself
individually, and all others similarly situated, is represented
by:

          Taft L. Foley, II, Esq.
          FOLEY LAW FIRM
          405 Main Street
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (832) 778-8182
          Facsimile: (832) 778-8353
          E-mail: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com

               - and -

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

Defendant-Appellant KENNEDY RIG SERVICES, L.L.C., is represented
by:

          John Daniel Long, Esq.
          CRADY, JEWETT & MCCULLEY, L.L.P.
          2727 Allen Parkway
          Houston, TX 77019-2125
          Telephone: (713) 739-7007
          Facsimile: (713) 739-8403
          E-mail: dlong@cjmlaw.com


KYANI INC: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss "Guo" Suit Moved to April 9
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
on its own motion, continued the Motion to Dismiss the case, Yan
Guo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. Kyani, Inc., Michael Breshears and Does 1 to
100, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-08257-JAK-GJS, (C.D. Cal.,
November 13, 2017), from March 26, 2018 to April 9, 2018 at 8:30
a.m.

"Counsel shall refer to the Court's Standing Order with respect
to the briefing schedule for motions. The March 5, 2018
Scheduling Conference remains," said Judge John A. Kronstadt.

The case asserts violations of the Racketeering (RICO) Act.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Blake J Lindemann, Esq.
     LINDERMANN LAW FIRM
     433 North Camden Drive 4th Floor
     Beverly Hills, CA 90210
     Telephone: (310) 279-5269
     Facsimile: (310) 300-0267
     Email: blake@lawbl.com


LAFAYETTE 148: Faces "Marett" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lafayette 148, Inc.
The case is entitled as Lucia Marett, Individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, the
Plaintiff, v. Lafayette 148, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-
cv-00378 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 16, 2018).

Lafayette 148 manufactures and sells designer apparel for women.
It offers outfits, tops and tees, blouses and shirts, sweaters
and knits, dresses, jackets and coats, pants, denims, skirts,
suitings, and leathers; petites and plus size apparel; and
accessories, such as belts, jewelry, and scarves.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


LEACHVILLE, AR: Class Cert. Bid in Crocker-Womack Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ZAKKERY CROCKER and BRANDON WOMACK,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
CITY OF LEACHVILLE, ARKANSAS, the Case No. 3:17-cv-00191-DPM
(E.D. Ark.), the Hon. Judge D.P. Marshall Jr. entered an order
denying without prejudice Crocker and Womack's motion for
conditional certification of collective action as premature and
with instructions.

The Court said, "The parties must promptly engage in discovery to
identify a more solid Fair Labor Standards Act. The Court tolls
the statute of limitations, effective January 8, 2018, while that
happens. Agreed or opposed motion to certify due by March 12,
2018."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3Ak0CwJa


LRR ENERGY: Approval of "Hurwitz" Class Action Notice Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ROBERT HURWITZ, on Behalf of Himself
and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. LRR ENERGY,
L.P., ERIC MULLINS, CHARLES W. ADCOCK, JONATHAN C. FARBER, TOWNES
G. PRESSLER, JR., JOHN A. BAILEY, JONATHAN P. CARROLL, VANGUARD
NATURAL RESOURCES, LLC, LIGHTHOUSE MERGER SUB, LLC, SCOTT W.
SMITH, RICHARD A. ROBERT, W. RICHARD ANDERSON, BRUCE W.
MCCULLOUGH, and LOREN SINGLETARY, the Defendants, Case No. 1:15-
cv-00711-MAK (D. Del.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order:

     1. approving notice of Pendency of Class Action and notice
        procedures; and

     2. appointing Garden City Group as Notice Administrator.

On January 2, 2018, the Court entered an Order certifying this
securities case as a class action to proceed on behalf of a Class
consisting of all persons and entities:

     (a) holding LRR Energy, L.P. ("LRR") common units as of
August 28, 2015 through the October 5, 2015 close of Vanguard
Natural Resources, LLC's ("Vanguard") acquisition of LRR, were
damaged and assert claims presently sustained in the March 13,
2017 and December 29, 2017 Orders under sections 14(a) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and,

     (b) receiving Vanguard common units in exchange for their
LRR common units on or about October 5, 2015 under the
Registration Statement, as amended, were damaged, and assert
claims presently sustained in the March 13, 2017 and December 29,
2017 Orders under sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933; but

     (c) excluding: Defendants; members of the immediate family
of each individual Defendant; an officer or director of Vanguard
or LRR; a firm, trust, corporation, officer or other entity in
which a Defendant has or had a controlling interest; persons
participating in the alleged material omissions or
misrepresentations; and the legal representatives, agents,
affiliates, heirs, beneficiaries, successors-in-interest
or assigns of an excluded person or entity (the "Class").

Mr. Robert Hurwitz has been appointed Class Representative. The
parties have engaged in discovery efforts, and the Court has
scheduled trial to commence on July 30, 2018.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=p6JbmqHl

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
          COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
          The Brandywine Building
          1000 West Street, 10th Floor
          Post Office Box 1680
          Wilmington, DE 19899
          Telephone: (302) 984 3800
          Facsimile: (302) 984 3939
          E-mail: bbennett@coochtaylor.com

               - and -

          Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
          Stephen J. Oddo, Esq.
          Nichole T. Browning, Esq.
          Eric M. Carrino, Esq.
          ROBBINS ARROYO LLP, Esq.
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 525 3900
          Facsimile: (619) 525 3991
          E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com
                  soddo@robbinsarroyo.com
                  nbrowning@robbinsarroyo.com
                  ecarrino@robbinsarroyo.com


MARS PETCARE: Moore Appeals N.D. Cal. Decision to Ninth Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Raff Arando, Renee Edgren, Greta L. Ervin, Tamara
Moore, Nichols Smith and Cynthia Welton filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in their lawsuit entitled Tamara Moore, et
al. v. Mars Petcare US, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-07001-MMC,
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
is brought against Mars Petcare Us, Inc.; Nestle Purina Petcare
Company; Hill's Pet Nutrition, Inc.; PetSmart, Inc.; Medical
Management International, Inc. d/b/a Banfield Pet Hospital;
BluePearl Vet, LLC, alleging that their marketing, labeling,
and/or sale of prescription pet food is deceptive, collusive, and
in violation of federal antitrust law and California consumer-
protection law.

The Defendants manufacture, market, and sell one or more lines of
pet food that are sold at retail by "prescription."

The appellate case is captioned as Tamara Moore, et al. v. Mars
Petcare US, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-15026, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by February 5, 2018;

   -- Transcript is due on March 6, 2018;

   -- Appellants Raff Arando, Renee Edgren, Greta L. Ervin,
      Tamara Moore, Nichols Smith and Cynthia Welton's opening
      brief is due on April 16, 2018;

   -- Appellees Bluepearl Vet, LLC, Hill's Pet Nutrition, Inc.,
      Mars Petcare US, Inc., Medical Management International,
      Inc., Nestle Purina Petcare Company, Petsmart, Inc. and
      Royal Canin USA Inc.'s answering brief is due on May 16,
      2018; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants TAMARA MOORE, GRETA L. ERVIN, RAFF ARANDO,
NICHOLS SMITH, RENEE EDGREN and CYNTHIA WELTON, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Spencer J. Pahlke, Esq.
          WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY & SCHOENBERGER
          650 California Street, 26th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108-2607
          Telephone: (415) 981-7210
          Facsimile: (415) 391-6965
          E-mail: spahlke@walkuplawoffice.com

               - and -

          Daniel Rees Shulman, Esq.
          GRAY, PLANT, MOOTY, MOOTY & BENNETT, P.A.
          80 South Eight Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 632-3335
          Facsimile: (612) 632-4335
          E-mail: daniel.shulman@gpmlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees MARS PETCARE US, INC.; MEDICAL MANAGEMENT
INTERNATIONAL, INC., DBA Banfield Pet Hospital; BLUEPEARL VET,
LLC; and ROYAL CANIN USA INC. are represented by:

          Jeffrey Faucette, Esq.
          SKAGGS FAUCETTE LLP
          One Embarcadero Center
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 315-1669
          E-mail: jeff@skaggsfaucette.com

Defendant-Appellee NESTLE PURINA PETCARE COMPANY is represented
by:

          Christopher M. Curran, Esq.
          Jerry Frank Hogue, Esq.
          WHITE & CASE LLP
          701 13th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 626-3643
          Facsimile: (202) 639 9355
          E-mail: ccurran@whitecase.com
                  fhogue@whitecase.com

               - and -

          Bryan Alexander Merryman, Esq.
          WHITE & CASE LLP
          555 South Flower Street, Suite 2700
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2433
          Telephone: (213) 620-7700
          E-mail: bmerryman@whitecase.com

Defendant-Appellee HILL'S PET NUTRITION, INC., is represented by:

          Richard Blair Goetz, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          400 South Hope Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 430-6400
          Facsimile: (213) 430 6407
          E-mail: rgoetz@omm.com

               - and -

          Michael Frederick Tubach, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          Two Embarcadero Center
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 984-8700
          E-mail: mtubach@omm.com

Defendant-Appellee PETSMART, INC., is represented by:

          Alan R. Ouellette
          Eileen R. Ridley, Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
          555 California Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 434-4484
          Facsimile: (415) 434-4507
          E-mail: aouellette@foley.com
                  eridley@foley.com


MDL 2543: Two Faulty Ignition-Switch Cases Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
burnishing a largely unbroken record over an ignition-switch
defect that led to the recall of millions of cars, General Motors
ended 2017 with two more court wins.

A spokesman for GM called the Dec. 28 dismissal of two cases
against it vindication of the company's class-action litigation
strategy.

"The decision reinforces our approach to contest cases that lack
merit, while being open to fair resolution of cases that have
more merit according to the facts and the law," GM spokesman
David Caldwell said in a statement.

Amid reports that it had installed faulty-ignition switches
rather than spend pennies to correct the problem, GM began a
worldwide recall in February 2014 of what would ultimately add up
to 30 million of its 2005-10 Chevy Cobalts, Pontiacs, Saturns and
other models.

The Center for Auto Safety has attributed more than 300 deaths to
the glitch, though GM estimates that 15 fatalities "may be
linked" to the defects.

GM faced hundreds of lawsuits over the recall, and the cases were
then consolidated in New York and divided into categories for
multidistrict litigation.

Apart from the cases that it settled, GM has been largely
successful in several "bellwether" trials where one driver's
accident represents similar cases.

Most of the lawsuits against GM involve airbags that failed to
deploy -- allegedly because the power failures from the ignition-
switch glitch disabled them.  But another 213 plaintiffs were
involved in crashes where the airbags were in the run position.
These drivers said the ignition defect switched their airbag
systems twice: first from "run" to "off," causing or exacerbating
crashes, and then rotated back to run.

U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman rejected this legal theory on
Dec. 28, dismissing bellwether suits by Texas drivers Vivian
Garza and Ruby Greenroad.  For Ms. Garza, who was driving a 2009
Chevrolet Cobalt, it was her first time driving on ice. She said
she was unable to turn her steering wheel to avoid colliding with
a Ford Mustang that had crashed ahead of her into the guardrail.
The Cobalt subsequently struck the guardrail as well.

Ms. Greenroad, the other unsuccessful plaintiff in the Dec. 28
ruling, was 89 and was taking anti-vertigo medication, at the
time of her crash in 2013. Her 2007 Chevrolet veered off the
road, into a guardrail, then off the overpass and into the ground
below.

"Significantly, neither plaintiffs nor their experts cite any
evidence suggesting that double ignition switch rotation has
occurred in the real world," the 25-page opinion states. "Nor did
(or could) they conduct any experiments that would tend to show
that double switch rotation is anything more than a theoretical
possibility." (Parentheses in original.)

GM spokesman Caldwell cheered the ruling.  "We are pleased the
court recognized the lack of merit in these types of cases,"
Caldwell said in a statement.  "We expect to file additional
motions to conclude other cases like these, in which the airbags
deployed."

Ms. Garza's attorney Robert Hilliard has not responded to an
email seeking comment.

The Dec. 28 ruling came two years after GM vaulted liability for
a 15-car pileup on an icy Crescent City Connection Bridge.

Allegations of perjury also helped GM duck claims by Oklahoma
postal worker Robert Scheuer, and the automaker prevailed against
two other Texas lawsuits filed against it in state court.

The case is IN RE: GENERAL MOTORS LLC IGNITION SWITCH LITIGATION.
This Document Relates To: Greenroad v. General Motors, No. 15-CV-
1626, Abney et al. v. General Motors, No. 14-CV-5810, 14-MD-2543
(JMF)(S.D.N.Y.).


MDL 2800: Leadership Appointments Hearing Set for Feb. 9
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr entered an order dated Jan. 12
scheduling the hearing on Applications for Leadership
Appointments for Feb. 9, 2018 at 10:00 a.m., Courtroom 2108, in
the case, Biles v. Equifax, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-05289 (N.D.
Ga.).

The case was originally filed in Illinois and captioned, Wayne
Biles, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Equifax Inc., the Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-08224, (N.D. Ill., November 13, 2017).  The case was
moved to Georgia on Dec. 20.

The complaint states that on September 7, 2017, Equifax publicly
announced that due to a vulnerability in its systems, its files
were accessed by criminals for at least the period of mid-May
through July 2017. The information accessed includes names,
social security numbers, birth dates, addresses, and driver's
license numbers, in addition to credit card numbers for some
consumers and other documents containing personal identity
information.

The Plaintiff alleges against the Defendant willful failure to
comply with the Fair Credit Reporting Act, violation of Illinois
Consumer Fraud Act, violation of Illinois Personal Information
Protection Act and Negligence. The Plaintiff and other similarly
situated persons suffered injury and harm as a direct and
proximate result of Equifax's negligent act by failing to timely
and accurately discover and disclose to customers that their
private information has been improperly acquired or accessed.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kathleen C. Chavez, Esq.
     Robert Foote, Esq.
     Matthew J. Herman, Esq.
     Elizabeth C. Chavez, Esq.
     FOOTE, MIELKE, CHAVEZ & O'NEIL LLC.
     10 W. State Street Suite #200
     Geneva, IL 60134
     Telephone: (630) 232-7450
     Facsimile: (630) 232-7452
     Email: kcc@fmcolaw.com
     Email: rmf@fmcolaw.com
     Email: mjh@fmcolaw.com
     Email: ecc@fmcolaw.com


MD TLC: "Kaye" Suit Seeks Class Certification
---------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ROGER H. KAYE and ROGER H. KAYE, MD PC, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. MD TLC, INC., FLO GOSHGARIAN and DIANNE QUIBELL
a/k/a DIANNE Q. FRUSTACI, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00026-
VAB (D. Conn.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for an order:

   1. taking this Motion under submission and deferring further
      activity on it until after the discovery cutoff date to be
      set in the Court's upcoming Rule 23 scheduling order, or
      alternatively;

   2. granting Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
      pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.

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

Attorneys for Plaintiff and proposed Classes:

          Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq.
          BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
          85 Miles Avenue
          White Plains, NY 10606
          Telephone: (914) 358 5345
          Facsimile: (212) 571-0284
          E-mail: Aytan.Bellin@bellinlaw.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in "Brace"
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MARGRET BRACE, PAT MERKOVICH, DOLORES
MARTINEZ and JENNIFER GUERRIDO, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. MIDLAND CREDIT
MANAGEMENT, INC., MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, the Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-00076-DEJ (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order certifying a proposed class in this case,
appointing the Plaintiff as its representative, and appointing
Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its Counsel, and for such other and
further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further requests that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties
relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and
requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents
in support of this motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing
on the certification motion until discovery could commence.
Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011),
overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th
Cir. 2015).

As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense
when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay
should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs
contend.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482 8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482 8001
          E-mail: meldridge@ademilaw.com


MITSUBISHI CHEMICAL: "Cress" Suit Underway in Sacramento
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against Mitsubishi Chemical Carbon
Fiber and Composites, Inc. The case is titled as Henry Cress and
Jeanine Roberts, as individuals and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Mitsubishi Chemical Carbon
Fiber and Composites, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 34-2017-
00222101-CU-OE-GDS, (Cal. Sup. Ct., Sacramento County, November
13, 2017). The case is assigned to Department 35.[BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Galen T Shimoda, Esq.
     SHIMODA LAW CORP
     9401 East Stockton Blvd., Suite 200
     Elk Grove, CA 95624
     Tel: (916) 525-0716


MONARCH RECOVERY: Faces "Singh" Suit in N.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monarch Recovery
Management, Inc. The case is captioned as Thankoordeo Singh, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Monarch Recovery Management, Inc. and John Does 1-
25, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00063-FJS-CFH (N.D.N.Y.,
Jan. 16, 2018). The case is assigned to the Hon. Senior Judge
Frederick J. Scullin, Jr.

Monarch Recovery, an accounts receivable management company,
provides financial recovery solutions. It offers collection and
payment processing services in various asset classes and industry
sectors, including auto deficiencies, commercial paper, credit
union accounts, and government receivables.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
          JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
          One Grand Central Place
          60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor
          New York, NY 10106
          Telephone: (646) 459 7971
          Facsimile: (646) 459 7973
          E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com


MURATA MANUFACTURING: Sued Over Alleged Inductors Price-Fixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal antitrust class action accuses Murata, Panasonic and
others of conspiring to fix the price of inductors in electronic
products for 11 years.

The list of defendants includes Dependable Component Supply
Corp., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Murata Manufacturing Co. Ltd.; Murata Electronics
North America Inc.; Panasonic Corp.; Panasonic Corp. of North
America; Panasonic Electronic Devices Co. Ltd.; Panasonic
Electronic Devices Corp. of America; Sumida Corp.; Sumida
Electric Co. Ltd.; Sumida America Components Inc.; Taiyo Yuden
Co. Ltd.; Taiyo Yuden (USA) Inc.; TDK Corp.; TDK-EPC Corp.; and
TDK USA Corp.

The case is DEPENDABLE COMPONENT SUPPLY CORP., Plaintiff, on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated, v. MURATA
MANUFACTURING CO., LTD.; MURATA ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA, INC.;
PANASONIC CORPORATION; PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA;
PANASONIC ELECTRONIC DEVICES CO. LTD; PANASONIC ELECTRONIC
DEVICES CORPORATION OF AMERICA; SUMIDA CORPORATION; SUMIDA
ELECTRIC CO., LTD.; SUMIDA AMERICA COMPONENTS, INC.; TAIYO YUDEN
CO., LTD.; TAIYO YUDEN (U.S.A.) INC.; TDK CORPORATION; TDK-EPC
CORPORATION; and TDK U.S.A. CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No.
____ (N.D. Calif.).

Attorneys for Dependable Component Supply Corp.:

     Lesley E. Weaver, Esq.
     Matthew S. Weiler, Esq.
     Emily C. Aldridge, Esq.
     BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
     555 12th Street, Suite 1600
     Oakland, CA 94607
     Tel: (415) 445-4003
     Fax: (415) 445-4020
     Email: lweaver@bfalaw.com
            mweiler@bfalaw.com
            ealdridge@bfalaw.com


NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Initial Approval of Settlement Class Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MA LEE KANG and THERESA JANSON, on behalf
of themselves and those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
NATIONWIDE CREDIT, INC., and JOHN DOES 1 to 10, the Defendants,
Case No. 2:15-cv-03251-MCA-LDW (D.N.J.), Plaintiffs will move the
Court, on a date and time to be determined by the Court, for an
order granting preliminary approval of the proposed settlement
class and related relief.

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

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the putative class:

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM LLC
          411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 701
          Hackensack NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 273 7117
          E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com

               - and -

          Ronald I. LeVine, Esq.
          Eileen L. Linarducci
          LAW OFFICE OF RONALD I. LEVINE, ESQ.
          210 River Street, Suite 11
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 489 7900
          Facsimile: (201) 489 1395
          E-mail: ron@ronlevinelaw.com
                  elinarducci@ronlevinelaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant Nationwide Credit, Inc.

          Bruce S. Luckman, Esq.
          SHERMAN, SILVERSTEIN,
          KOHL, ROSE & PODOLSKY, P.A.
          308 Harper Drive, Suite 200
          Moorestown, NJ 08057

               - and -

          Joseph L. Noga, Esq.
          Laura P. MacDonald, Esq.
          JENNER & BLOCK LLP
          919 Third Ave.
          New York, NY 10022


NEW ALBERTSON'S: Faces "Montenelli" Suit in N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against New Albertson's Inc. The
case is titled as Ancel Montenelli, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. New Albertson's
Inc., doing business as Jewel Osco Supermarkets, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-08250, (N.D. Ill., November 14, 2017). The case
is assigned to Honorable Amy J. St. Eve.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Scott Richard Dinin, Esq.
     SCOTT R DINN P.A.
     4200 NW 7th Ave
     Miami, FL 33127
     Telephone: (786) 431-1333
     Email: srd@dininlaw.com


NEW YORK ARCHDIOCESE: "Paul" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------
ANDREA PAUL, the Plaintiff, v. ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW
YORK; CATHOLIC CHARITIES COMMUNITY SERVICES, ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW
YORK; KIM DEMPSEY; JOY JASPER; YOMARA HERNANDEZ; and MICHAEL
FAVATA, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00002-LTS (S.D.N.Y., Jan.
1, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

The defendants exercise control over the nature and structure of
the employment relationship and economic control over the
relationship with Ms. Paul and similarly situated employees such
that they are "employers" under the FLSA and NYLL and are
therefore individually subject to liability.  Further, the
individual defendants controlled, inter alia, Paul's assignments,
the number of hours she worked, and her rate of pay.

Since approximately 2011, Ms. Paul has worked as a Payroll
Coordinator and then a Senior Payroll Coordinator. Her duties are
clerical in nature, and include checking payroll timesheets,
checking employee rates of pay, running reports, making any
necessary payroll changes in the payroll system, sending payroll
to the payroll processor, distributing checks to 30 locations,
and running reports for the Controller.

The Plaintiff Andrea Paul, and other members of the FLSA
Collective who are and/or have been similarly situated, have been
subject to Defendant's common practices, policies, programs,
procedures, protocols and plans of willfully failing and refusing
to pay them the minimum wage and overtime at a one and one-half
times their regular rates for work in excess of 40 hours per
workweek. The Plaintiff, and other members of the FLSA Collective
who are and/or have been similarly situated, have been subject to
Defendant's willful failure to keep records required by the
FLSA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory P. Mouton, Jr., Esq.
          MOUTONDELL'ANNO LLP
          305 Broadway, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone & Fax: (646) 706 7481
          E-mail: gmouton@moutondellanno.com


NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Schmitz Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SHEILA SCHMITZ, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. NORTHSTAR
LOCATION SERVICES LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00042-PP
(E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order
certifying proposed classes in this case, appointing the
Plaintiff as class representative, and appointing Ademi &
O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such other and further
relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties
relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and
requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents
in support of this motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing
on the certification motion until discovery could commence.
Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011),
overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th
Cir. 2015).

As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense
when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay
should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs
contend.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7vvh87kR

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482 8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482 8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com


OPTYX RETAIL: Faces "Camacho" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Optyx Retail I,
LLC. The case is styled as Jason Camacho, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Optyx Retail
I, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00278 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 16,
2018).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel C Cohen, Esq.
          DANIEL COHEN, PLLC
          407 Rockaway Avenue
          Brooklyn, NY 11212
          Telephone: (646) 645 8482
          Facsimile: (347) 665 1545
          E-mail: dancohenlaw@gmail.com


OYSTER HOUSE: Faces "Walker" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Oyster House,
Inc. The case is captioned as RICARDO WALKER, ON BEHALF OF
HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. THE
OYSTER HOUSE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00193-JD
(E.D. Pa., Jan. 16, 2018). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Jan E. Dubois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C. K. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465 1188
          E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


PERFORMANCE FOOD: "Perez" Suit Seeks to Certify Three Classes
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled PEREZ, on behalf of himself, all others
similarly situated, and the general public, the Plaintiff, v.
PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP., INC., a Colorado corporation; VISTAR
TRANSPORTATION, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; ROMA
FOOD ENTERPRISES, INC., a California corporation and DOES 1-50,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00357-JAK-SK (C.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on February 26, 2018,
for an order certifying these classes:

Hourly Employee Class:

   "all persons employed by Defendants in hourly or non-exempt
   positions in California from April 20, 2011 through the date
   of class certification, who accrued vacation and who also
   earned non-discretionary remuneration in addition to their
   hourly rate of pay";

Warehouse Worker Class:

   "all formula-paid drivers and warehouse workers employed by
   Defendants in California from April 20, 2011 through the date
   of class certification who accrued vacation";

Late Pay Class:

   "all persons employed by Defendants in hourly or non-exempt
   positions in California from April 20, 2012 through the date
   of class certification whose final pay was issued after their
   termination date."

Plaintiff seeks to certify the Seventh Cause of Action
(Forfeiture of Vested Vacation Pay) and the derivative causes of
action, the Third Cause of Action for Failure to Provide Accurate
Written Wage Statements, the Fifth Cause of Action for Failure to
Timely Pay All Final Wages, and the Sixth Cause of Action for
Unfair Competition.

The Plaintiff further moves for an order appointing Setareh Law
Group as class counsel.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qCUi6Cul

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          Thomas Segal, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888 7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888 0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                  thomas@setarehlaw.com


PHOENIX, AZ: Stoller Asks to File Out of Time Writ to Supreme Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Stoller, one of the Plaintiffs in Case No. 2:09-cv-00347-NVW
(D. Ariz.), filed with the Supreme Court a motion to direct the
Clerk to file a petition for a writ of certiorari out of time.

The Supreme Court case is captioned Bill Stoller v. City of
Phoenix, Arizona, et al., Case No. 17M80, in the Supreme Court of
United States.

The appellate case is styled JASON OKON, husband, et al.; and
BILL STOLLER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CITY OF PHOENIX, a municipality
incorporated under the laws of Arizona, et al., Defendants-
Appellees, Case No. 09-16027, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Petitioner Bill Stoller, also known as William Stoller, realleges
all of the allegations and statements that are pled in the
Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed in the case, and that were
pled in the lower courts.  He states that the case was filed as a
class action, and asserts in the amended complaint that the
Plaintiffs "seek to redress the injuries, damages, and harm that
they have suffered and to prevent further injuries, damages, and
harm in the future."

Mr. Stoller contends that the state and federal branches of
Government have been absolutely unable to reasonably and
practically resolve the illegal immigration and related issues
raised in this case.  He asserts that the problems detailed in
the Petition for Writ of Certiorari and lower court pleadings
have steadily gotten worse since the filing of the initial
complaint.  Forceful and final intervention by the Court is
justified and necessary to resolve these issues for the benefit
of all, he continues.

Mr. Stoller, of Jacksonville, Florida, appears pro se.[BN]


PREFERRED STAFFING: "Sanford" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ALLEN SANFORD, BRYANT DILL IRAIDA BABLITCH,
and JOE MALLORY Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. PREFERRED STAFFING, INC.,
STAFFWORKS, INC., and KLEEN TEST PRODUCTS CORPORATION, Case No.
2:17-cv-01071-DEJ (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for
an order granting conditional class certification and court-
facilitated notice.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Adam M. Kent, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ADAM M. KENT
          7670 N. Port Washington Road, Ste. 105
          Milwaukee, WI 53217-3174
          Telephone: (414) 446 5331
          Facsimile: (888) 509 8232
          E-mail: Attorney@adamkentlegal.com

               - and -

          Steven Lubar, Esq.
          LUBAR & LANNING, LLC
          7670 N. Port Washington Road, Ste. 105
          Milwaukee, WI 53217-3174
          Telephone: (414) 375 4795
          Facsimile: (866) 240 6284
          E-mail: Steven@lubarlanning.com

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


QUICKEN LOANS: Eleventh Cir. Appeal Filed in "Jacobs" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Alex Jacobs filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Alex Jacobs v. Quicken Loans, Inc., Case No. 9:15-
cv-81386-KAM, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.

The appellate case is captioned as Alex Jacobs v. Quicken Loans,
Inc., Case No. 17-90028, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner ALEX JACOBS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Daniel A. Bushell, Esq.
          BUSHELL APPELLATE LAW, PA
          1451 W Cypress Creek Rd., Suite 300
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309
          Telephone: (954) 666-0220
          Facsimile: (954) 666-0225
          E-mail: dan@bushellappellatelaw.com

               - and -

          Marc A. Wites, Esq.
          WITES & KAPETAN, PA
          4400 N Federal Hwy.
          Lighthouse Pt., FL 33064-6507
          Telephone: (954) 570-8989
          E-mail: mwites@wklawyers.com

Defendant-Respondent QUICKEN LOANS, INC., is represented by:

          Brooks R. Brown, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER, LLP
          901 New York Avenue NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 346-4000
          Facsimile: (202) 346-4444
          E-mail: bbrown@goodwinlaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew Kemp-Gerstel, Esq.
          LIEBLER GONZALEZ & PORTUONDO
          44 W Flagler Street, Floor 25
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 379-0400
          Facsimile: (305) 379-9626
          E-mail: akg@lgplaw.com


REDFORD TOWNSHIP: Approval of $390,000 Settlement Sought
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled GARNER PROPERTIES & MANAGEMENT, LLC,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF REDFORD, JOHN DOE CODE
OFFICIALS, the Defendants, Case No: 2:15-cv-14100-MAG-AAP (E.D.
Mich.), the Parties ask the Court for an order approving the
Class Action Settlement Agreement and Certification of Settlement
Class.

The Settlement Class includes:

   "all persons and entities who currently own or manage, or at
   one time owned or managed any parcel of residential real
   property located within the Charter Township of Redford that
   registered a rental property pursuant to the Charter Township
   of Redford's Building and Building Regulations Code, Article
   XI - Inspection of Rental Dwellings at any time since November
   23, 2009 through the date of entry of an order preliminarily
   approving the Settlement and Settlement Class."

The Township of Redford has agreed to establish a settlement fund
in an amount up to $390,000 which will be used in significant
part to pay the claims of the Settlement Class Members who are
entitled to participate in the distribution of the settlement
proceeds pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. Class counsel
shall apply to the Court for an award of attorney's fees in the
amount of $130,000 which represents one-third of the settlement
fund, plus reasonable out-of pocket expenses. Defendant will pay
attorney fees and reasonable out-of-pocket expenses before any
other deduction from the fund. Defendant will pay named Plaintiff
$10,000 from the settlement fund for representing the Settlement
Class as the Class Representative.

The cost of administering the claims through a third party
administrator will also be paid from the settlement fund. Class
Members may make a claim for $62.50 each based on nominal damages
for violation of due process. Valid claims of the Class will be
paid at the member's pro-rata share of the settlement fund minus
payments for attorney fees and costs as approved by Court, the
costs of claims administration and the payment made to the Class
Representative.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=iL3GKwMZ

Attorneys for the Parties:

          Aaron D. Cox, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF AARON D. COX, PLLC
          Co-Counsel for Plaintiff
          23380 Goddard Rd.
          Taylor, MI 48180
          Telephone: (734) 287 3664
          E-mail: aaron@aaroncoxlaw.com

               - and -

          Gregory A. Roberts, Esq.
          CUMMINGS, McCLOREY,
          DAVIS & ACHO, PLC
          17436 College Parkway
          Livonia, MI 48152
          Telephone: (734) 261 2400
          E-mail: jclark@cmda-law.com

               - and -

          Markk Wasvary, Esq.
          MARK K. WASVARY, P.C.
          2401 W. Big Beaver Rd., Ste 100
          Troy, MI 48084
          Telephone: (248) 649 5667
          E-mail: markwasvarv@hotmail.com


REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION: Singer Seeks to Certify Wage Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled RICHARD SINGER, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. REGIONAL
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, an Illinois Municipal Corporation; and
PACE SUBURBAN BUS SERVICE, a division of the Regional
Transportation Authority, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00199
(N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff moves the Court to certify a Illinois
Wage Class of:

   "all Pace bus operators who performed uncompensated work for
   Pace, for the three years prior to the complaint filing date,
   through the present, and who suffered similar wage and related
   damages as alleged in the complaint."

The Plaintiff also asks the Court to approve future notice to the
class of the pending action and appoint plaintiff's counsel to
serve as class counsel pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=boPJ2uaB

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott C. Polman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT C. POLMAN
          8130 N. Milwaukee Ave.
          Niles, IL 60714
          Telephone: (847) 292 1989
          Facsimile: (847) 510 0581
          E-mail: spolman.law@comcast.net

               - and -

          Stephen A Chareas, Esq.
          STEPHEN A CHAREAS, LTD.
          8034 N. Milwaukee Ave.
          Niles, IL 60714
          Telephone: (847) 692 3388
          Facsimile: (847) 692 0400
          E-mail: sacltd@sbcglobal.net


RICHARD GONZALEZ: Status Hearing Reset for March 7
--------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Murray Rubinstein, et al., the Plaintiffs,
v. Richard Gonzalez, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:14-cv-
09465 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Robert M. Dow Jr. entered an
order striking a status hearing set for Jan. 8, 2018, and
resetting it to March 7 at 9:30 a.m.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on January 8,
2018, the stay is continued in place and the parties are directed
to file an updated joint status report no later than March 5.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=B2dV1s3B


RICK SNYDER: "Hill" Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled HENRY HILL, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. RICK
SNYDER, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 5:10-cv-14568-JCO-RSW
(E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for certification of
primary class and two subclasses on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Proc. Rules 23(a)
and (b)(2) with regard to Plaintiffs' request for injunctive and
declaratory relief.

The primary class consists of:

   "all individuals in Michigan DOC custody who were convicted of
   first-degree murder for offenses committed when they were
   below 18 years of age, were or will be subjected to
   resentencing under M.C.L. section 769.25a, and are or could
   become eligible for parole."

The primary class pursues relief under Count IV: they seek a
parole consideration process that is fair, realistic, and
meaningful. If an individual is either released from prison or is
resentenced to life-without-parole, he or she will exit the
primary class. Otherwise, all individuals encompassed by the
original lawsuit and this Court's initial injunctive relief are
members of the primary class. Plaintiffs Matthew Bentley,
Giovanni Casper, Jennifer Pruitt, Bosie Smith, Dontez Tillman
Damion Todd, Jean Cintron, Keith Maxey, Kevin Boyd, Jemal Tipton
and Nicole Dupure are proper class representatives for the
primary class.

The first subclass consists of:

   "all persons in the primary class whose offenses occurred
   prior to December 15, 1998. Such individuals were eligible for
   and accumulated good time and/or disciplinary credits that
   were taken away by M.C.L. section 769.25a(6).

The first subclass pursues relief under Count V, the Ex Post
Facto claim. Plaintiffs Matthew Bentley, Jennifer Pruitt, Bosie
Smith, Damion Todd, Kevin Boyd, and Jemal Tipton are proper class
representatives for the first subclass.

The second subclass consists of:

   "all persons in the primary class who are still awaiting
   resentencing. Such individuals are those whom the Sixth
   Circuit described as "stuck in carceral limbo," Hill II, Dkt.
   179 at Pg ID 2461, because, two years after Montgomery held
   that Miller is retroactive, they remain imprisoned without a
   new sentence.

Because Defendants continue to treat these individuals as serving
life sentences without an "Earliest Release Date," they are
deprived of access to the rehabilitative programming they will
need to have a meaningful opportunity for release once they
receive term-of-year sentences and become eligible for parole.
This subclass pursues relief under Count VI. Plaintiffs Keith
Maxey, Jean Cintron, Jemal Tipton, Kevin Boyd, and Nicole Dupure
are proper class representatives for the second subclass.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=V3cTJOty

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Deborah LaBelle, Esq.
          221 N. Main St., Ste. 300
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (734) 996 5620
          E-mail: deblabelle@aol.com

               - and -

          Ronald J. Reosti, Esq.
          23880 Woodward Ave.
          Pleasant Ridge, MI 48069-1133
          Telephone: (248) 691 4200
          E-mail: ron.reosti@gmail.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Steinberg, Esq.
          Kary L. Moss, Esq.
          Daniel S. Korobkin,
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
          UNION FUND OF MICHIGAN
          2966 Woodward Avenue
          Detroit, MI 48201
          Telephone: (313) 578 6814
          E-mail: msteinberg@aclumich.org
                  dkorobkin@aclumich.org
                  kmoss@aclumich.org

               - and -

          Steven M. Watt, Esq.
          Ezekiel Edwards, Esq.
          Brandon Buskey, Esq.
          HUMAN RIGHTS PROGRAM
          CRIMINAL LAW REFORM PROJECT
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
          FOUNDATION
          125 Broad Street, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 519 7870
          E-mail: swatt@aclu.org
                  eedwards@aclu.org
                  bbuskey@aclu.org

The Defendant is represented by:

          Margaret A. Nelson, Esq.
          Ann M. Sherman, Esq.
          Christina M. Grossi, Esq.
          Joseph T. Froehlich, Esq.
          MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
          PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT, ELECTIONS & TORT DIVISION
          P.O. Box 30736
          Lansing, MI 48909
          Telephone: (517) 373 6434


SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Certification of Arrestees Class Sought
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DAVID DUPREE and PHILIP DONATELLI, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. VICKI HENNESSY, in her official capacity as the
San Francisco Sheriff, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00310
(N.D. Cal.), David Dupree and Philip Donatelli will move the
Court on March 6, 2018 for class certification of persons defined
as:

   "all pre-arraignment arrestees (i) who are, or will be, in the
   custody of San Francisco Sheriff; (ii) for whom a financial
   condition of release has been set; and (iii) who remain in
   custody for any amount of time because they cannot afford to
   pay their set bail amount."

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=JoEfOxO0

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          MATTHEW J. PIERS, Esq.
          CHIRAG G. BADLANI, Esq.
          HUGHES SOCOL PIERS RESNICK & DYM, LTD
          70 W. Madison Street, Suite 4000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 604 2776
          Facsimile: (312) 604 2777
          E-mail: cbadlani@hsplegal.com

               - and -

          Armando Miranda, Esq.
          SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE
          555 7th St.
          San Francisco, CA 94103
          Telephone: (415) 553-1671
          Facsimile: (415) 553-9810
          E-mail: chesa.boudin@sfgov.org

               - and -

          David M. Jolley, Esq.
          Katie Bies, Esq.
          Matthew V. Miller, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          One Front Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111-5356
          Telephone: (415) 591 6000
          Facsimile: (415) 955 6579
          E-mail: djolley@cov.com
                  mmiller@cov.com


SIMM ASSOCIATES: Court Granted Class Certification in "Smith"
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JESSICA SMITH, the Plaintiff, v. SIMM
ASSOCIATES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00769-WCG (E.D.
Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William C. Griesbach entered an order:

   1. granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification of:

      "all persons with addresses in the State of Wisconsin to
      whom Simm Associates, Inc. mailed an initial written
      communication, between May 31, 2016 and June 21, 2017,
      which was not returned as undeliverable, and which
      identified 'Paypal Credit' as the 'Client' but not the
      current creditor or owner of the debt."

   2. denying Defendant's motions to strike;

   3. appointing counsel of record for Plaintiff as class
      counsel;

   4. directing class counsel to provide the court with a
      proposed notice to be provided to potential class members
      consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
      23(c)(2)(B), within 30 days of this order; and

   5. directing Class counsel to consult with Defendant before
      submitting the proposed notice.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jaCuU9ff


SIRIUS XM: Court Denies Bid for Class Certification as Moot
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled James Andrews, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
Sirius XM Radio, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-01724-PA-
AFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Percy Anderson entered an order
denying a motion for class certification as moot.

According to the Civil Minutes - General, the Court concludes
that Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's
individual claim under the Driver Privacy Protection Act. The
Court additionally concludes that Plaintiff's proposed First
Amended Complaint fails to state viable claims under the Computer
Fraud and Abuse Act, and the Stored Communications Act, and that
those claims are fatally flawed such that no amendment could cure
their inherent deficiencies.

The Court also denies Plaintiff's Motion to File First Amended
Complaint because leave to amend would be futile. Plaintiff's
Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories and
Requests for Production, which seeks information concerning
Defendant's relationships with automobile dealerships other than
Auto Source, has no bearing on Plaintiff's individual claims or
the issues raised in either the Motion for Summary Judgment or
Motion to File First Amended Complaint, and Motion for Class
Certification are denied as moot. The Court will issue a Judgment
consistent with this Order.

A copy of the Civil Minutes - General is available at no charge
at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=4cMbWZUN


SOS SECURITY: "Reed" Wage-and-Hour Suit Underway in Los Angeles
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Reed, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated and aggrieved persons, the Plaintiff, v. SOS Security,
SOS Security LP, SOS Security LLC, SOS Security Incorporated and
Does 1 through 50, the Defendants, Case No. BC683509, (Cal. Sup.
Ct., November 14, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages
and unpaid overtime compensation with interest, attorneys' fees,
costs and expenses.

The complaint states these causes of action against the
Defendants: failure to provide required meal periods, failure to
provide required rest periods, failure to pay overtime wages,
failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay timely wages during
employment, failure to pay all wages due to discharged and
quitting employees, failure to furnish accurate itemized wage
statements, failure to maintain required records, failure to
indemnify employees for necessary expenditures incurred in
discharge of duties, unfair and unlawful business practices and
representative action for civil penalties.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
     Joshua D. Boxer, Esq.
     Roy K. Suh, Esq.
     MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
     1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
     Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
     Telephone: (310) 531-1900
     Facsimile: (310) 531-1901


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Flight Attendants Sue Over Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
flight attendants claim in a class action that Southwest Airlines
stiffs them for overtime and makes them work off the clock, in
Alameda County Court.


STONEMOR PARTNERS: Fan Appeals "Anderson" Suit Ruling to 3rd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Movants Peter Fan, Fremont Hotel Inc. and Royal Estate Management
LLC filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled
Judson Anderson, on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Stonemor Partners, L.P., et al., Case No. 2-16-cv-06111, in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, as well as
reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs under the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.

The Plaintiff purchased common units of StoneMor Partners, LP,
between January 19, 2012, and October 27, 2016.  He alleges that
Defendants fraudulently feigned profitability in order to keep
selling high-yield securities to new investors.  Since becoming a
publicly traded company, StoneMor has never in any year generated
sufficient cash flow from operations to make the Company's
distributions.

On October 27, 2016, with no new capital infused into the Company
since at least June 30, 2016, StoneMor was forced to materially
cut its distribution in half, causing the price of StoneMor units
to drop by over 45% by the close of trading the following day on
heavy volume, according to the lawsuit.

The appellate case is captioned as Peter Fan v. Stonemor Partners
LP, et al., Case No. 17-3843, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Movants-Appellants PETER FAN, ROYAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT LLC and
FREMONT HOTEL INC., Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Naumon A. Amjed, Esq.
          Ryan T. Degnan, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: namjed@ktmc.com
                  rdegnan@ktmc.com

               - and -

          Matthew J. Hrutkay, Esq.
          James W. Johnson, Esq.
          Michael H. Rogers, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW
          140 Broadway, 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
          E-mail: mhrutkay@labaton.com
                  jjohnson@labaton.com
                  mrogers@labaton.com

               - and -

          Johnston de F. Whitman, Jr., Esq.
          LEVAN LAW GROUP LLC
          130 North 18th Street
          One Logan Square, 27th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706

Defendants-Appellees STONEMOR PARTNERS LP, LAWRENCE MILLER, SEAN
P. MCGRATH and WILLIAM R. SHANE are represented by:

          Michael C. Holmes, Esq.
          Craig Zieminski, Esq.
          VINSON & ELKINS
          2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 3700
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 220-7814
          Facsimile: (214) 220-7716
          E-mail: mholmes@velaw.com
                  czieminski@velaw.com

Defendants-Appellees STONEMOR PARTNERS LP, STONEMOR GP LLC,
STONEMOR GP HOLDINGS LLC, AMERICAN CEMETERIES INFRASTRUCTURE
INVESTORS LLC, LAWRENCE MILLER, SEAN P. MCGRATH, WILLIAM R.
SHANE, ROBERT B. HELLMAN, JR., and TIMOTHY YOST are represented
by:

          Brian J. Slipakoff, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS LLP
          30 South 17th Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 979-1145
          E-mail: bslipakoff@duanemorris.com

Defendants-Appellees STONEMOR PARTNERS LP, LAWRENCE MILLER, SEAN
P. MCGRATH, WILLIAM R. SHANE, ROBERT B. HELLMAN, JR., and TIMOTHY
YOST are represented by:

          James H. Steigerwald, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS LLP
          30 South 17th Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 979-1145
          E-mail: JHSteigerwald@duanemorris.com


SUNDANCE ENERGY: Oklahoma Landowners Sue Over Fracking Waste
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that dozens of Oklahoma
landowners filed a lawsuit blaming the disposal of fracking waste
by Sundance Energy, Meadowbrook Oil, New Dominion and others for
earthquakes that damaged their properties.


SUPER REALTY: Faces "Fraticelli" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Super Realty
Management LLC. The case is titled as Roberto Fraticelli,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Super Realty Management LLC, doing business as:
Super Realty Management; Goldmont Enterprises, Inc., doing
business as: Goldmont Enterprises; Goldmont Holdings LLC, doing
business as: Goldmont Holdings; Goldmont Realty Corp., doing
business as: Goldmont Realty; 109th street Associates LP, doing
business as: 109 St. Associates; Greene Package Realty LLC, doing
business as: Greene Package Realty; Vito Montalto; Leon
Goldenberg; Stuart Berelson; Andrew Doe, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-00397 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 16, 2018).[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


TARGET CORPORATION: "Faraji" Motion to Certify Class Shelved
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Neda Faraji, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
Target Corporation, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-
00155-ODW-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Otis D. Wright II entered an
order taking these motions under submission:

   1. motion to certify class;

   2. motion to strike declaration;

   3. motion to strike putative class member;

   4. motion to strike putative class member;

The scheduled hearing for January 19, 2018 at 1:30 P.M., is
vacated and taken off calendar.

Judge Wright said these motions will be decided upon without oral
argument.

A copy of the Civil Minutes - General is available at no charge
at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=OmIR1CfP


TATA CONSULTING: Judge Certifies Class of Workers
-------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal judge certified a class of workers who claim Tata
Consulting Services, one of the world's largest IT service firms,
fired them because they are not of east Indian extraction.

The case is BRIAN BUCHANAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TATA
CONSULTANCY SERVICES, LTD, Defendant, Case No.15-cv-01696-YGR
(N.D. Calif.).


TAUBRA CORP: Court Certifies FLSA Class in "Burcham" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JAMES BURCHAM and GRADY HILL, on behalf of
themselves and those similarly situated , the Plaintiffs, v.
TAUBRA CORP., an Ohio Corporation d/b/a MERCURY SERVICE, and
JUDITH BOWERS FRANCIS, Individually, the Defendants, Case No.
3:17-cv-00168-TMR-MJN (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Thomas M. Rose
entered an order:

   1. granting Parties' Joint Stipulation for Conditional
      Certification of FLSA Collective Action and Facilitating
      Notice to Putative Opt-In Plaintiffs;

   2. conditionally certifying under the Fair Labor Standards Act
      a class of similarly situated individuals:

      "all delivery drivers classified as independent contractors
      who worked for Defendants within the last three years who
      were not paid at least minimum wage for some hours worked
      and/or who were not compensated at time-and-one half for
      hours worked in excess of forty hours in one or more
      workweeks";

   3. directing Defendant to produce to Plaintiff's Counsel a
      list, in readable Excel format, of the names of individuals
      contained within the definition in paragraph 2, along with
      each individual's address, e-mail address(es), telephone
      number, last four digits of their social security number,
      and dates of work;

   4. within 14 days of receiving the class list, directing
      Plaintiffs' Counsel to send notice by U.S. Mail and E-mail
      to each individual listed on the class list. Plaintiff's
      Counsel shall utilize the Class Notice and Consent to
      Become Opt-In Plaintiff form to the Joint Stipulation for
      Conditional Certification; and

   5. directing each class member to return their signed consent
      to join form to Plaintiffs' Counsel for filing with the
      Court after 45 days from the date of the initial mailing of
      class notice.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=B6L8ch5o


TECHNOLOGICAL MEDICAL: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Botelho"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jennifer Botelho filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit styled Jennifer Botelho v. Technological Medical
Advancements L.L.C., Case No. 2:16-cv-08085-SVW-MRW, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 16, 2018, Hon.
Judge Stephen V. Wilson denied the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification of:

   "all persons in the United States who, (1) from October 31,
   2012 through the present, (2) were sent an unsolicited
   telephone facsimile message from Defendant substantially
   similar to the faxes sent to Plaintiff, (3) where Defendant
   acquired the faxes were sent using the same equipment that was
   used to transmit the faxes to Plaintiff."

The Complaint alleges that the Defendant violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act by sending unsolicited fax advertisement
about its Diowave laser to medical professionals.

The Court finds that the Plaintiff cannot establish predominance
because individual issues regarding prior express permission
predominate over any common issues of fact, including the common
issues provided by the Plaintiff.

The appellate case is captioned as Jennifer Botelho v.
Technological Medical Advancements L.L.C., Case No. 18-80000, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner JENNIFER BOTELHO, Individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, DBA Chiropractic Center of Los
Angeles, is represented by:

          Steven Lezell Woodrow, Esq.
          Patrick Harry Peluso, Esq.
          WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
          3900 E. Mexico Avenue, Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80210
          Telephone: (720) 213-0675
          E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com
                  ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com

               - and -

          Peter J. Gimino, III, Esq.
          THE GIMINO LAW OFFICE
          18101 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 300
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 225-4446
          Facsimile: (949) 225-4447
          E-mail: pgimino@giminolaw.com

Defendant-Respondent TECHNOLOGICAL MEDICAL ADVANCEMENTS L.L.C., a
Florida limited liability company, is represented by:

          Christopher Gordon Kerr, Esq.
          HANGER STEINBERG SHAPIRO AND ASH ALC
          21031 Ventura Blvd.
          Woodland Hills, CA 91364
          Telephone: (818) 226-1222
          Facsimile: (818) 226-1215
          E-mail: ck@hssalaw.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Judge May Allow Plaintiff to Amend Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal magistrate gave little indication on Jan. 11
whether she would dismiss a California man's class action
accusing Uber of spying on Lyft drivers to lure them away from
its competition.

But U.S. Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley did hint she
may allow lead plaintiff Michael Gonzalez to amend at least one
of his claims, keeping the case alive while similar conduct is
hashed out in Waymo's high-stakes trade-secrets trial against
Uber next month.

"The Stored Communications Act allegation doesn't say anything,"
Judge Corley told Uber's attorneys in a hearing in San Francisco.
"But I don't think I could say as a matter of law that they
couldn't say something," she concluded, referring to the proposed
class.

Mr. Gonzalez, a former San Francisco Bay Area Lyft driver, sued
Uber in April 2017 on federal Wiretap Act claims after reading an
article about the company's alleged spying activity in tech-news
publication The Information.

According to the article, Uber created fake Lyft rider accounts
and used spyware called Hell to intercept the information Lyft
sent those accounts, allowing Uber to access a driver's Lyft
identification number and track the driver's location over time.

Uber then combined Lyft's data with its own driver-location data
to determine which Lyft drivers also worked for Uber.  Their
names ended up on lists distributed to Uber's city managers, who
targeted them for bonuses and steered more ride requests to them
to manipulate them into devoting more work-time to Uber.

With fewer Lyft drivers on the road, Lyft customers faced
increased wait times, leading them to cancel their rides and hail
new ones through Uber, Gonzalez says.

Judge Corley dismissed the lawsuit last September with leave to
amend, telling Gonzalez's attorneys to "amend with actual
allegations and not just quote someone's article."

Mr. Gonzalez filed an amended complaint later that month, adding
a Stored Communication Act claim and a state claim alleging
violations of California's Computer Data Access and Fraud Act.
He is also suing under California's Invasion of Privacy Act, its
Unfair Competition Law and the California Constitution.

But on Jan. 11, Judge Corley questioned whether the new complaint
satisfies the Wiretap Act, which anchors the case.

The Wiretap Act prohibits the interception of the "contents" of a
communication -- its sender's intended message -- but not "record
information," such as a sender's name or identity, which can be
automatically generated when a communication is sent, according
to Uber's court brief.

Although driver identification numbers and location data are
usually considered record information, they are content in the
Mr. Gonzalez case because Lyft drivers intended to communicate
the information to Lyft to find riders, Mr. Gonzalez's lawyer
Caleb Marker with Zimmerman Reed said at the Jan. 11 hearing.  He
added that only automatically generated data lacking intent is
not content under the Wiretap Act.

"I think the context of how the geo-location data was created is
important," Mr. Marker said.

Judge Corley partly agreed, noting that although the Ninth
Circuit ruled in 2014's In re Zynga Privacy litigation that
information such as names and addresses is record evidence, the
court also concluded that if a sender transmits a text message of
his or her location, that information is considered content.

Patrick Oot Jr. -- oot@shb.com -- Uber's attorney with Shook,
Hardy & Bacon, was unconvinced.  "The intent would be when you
swipe on the app to say 'I'm going to work,' not the location
sent," he said.

"Intent does matter in the test," Judge Corley replied.  But she
also warned that "what you run into head-first is that [Lyft ID
and location-information] is record information."

Judge Corley, however, seemed certain that Uber did not actually
intercept communications between drivers and Lyft -- a showing
essential to winning a Wiretap Act claim.

"The communication that Uber actually acquired is different from
the communication that went from the driver to Lyft, so no
interception," she concluded.

Uber argued that Mr. Gonzalez failed to show it intercepted
driver communications meant for Lyft.  Instead, based on the
theory of the case, Mr. Gonzalez had actually alleged that "if
Uber had been 'opening mail'" by impersonating Lyft drivers, "it
would only have been opening its own."

According to the amended complaint, Uber used "sniffer" software
to intercept Lyft communications and determine how the Lyft app
communicated with Lyft's secure servers.

The allegations are similar to ones in a bombshell letter made
public last month in Waymo's lawsuit accusing Uber of stealing
its autonomous-car trade secrets.  The letter, written by a
lawyer for former Uber security manager Richard Jacobs, accuses
the company of setting up a secret intelligence team to steal
trade secrets and intelligence from its competitors. Jacobs sent
the letter to Uber after he was forced to resign.

A significant portion of the 37-page letter details Uber's tactic
of impersonating riders and drivers on competitor apps and
hacking into competitor databases to obtain trade secrets, "with
a focus on stealing key supply data to boost Uber's pool of
drivers" and studying how the app works by requesting "thousands
of rides in a given geographic area."

Supply data, according to the letter, includes unique driver
information like driver name and license number.

The judge overseeing the Waymo case delayed a scheduled December
jury trial after reading the letter to give Waymo time to
investigate its explosive allegations.

The Justice Department sent the letter to the judge just before
the trial, after obtaining it from Uber. It is now investigating
Uber for criminal misconduct.

An Uber executive testified at a hastily-called evidentiary
hearing in December that she had sent the letter to the Justice
Department in June to pre-empt Jacobs' "wild" allegations,
calling him an "extortionist" looking for a payout.

Two months later, Uber settled Jacobs' employment claims stemming
from his termination for $4.5 million, and hired him to consult
for it on issues raised in the letter, according to testimony
from Jacobs.

The case is MICHAEL GONZALES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. UBER TECHNOLOGIES,
INC., a Delaware corporation, UBER USA, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, RAISER-CA, a Delaware limited liability
company, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO.: 3:17-CV-
02264 (N.D. Calif.).

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class:

     Michael A. McShane, Esq.
     Mark E. Burton, Jr., Esq.
     AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
     711 Van Ness, Suite 500
     San Francisco, CA 94102-3229
     Tel: 415.568.2555
     Fax: 415.568.2556
     Email: mmcshane@audetlaw.com
            mburton@audetlaw.com

        -- and --

     Caleb Marker, Esq.
     Hannah P. Belknap, Esq.
     ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
     2381 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 328
     Manhattan Beach, CA 90245
     Tel: 877.500.8780
     Fax: 877.500.8781
     Email: caleb.marker@zimmreed.com
            hannah.belknap@zimmreed.com


UNITED STATES: "Duvall" Suit Underway in Federal Claims Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against USA. The case is titled as
Kerrith Duvall, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. USA, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
01788-CFL, (Fed. Cl., November 15, 2017). The case is assigned to
Judge Charles F. Lettow.[BN]


US STEEL: "Athan" Suit Seeks to Certify Collective Action
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DAVID ATHAN, DARYL JACKSON, COREY PARKER
and ROBERT FLANNERY, on behalf of themselves and all other
persons similarly situated, known and unknown, the Plaintiffs, v.
UNITED STATES STEEL CORP., a foreign profit corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-14220-TGB-SDD (E.D. Mich.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. conditionally certifying this action as a collective action
      on behalf of:

      "all current and former hourly employees who worked at any
      time during the past three years for Defendant US Steel in
      Michigan, and were subject to a policy wherein they were
      not paid their correct, full wages on time or who were not
      paid their full minimum and overtime wages";

   2. appointing Plaintiffs' counsel as counsel for all employees
      who join this action without counsel of their own;

   3. approving a proposed Notice to be mailed and e-mailed to
      affected employees;

   4. requiring Defendant US Steel to identify and produce the
      names, addresses, and e-mail addresses of all affected
      employees that worked for Defendants in the last three
      years in a computer-readable format within 30 days; and

   5 allowing 60 days after receipt of the Notice for employees
     to opt-in to this case if they so choose.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3H1umU4K

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Bryan Yaldou, Esq.
          Leah Seliger, Esq.
          Omar Badr, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF BRYAN YALDOU, PLLC
          23000 Telegraph, Suite 5
          Brownstown, MI 48134
          Telephone: (734) 692 9200
          Facsimile: (734) 692 9201
          E-mail: Bryan@yaldoulaw.com


VIAL FOTHERINGHAM: Discovery Due March 16 in "Sonsteby" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against Vial Fotheringham LLP. The
case is titled as Analise Sonsteby, on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Vial Fotheringham
LLP, the Defendant, Case No: 3:17-cv-01837-PK, (D. Ore., Nov. 15,
2017). The case is assigned to Magistrate Judge Paul Papak.

An Order dated Nov. 16 provides for this timeline:

     -- Discovery is to be completed by March 16, 2018.

     -- Joint Alternate Dispute Resolution Report is due by
        April 16, 2018.

     -- Pretrial Order is due by April 16, 2018.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bret A. Knewtson, Esq.
     3000 N.W. Stucki Place Suite 230 M
     Hillsboro, OR 97124
     Telephone: (503) 846-1160
     Facsimile: (503) 922-3181
     Email: bknewtson@yahoo.com

          - and -

     Mark G. Passannante, Esq.
     BROER & PASSANNANTE, PS
     1001 SW 5th Avenue Suite 1220
     Portland, OR 97204
     Telephone: (503) 294-0910
     Facsimile: (503) 243-2717
     Email: markpassannante@msn.com


WATER TREATMENT: "Hood" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled CASEY HOOD, ET AL., the Plaintiffs, v.
WATER TREATMENT AND CONTROLS COMPANY, Case No. 3:16-cv-00235-SDD-
RLB (M.D. La.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for order:

   1. setting a hearing date on which Plaintiffs may present
      evidence on the propriety of class action proceedings,
      pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23 (c)(1) and the local
      rules of the Middle District Court of Louisiana;

   2. certifying this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23
      as this Court may deem appropriate for this litigation;

   3. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23, certifying a class of
      and issuing notice to the class defined;

   4. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23, maintaining the class
      action on the appropriate issues in this litigation,
      including the issues of liability, damages, attorneys' fees
      and costs where applicable;

   5. designating Plaintiffs among those suggested to be class
      representatives of the certified class action; and

   6. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23, directing the
      Plaintiffs to prepare the Notice of Class Action and
      formulate the method of publication and dissemination
      thereof.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=YN54zGmM

Attorney for Casey Hood, et al. and Kim Geason, et al.:

          Jeffrey M. Heggelund, Esq.
          HEGGELUND LAW, LLC
          1404 S. Burnside Ave.
          Gonzales, La. 70737
          Telephone: (225) 239-3800
          Facsimile: (888) 713 2519

Attorney for Casey Hood, et al.:

          Marvin Gros, Esq.
          807 Railroad Avenue
          Donaldsonville, LA 70346
          Telephone: (225) 473 7868

Attorney for Kim Geason, et al.:

          Kenneth Dupaty, Esq.
          THE DUPATY LAW FIRM
          La. Bar Roll No. 30241
          714 N. Burnside Ave.
          Gonzales, La. 70737
          Telephone: (225) 612 9740
          Facsimile: (225) 612 7710

               - and -

          Shawn R. Bush, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SHAWN R. BUSH
          La. Bar Roll No. 25995
          1210 E. Worthey Rd., Suite
          Gonzales, La. 70737
          Telephone: (225) 239 3800
          Facsimile: (888) 713 2519

Attorney for Aureliel Lightfoot

          Robert M. Lucky, Esq.
          THE LUCKY LAW FIRM, PLC
          La. Bar Roll No. 38130
          3765 Government Street, Suite A
          Baton Rouge, LA 70806
          Telephone: (225) 387 5656
          Facsimile: (225) 343 3411
          E-mail: rlucky@theluckylawfirm.com

Attorneys for Shane Ray Smith, et al.

          Travis J. Turner, Esq.
          Keyojuan G. Turner, Esq.
          TURNER LAW FIRM, LLC
          413 West Main Street
          Gonzales, LA 70737
          Telephone: 225 644 2229
          Facsimile: 225 644 2266

Attorney for Horace Dorsey, et al.

          Jeff Nicholson, Esq.
          NICHOLSON LAW FIRM, LLC
          3867 Plaza Tower Drive, Ste. 100-A
          Baton Rouge, LA 70816
          Telephone: (225) 281 7715

Attorney for Mary Dorsey, et al.

          Maurice Dewayne Hall
          23515 Railroad Avenue
          Plaquemine, LA 70764
          Telephone: (225) 687 6873
          Facsimile: (225) 687 6863

WICKED FASHIONS: Doe Alleges Wage & Hours Violations, Harassment
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Jane Doe and Jane Doe 2, for themselves and for all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Wicked Fashions,
Inc., dba South Pole Fashions; Iris Yoon; Jeffrey Choi aka
Jongmyun Choi and John Does 1 through 5, the Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-08876-R, (S.D.N.Y., November 14, 2017), alleges wage and
hour violations and harassment by the Defendants.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff, who has chosen not to
disclose her real identity, was hired by defendants on or about
January 26, 2015, doing primarily quality control and customer
follow up responsibilities and was a non-managerial staff worker.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants did not provide
overtime compensation, lunch break and break time. The Plaintiff
and other similarly situated employees worked more than 8 hours
per day and were not paid proper overtime compensation. The
Defendants denied lawful wage and hour benefits, spread of hours
and any other applicable benefit including an accurate W2 wage
statements at the end of each year.

Defendants' answer to the complaint are due Jan. 19.

Wicked Fashions is a manufacturer, importer, distributer and
wholesaler of apparel products.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael S. Kimm, Esq.
     Andrey Demidov, Esq.
     KIMM LAW FIRM
     333 Sylvan Avenue, Suite 106
     Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632
     Telephone: (201) 569-2880


WIZARDS OF THE COAST: Judge Refuses to Certify Wage-and-Hour Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
A federal judge refused to certify a class of "Magic: the
Gathering" judges at events sanctioned by Wizards of the Coast,
calling the case "an unconventional wage and hour" lawsuit.

The case is ADAM SHAW, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WIZARDS OF THE
COAST, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-01924-EJD (N.D. Calif.).


ZILLOW GROUP: Shotwell and Vargosko Actions Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour entered an Amended Order
dated January 5, 2018, holding that the Shotwell Action (Case No.
2:17-cv-01387-JCC) and Vargosko Action (Case No. 2:17-cv-01721-
JCC) are consolidated for all purposes including, but not limited
to, discovery, pretrial proceedings and trial proceedings. The
docket in Case No. 2:17-cv-01387-JCC shall constitute the Master
Docket for this action.

The case was originally filed in California court and captioned,
Stephen Vargosko, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Zillow Group, Inc.; Spencer
M. Racoff and Kathleen Philips, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-
06207 (C.D. Cal., August 22, 2017).  By order dated Nov. 13, the
case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington and assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-01721.

The lawsuit seeks to recover compensable damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to
pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint about the Defendant's
materially false, misleading and failed to disclose that: (1) the
Company's co-marketing program did not comply with the Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act; and (2) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times. Thus, Plaintiff brings the class action
for himself and all those who purchase or otherwise acquired the
publically traded securities of Zillow that they were damaged
upon the revelation of the alleged corrective disclosure.

Zillow Group operates real estate and home-related information
marketplaces on mobile and the Web in the United States.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
     THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
     355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Telephone: (213) 785-2610
     Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
     Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com




                            *********


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  * * *